Attachment 1 - Resolution Certifying the EIR — Redondo Beach City Council, November 5, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF REDONDO BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023050732),

ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE REDONDO

BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE

UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City’s current General Plan was adopted on May 26, 1992; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2016 the City Council approved the City’s three-year Strategic Plan goal to “Ensure sustainability, livability, and health by completing the General Plan update and by implementing environmentally responsible programs”; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2016, the City Council awarded the contract for planning and environmental consulting services to Placeworks, Inc. for updates to the “Land Use Element” and “Conservation, Recreation and Parks, and Open Space Element” of the City’s General Plan and preparation of the required environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016 the City Council approved Resolution No. CC1612-122 establishing a 27-member General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to provide direct community stakeholder input to the update of the Land Use and Conservation, Recreation and Parks, and Open Space Elements of the General Plan including analysis and recommendations regarding amendments to the Mixed-Use Zoning and Development Standards, and opportunities for additional recreation, parks, and open space areas; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017 pursuant to Resolution No. CC-1612-122, the Mayor and City Council selected the members of the GPAC and the City Clerk reviewed all selections and confirmed each was a resident of Redondo Beach. Two (2) members were appointed by the Mayor, one (1) of whom served as the Chair, and each Council Member appointed five (5) members, three (3) of whom resided in their District; and WHEREAS, the GPAC conducted a total of twenty-eight (28) noticed public meetings since April 27, 2017, with their final meeting being held on January 31, 2024. At the final meeting, GPAC completed their discussions and recommendations for the final draft focused General Plan, which includes a consistently formatted, comprehensive General Plan document with a new Introduction, along with updated Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures for the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, and Noise Elements; and
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City determined that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), a program environmental impact report (PEIR) would be required for the proposed focused General Plan Update and associated Zoning Ordinances and Local Coastal Program Amendments required for consistency and to implement the City’s certified 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element (the Project) and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 1, 2023. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties.

WHEREAS, on February 29, 2024 the City’s Draft General Plan document was released for comment on the City’s website, allowing the public and other interested parties to comment directly on the Draft General Plan Document. Additionally, on March 20, 2024 City staff and Placeworks, Inc. conducted an open house meeting to present and take input on the City’s Draft General Plan update; and WHEREAS, concurrently with the City’s work on the Focused General Plan Update, work was also initiated on the City’s 6
th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element;
and
WHEREAS, the City’s 6th Cycle 2021- 2029 Housing Element presents a framework for meeting the housing needs of existing and future resident populations within the City based on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 2,490 units. While the RHNA allocation is 2,490 units, when accounting for a credit of 451 units and 240 anticipated ADUs, the total need with a 10% buffer is 1,944 units; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle 2021- 2029 Housing Element identifies strategies and programs to conserve and improve existing affordable housing; provide adequate housing sites; assist in the development of affordable housing; remove governmental and other constraints to housing development; and promote equal housing opportunities in a strategic manner; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle 2021- 2029 Housing Element actualizes the noted strategies and programs with proposed additional residential densities within mixed-use designations, residential recycling, residential overlays in commercial and industrial zones, and residential development on religious properties through coordination with nonprofit organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its duly noticed public meetings on April 20, May 4, May 11, and May 18, 2021, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, considered multiple land plans for the purpose of identifying housing sites throughout the City that would accommodate the City's RHNA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its duly noticed public meeting on June 15, 2021 approved a draft land use plan that identified housing sites that can accommodate the City's RHNA and other land use changes and adjustments to some commercial, industrial, and public institutional designations; and
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 3
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 5th, 2022, at which time it considered evidence presented by staff, the consultant, and other interested parties and adopted the revised City of Redondo Beach 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, incorporating the amendments recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and submitted the revised Housing Element to HCD on July 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD certifying the City of Redondo Beach’s 6th Cycle Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City’s Draft General Plan Land Use Element is consistent with, supports, and serves to implement the City’s certified 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the associated updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinances and Local Coastal Program (LCP) required for consistency with the General Plan are also consistent with, support, and serve to implement the City’s Housing Element inclusive of the “Housing Sites” and “Housing Programs”, and also serve to update the City’s Zoning Ordinances and LCP consistent with State Housing Laws; and WHEREAS, on June 20, August 1, and August 15, 2024 the Planning Commission held multiple duly-noticed public hearings to take testimony from staff, the public and other interested parties, and to deliberate on updates to the City’s General Plan Land Use, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element, and revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinances and LCP required for consistency and to implement the City’s Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024 the Planning Commission held a final duly noticed public hearing and completed its deliberations on updates to the City’s General Plan Land Use, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Elements, and updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinances and LCP required for consistency with and to implement the City’s Housing Element, and took testimony from staff, the public and other interested parties, and considered the associated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and made the following recommendations:

1. That the City Council certify, pursuant to CEQA, the Final Program Environmental Impact Report inclusive of its referenced appendices for the “Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates and Local Program Amendments”, approve appropriate findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and

2. That the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the City’s Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, and Safety Elements with certain proposed changes and edits as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-09-PCR-09; and

3. That the City Council adopt amendments to the Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Title 10, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 1, Subdivisions, Chapter 2 Zoning and Land Use, Chapter 5 Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance to make consistent the General Plan Update and to implement the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element inclusive of the zoning amendments for implementing “Housing Sites” and “Housing Programs”; and

4. That the City Council adopt amendments to the City of Redondo Beach’s Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program to make consistent the General Plan Update and to implement the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element inclusive of the zoning amendments for implementing “Housing Sites” and “Housing Programs”;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) has been prepared and was presented to the Planning Commission at the same time as the final draft of the General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone Amendments, and Local Coastal Program Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the overall purpose of the PEIR is to inform the City, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the public about the potential environmental effects resulting from full implementation of the proposed Redondo Beach General Plan Update, and the associated Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, and Local Coastal Program amendments that are required for consistency purposes and to implement the City’s certified 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the PEIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the project; and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid identified potentially significant impacts; and WHEREAS, included as an appendix to the PEIR, Appendix A Buildout Methodology, explains the buildout assumptions and methodologies utilized for projecting the potential growth in the City over the next 25 years to the horizon year of the General Plan Update of 2050; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2024 an “Amended Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report” was issued to advise the public and interested parties that the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division had released the Draft PEIR addressing potential impacts associated with the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update and Local Coastal Program Amendment (proposed project) for a 47-day review period beginning on August 1, 2024, and ending on September 16, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City timely received 18 written comments on the Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, all comments timely received on the Draft PEIR have been responded to and are included in the Final PEIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, responses to
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 5
comments timely received on the Draft PEIR, and clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 15, and 29, 2024, and November 5, 2024, the City Council, at duly noticed public hearings, considered the Project and the Draft and Final PEIR, at which times the City staff presented its reports and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Final PEIR; and
WHEREAS, multiple technical studies, environmental scoping meetings, community surveys, public meetings and workshops with the GPAC, the general public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council since 2016 have all served to engage and inform the general public including residents, business owners/operators, and other interested parties and have shaped the resulting draft General Plan Update, and the associated Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, and LCP amendments required for consistency and implementing the Housing Element.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City of Redondo Beach (City) has initiated a General Plan Amendment updating five of the State-required elements that make up the General Plan: the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, and Noise elements. Updates to these elements will be accompanied by associated revisions to the City’s Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program needed to make consistent and implement the updated goals and policies and also serve to implement the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (previously defined as the Project).

2. That the Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.)

3. That pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project.

4. That the City determined a PEIR would be required for the proposed Project and issued a NOP on June 1, 2023. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties. The purpose of the NOP was to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the PEIR for the Project.

5. That in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), a scoping meeting was held on June 8, 2023. The purpose of the meetings was to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the Draft PEIR.

6. That the scope of the Draft PEIR was determined based on the NOP, comments received in response to the NOP, and technical input from environmental consultants.

RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 6

7. That the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft PEIR for the Project, including preparation and review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft PEIR. The PEIR is a Program EIR, as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. As such, and in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the PEIR analyzes the Project’s potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project.

However, the Project will not involve the construction of any particular development project or infrastructure improvement. Therefore, in the absence of more detailed information regarding future development projects that may be proposed, the PEIR does not evaluate detailed, site-specific, and/or project-specific impacts associated with the development of individual parcels that would be regulated by the Project.

Instead, the PEIR identifies the general and cumulative impacts of future development that could occur in the Project area.

8. That upon completion of the Draft PEIR in August 2024, the City initiated a public comment period by preparing and sending a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR to all interested persons, agencies, and organizations; the NOA also was published in the Easy Reader; and were made available at the Redondo Beach Main Library and Redondo Beach North Branch Library. The City also filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. The Draft PEIR was made available for a 47-day public review period beginning on August 1, 2024 and ending on September 16, 2024.

9. That copies of the Draft PEIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the Redondo Beach City Hall and the Redondo Beach Main Library and Redondo Beach North Branch Library. The Draft PEIR was also made available for download via the City’s website:
www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planredondo/default.asp

10. That in response to the Draft PEIR, 18 written comments were timely received. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments that were timely received on the Draft PEIR. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

11. That the Final PEIR, which is on file with the City Clerk, is incorporated herein by this reference. The Final PEIR consists of the comments and responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, and clarifications/revisions to the Draft PEIR. The Final PEIR was made available to the public and provided to all commenting agencies on October 17, 2024, at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final PEIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).

12. That on September 19, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the Project and approved Planning Commission Resolution 2024-09-PCR-09, recommending the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, inclusive of its RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 7
referenced appendices for the “Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update and Local Coastal Program Amendment”, and approve appropriate Environmental Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopt a General Plan Amendment to Update the City’s Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, and Safety Elements, adopt amendments to the Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Title 10 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 1 Subdivisions, Chapter 2 Zoning and Land Use, and Chapter 5 Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance, and adopt amendments to the City of Redondo Beach’s Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program all of which serve to implement the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

13. That on October 1, and 15, 2024, the City Council, at duly noticed public hearings, considered the Project and the Draft PEIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Draft PEIR.

14. That on October 29, and November 5, 2024, the City Council, at duly noticed public hearings, again considered the Project and also the Final PEIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project and the Final PEIR.

15. That Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a public agency, before approving a project for which a PEIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the PEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final PEIR; or,
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or,
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR.

16. That these required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, and are hereby adopted. a. Environmental impacts determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact without mitigation are described in Section III B of Exhibit A. b. Environmental impacts determined in the PEIR to be less than significant with mitigation are described in Section III C of Exhibit A. c. Environmental impacts that remain significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation are described in Section III D of Exhibit A. d. Alternatives that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV of Exhibit A.

17.That CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the public agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the findings in Section VII of Exhibit A, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted.

18.That CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to the Final PEIR as Appendix C, and in this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted.

19.That prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final PEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearing on the proposed Project.

20.That the City Clerk of the City of Redondo Beach is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Redondo Beach, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA.

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

SECTION 1. That the above recitals and findings are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

SECTION 2. That agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final PEIR and the proposed Project.

SECTION 3. That the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final PEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft PEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final PEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project.

RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 8
SECTION 4. That the Final PEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein.

SECTION 5. That the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, the minor edits recommended by staff or the Planning Commission, in comments on the Draft PEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the PEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement.

SECTION 6. That the City Council certify the Final PEIR as being in compliance with CEQA. That the City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibits A, respectively, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B. That the City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final PEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearing before the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. That the City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final PEIR or alleged in the record of proceedings.

SECTION 7. That the City Council hereby directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B.

SECTION 8. The City Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152.

RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 9
[THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5
th day of November, 2024.
_______________________________
James A. Light, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________ Michael W. Webb, City Attorney Eleanor Manzano, CMC, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH )
I, Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk of the City of Redondo Beach, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. CC-2410-105 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5
th day of November, 2024, and there after signed and approved by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, and that said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________
Eleanor Manzano, CMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

REDONDO BEACH FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PAGE NO. 11

CERTIFICATION
RESOLUTION NO. CC-2410-105

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA,

CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023050732), ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN

UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

AMENDMENT
"EXHIBIT A"
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 1 -

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING

ORDINANCE UPDATES, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023050732
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment (proposed project), which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft PEIR that would require recirculation.

Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, as further set forth in the accompanying resolution.

II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
The PEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As authorized in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(2), the City retained a consultant (PlaceWorks) to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. City staff from multiple departments, representing the lead agency, have directed, reviewed, and modified where appropriate all material prepared by the consultant. The PEIR reflects the City’s independent analysis and judgement. The key milestones for preparation of the PEIR are summarized below. An extensive public involvement and agency notification effort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the PEIR and to solicit comments on the results of the environmental analysis presented in the Draft PEIR.

A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Redondo Beach CEQA Guidelines the City of Redondo Beach conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project.
 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated on June 1, 2023, to state, regional, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Redondo Beach, the City’s website, the Governor’s office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse website (CEQAnet) and the Los Angeles County Clerk website.

Additionally, the NOP was advertised in the local newspaper, the Easy Reader.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 2 -
 A scoping meeting was held on June 8, 2023, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at Redondo Beach Main Library, Second Floor Conference Room, 303 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP.  Seven agencies and 14 individuals responded to the NOP. (see Chapter 2, Introduction, Table 2-, Summary of Comments on the Notice of Preparation, of the Draft PEIR). Based on the scoping process, the primary areas of controversy known to the City include:
• Zone changes to property on which Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is located (See Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft PEIR)
• Changes to floor area ratio (FAR) for Public Institutional (PI) land use and zoning designations (See Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft PEIR)  The Draft PEIR was made available for a 47-day public review period beginning August 1, 2024, and ending September 16, 2024. The scope of the Draft PEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting. Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft PEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft PEIR. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR was made available for public review at the City of Redondo Beach, the City’s website, OPR State Clearinghouse website (CEQAnet) and the Los Angeles County Clerk website.

Additionally, the NOP was advertised in the local newspaper, the Easy Reader.  The Final PEIR, including responses to comments, was released for a minimum 10-day agency review period on October 17, 2024 through October 27, 2024, prior to certification of the Final PEIR.
 Public hearings on the Draft PEIR included a Planning Commission hearing on September 19, 2024, and two City Council hearings on October 15 and 29, 2024.  In summary, the City conducted all required noticing and scoping for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, and conducted the public review for the Draft PEIR, which exceeded the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.

B. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CITY COUNCIL

PROCEEDINGS
The City prepared a Final PEIR, including responses to comments on the Draft PEIR. The Final PEIR contains comments on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft PEIR, and appended documents. A total of 18 comment letters were received. Of the 18 comment letters, 11 letters were from public agencies, tribes, and/or organizations, and 7 letters were from individuals.

The Final PEIR found that prior to mitigation, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources (Impacts 5.4-1 and 5.4-2), Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, mitigation measures were developed to avoid or reduce all of these impacts to levels considered less than significant. The Final PEIR also found that despite the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 3 -
Cultural Resources (Impact 5.4-1), GHG Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Transportation were significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared for the Council’s consideration.

Members of the public can view searchable agendas for scheduled City Council meetings and access agenda-related City information and services directly on the following website:
https://www.redondo.org/government/mayor_and_city_council/index.php.

The Final PEIR document was posted for viewing and download with the previously posted Draft PEIR prior to the City’s consideration of the Final PEIR and project recommendations on the City’s website.

A date for consideration of the Final PEIR and project recommendations at the City Council was set for the proposed project, and notice of the meeting was provided consistent with the Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.).

C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of, at a minimum, the following documents and other evidence:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project.
 The Draft PEIR and Final PEIR for the proposed project.  All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR.
 All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
 The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final PEIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR.
 The Resolutions and Ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 4 -
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the proposed project are available at the City Clerk’s Office, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. The City Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division within the City’s Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).

E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an update of the Redondo Beach General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, and Local Coastal Program (proposed project). The update includes the following chapters as individual elements that address all the required topics in state law:
 Land Use Element
 Open Space and Conservation Element
 Safety Element
 Noise Element
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources(Impacts 5.4-1 and 5.4-2), Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Transportation.

F. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City of Redondo Beach’s vision and guiding principles for the proposed project prioritize quality of life, community character, health and vitality, and sustainable growth. Objectives of the proposed project are as follows:

1. Foster development of a variety of housing options citywide that accommodates the lifestyles and affordability needs of all residents, while meeting the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element.

2. Reduce automobile traffic volume and congestion by promoting safe, efficient, multimodal transportation that provides alternatives to the car.

3. Ensure that the City is both a place to live and work by matching its residents to jobs and promoting a workforce/jobs balance.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 5 -

4. Protect and enhance the City’s existing Aerospace Industry and economic identity.

5. Support resident’s health and vitality through the preservation and expansion of public open space for active and passive recreation throughout the City.

6. Create more walkable and bike friendly interconnected neighborhoods through the development of new parks, trails, and sports facilities.

7. Promote creativity, innovation, and technological advances to attract businesses that are on the cutting edge of their industries.

8. Create unique destinations for residents, employers, and visitors, while maintaining existing neighborhoods and preserving public space.

9. Balance City growth in an environmentally, sustainably, economically, and fiscally responsible way.

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
A. INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an EIR prior to approval of the project, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. The potential environmental effects of the proposed project have been analyzed in a Draft PEIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2023050732). A Final PEIR (Final PEIR) has also been prepared that incorporates the Draft PEIR and comments received on the Draft PEIR; responses to the individual comments; revisions to the Draft PEIR, including any clarifications based on the comments and the responses to the comments; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. This document provides the findings required by CEQA for approval of the proposed project.

Statutory Requirements for Findings
CEQA (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Ca. Code Regs Section 15000 et seq.) require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 states:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 6 -

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) that are required in or incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project may include a wide variety of measures or actions, as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 7 -
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

Section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts— even if they cannot completely avoid those impacts—satisfy section 21002’s mandate. “CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level.” Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.
“There is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible.” Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309.

While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. If “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency” (Pub. Res. Code, Section 21002.1(c)); also, an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible” (Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a)).

CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (Pub. Res. Code, Section 21061.1). The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility (Section 15364). Project objectives also inform the determination of feasibility. Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828–829. “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417. “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility.” Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715; Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000. “[E]conomic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible. (Pub. Res. Code, Section 21081(a)(3)).

Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.

The California Supreme Court has stated, “The wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 8 -
local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576. In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.

Findings of Fact
Having received, reviewed, and considered the PEIR for the State Clearinghouse No. 2023050732, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Redondo Beach City Council adopts the following Findings of Fact in its capacity as the legislative body for the City of Redondo Beach, which is the CEQA lead agency. The Findings establish the environmental and other bases for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the proposed project.

In addition, the Redondo Beach City Council hereby make findings pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091 and hereby certifies that:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

Program Environmental Report and Discretionary Actions
The PEIR addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project. The PEIR provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make a final decision on the requested discretionary actions for all phases of this project. The PEIR serves as the first-tier environmental analysis and encourages future projects to reuse data (through tiering) for a more streamlined process to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other responsible agencies.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 9 -
Discretionary actions to be considered by the City may include, but are not limited to:
 Certification of the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update, and Local Coastal Program Amendment Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023050732)
 Adoption of the Redondo Beach General Plan Update
 Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, finding that the MMRP is adequately designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and determine that the significant adverse effects of the project either have been reduced to an acceptable level, or are outweighed by the specific overriding considerations of the project as outlined in this CEQA Findings of Fact
 Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Redondo Beach General Plan Update
Format
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a lead agency make a finding for each significant effect for the project. This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project, which were developed in an effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.

This section is divided into the following subsections:

Section III B, Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation, presents topical areas that would result in no impact or less than significant impacts in the Draft PEIR.

Section III C, Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Reduced to Less Than Significant, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Draft PEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, and the rationales for the findings.

Section III D, Significant Unavoidable Impacts That Cannot Be Mitigated to Below the Level of Significance, presents significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Draft PEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, and the rationales for the findings.

Section IV, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, presents alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other considerations.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 10 -
Section V, Additional CEQA Considerations, presents additional CEQA considerations, including significant irreversible changes due to the proposed project and growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.

Section VI, Findings on Responses to Comments on the Draft PEIR and Revisions to the Final PEIR, presents the City’s findings on the responses to comments and revisions to Final PEIR, and whether a recirculated Draft PEIR is necessary.

Section VII, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents a description of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding consideration.

Section VIII, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Section IX, Certification, identifies the requirements for certification of the EIR.

B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
Issues Deemed No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15063, which allow a lead agency to skip preparation of an Initial Study and begin work directly on the EIR process, an NOP was issued for the proposed project without an accompanying Initial Study.

Findings on “No Impact” and “Less Than Significant Impacts” Based on the environmental assessments in the Final PEIR, the City determined that the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, for the environmental issues summarized below. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in each of the issue areas is based on the environmental evaluation in the listed topical EIR sections in Chapter 5 of the Draft PEIR, which include Environmental Setting, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

The Draft PEIR concluded that all or some of the impacts of the proposed project with respect to the following issues either will not be significant or will be reduced to below a level of significance by implementing project design features or existing plans, programs, and policies detailed in Chapter 5 of the Draft PEIR. Those issues include the following topical areas in their entirety or portions thereof:

Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources(Impact 5.4-3), Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning (Impact 5.10-1), Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. CEQA Guidelines Section 15901 requires that an EIR not be certified for a project which has one or more significant environmental effects unless one of three possible findings is made for each significant effect. Since the following environmental issue areas were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, no rationale for findings for these issues are required.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 11 -

1. Aesthetics
Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project would not alter the visual appearance or damage scenic vistas of the City of Redondo Beach. [Thresholds AE-1]
Because of the hilly topography of the southern portion of the City and the inland location of the northern portion of the City, the beach and ocean can only be viewed from a limited geographic area of the community. Future development facilitated by the proposed project could alter the appearance of the existing conditions as changes under the proposed project would be primarily to existing buildings and the reuse of properties. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would not occur in protected open space areas, including beaches and coastal bluffs, and thus would not affect scenic vistas from associated vantage points. Development would primarily be located around housing element sites and planned projects, clustered within the residential overlay areas, integrated throughout the R-2 and R-3 zones, and located within major project areas like the South Bay Galleria (South Bay Social District), areas where the allowable floor area ratio was raised including the Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard Special Policy Areas (SPA) and areas designated as I-1 and I-3 in the proposed land use plan. Regulatory compliance with development standards under the City’s Municipal Code, such as height and setback requirements, as well as the City’s commercial and residential design standards and guidelines, would guide future development characteristics and ensure consistency and compatibility. Development standards and design guidelines would ensure that the visual appearance and existing scenic vistas in the City are not significantly adversely affected. The proposed General Plan update includes policies that would protect scenic resources, such as Policy LU-5.7, which calls for the preservation of open space that contains scenic value, and Policy LU-2.1, which aims to protect Redondo Beach culture preserving visual character and scenic value.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.1-9) Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project would not alter scenic resources within a state scenic highway. [Threshold AE-2]
There are no scenic highways within or near the City of Redondo Beach (Caltrans 2019). No eligible scenic highways run through the City limits. The nearest eligible scenic highway is along a segment of Highway 1 located approximately 10 miles north. Future development would not interfere with scenic resources within a state highway. The City’s primary arterial corridors are SR-1, which runs generally north-south and crosses the southwestern part of the City, and I-405, a north-south freeway that passes through the northeast tip of the City. Additionally, SR-95 (Artesia Boulevard) which runs east-west through the northern region of the City and serves as north Redondo’s major commercial corridor, is also not a scenic highway.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to existing visual character and quality of public views and conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 12 -
proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.1-9)
Impact 5.1-3: Buildout in accordance with the proposed land use plan would alter the existing visual appearance of the City but would not substantially degrade its existing visual character or quality and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Threshold AE-3] The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. The City of Redondo Beach is predominantly built out with very few vacant sites available to accommodate future land use changes, requiring the City to look at very select areas to accommodate new uses. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3-6, Summary of Special Policy Areas, within the Draft FPEIR, seven special policy areas have been identified in the Land Use Element that warrant special policy direction due to the role they play in the City. Policies targeted to these areas ensure the preservation and enhancement of the special character of these areas. Land use changes to these areas would occur where development currently exists and primarily focuses on the reuse or repurpose of underutilized sites. Changes to these special policy areas would not occur in protected areas such as the beaches. As discussed in the Draft FPEIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will codify the community’s vision as established in the Focused General Plan Update process, facilitate the implementation of key General Plan concepts related to land use, and implement required Zoning Map changes and programs pursuant to the City’s existing, Certified Housing Element. Table 3-7, Summary of Zoning Map, Regulations and Standards Updates, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft FPEIR summarizes the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Map to align with the General Plan Update. Table 3-8 Administrative and Procedural Zoning Ordinance Updates to Align with State Laws, summarizes the Zoning Ordinance updates that are procedural, administrative, or required to formally align the City’s Municipal Code with state laws that are already in effect followed by a summary of the required amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text. Furthermore, to implement the changes proposed by the Focused General Plan Update and the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update within the coastal zone, the City must also amend portions of both the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) of its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed changes to the LUP include updates to the Coastal Land Use Map consistent with the Land Use Map in the Focused General Plan Update.

Proposed changes to the IP will include updates to the Zoning Map within the Coastal Zone to implement the Focused General Plan Update and updates to the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone that largely mirror the changes described in the tables 3-7 and 3-8, above.

Because the City is predominantly built out, redevelopment of sites would have the potential to alter the visual appearance of the City, but the design standards and Objective Residential Standards set by the City will ensure redevelopment would remain consistent with community expectations and would not substantially degrade the City’s visual character or quality.

The proposed General Plan policies would ensure that future development would preserve and enhance the City of Redondo Beach’s visual character and quality, such as, Policy LU-2.2 which aims to establish that any new projects are consistent and compatible with existing design quality, Policy LU-3.5 which ensures new projects are consistent with provisions and design policies outlined by the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 13 -
City, and Goal OS-3, would ensure that prominent public viewpoints and scenic vistas are preserved, maintained and enhanced for public enjoyment. Updates to the Zoning Code and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Moreover, any future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to comply with existing City regulations that maintain the City’s character such as the City’s development standards and commercial and residential design standards and guidelines. The development standards and design standards and guidelines would ensure that development under the proposed project would continue to be maintained and be compatible with the City’s visual character. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to visual appearance. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.1-11)
Impact 5.1-4: The proposed project would not generate additional light and glare. [Threshold AE-4]
The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is caused by misdirected light that illuminates outside the intended area. Glare is light that shines directly or is reflected from a surface into a viewer’s eyes. Spill light and glare impacts are effects of a project’s exterior lighting on adjoining uses and areas.

Sources of light in the City include building lighting (interior and exterior), security lighting, sign illumination, and parking area lighting. These sources of light and glare are mostly associated with the residential, commercial, and industrial uses in the City. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include streetlights, vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways, and ambient lighting from surrounding communities.

Future development in accordance with the proposed project would allow for the intensification and redevelopment of existing land uses, which could increase nighttime light and glare in the City. For instance, the conversion of underutilized or vacant areas into residential or commercial uses would introduce new sources of light from windows, porches, security, parking areas, and landscaping.

However, since the City is predominantly built out, new development would largely occur within areas where development already exists. In addition, future development and redevelopment projects in the City would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 10-2.912, which requires that outdoor lighting be designed to not adversely impact surrounding uses but also provide a sufficient level of illumination. The Objective Residential Standards also set standards regarding lighting. These standards ensure that adequate site lighting is provided while minimizing spill light and glare into surrounding properties. Policy OS-3.5 would also ensure that glare impacts would be reduced by requiring outdoor fixtures be fully shielded to prevent lighting up the sky rather than the ground. This would ensure that substantial light and glare does not extend substantially beyond the site where it is generated. Development in accordance with the proposed project would not generate substantial additional light and glare and the impact would be less than significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 14 -
Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to light and glare. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.1-11)

2. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-5: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. [Threshold AQ-4]
Growth within the City under the General Plan Update could generate new sources of odors. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

Industrial Land Uses
Compost facilities, landfills, solid-waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), asphalt batch manufacturing plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities are typical sources of odors from industrial land uses.

Industrial land uses are required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. As identified above, the General Plan Update could result in a net increase of 3,859,102 square feet in new industrial/warehousing in the City. Industrial land uses are required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 and future environmental review, which would ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve industrial land-use changes greater than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update, therefore no additional impacts would occur. Overall, impacts from potential odors generated from industrial land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Residential and Other Retail/Commercial Land Uses
Residential and other nonresidential, nonindustrial land uses that would be accommodated by the proposed project could result in the generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment and from cooking/restaurants. Buildout of the General Plan Update would result in a net increase of commercial (1.8 million square feet) land uses (see Table 3-1, Existing Land Use Summary, and Table 3- 4, Summary of Existing and Proposed Land Uses). However, unlike industrial land uses, these are not considered likely potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people.

Nuisance odors are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating a verified odor complaint. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 15 -
residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Construction
During construction activities of development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment in use. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Short term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to other emissions, such as those leading to odors. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.2-53)

3. Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. [Threshold B-1]
Future development in accordance with the proposed project could potentially impact special-status species.

Plants
A search of the CNDDB database queries identified a total of 46 special-status plant species as occurring in the City of Redondo Beach. Artificial and unvegetated biological communities, barren and or urban areas in the City are unlikely to support special-status plants. However, construction activities within habitat communities could potentially result in significant impacts on special-status plants. As shown in Table 5.3-1, Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Present in City and Vicinity, there are nine federally and/or State-listed plant species known to occur in the City.

Wildlife
As shown in Table 5.3-2, Sensitive Animal Species Potentially Present in City and Vicinity, a total of 102 special-status wildlife species known to occur or have the potential to occur in the City (i.e., 60 birds, 18 insects, 10 mammals, six reptiles three fish, 3 mollusks, one amphibian, and one crustacean).

Of those, 12 birds, 3 fish, 2 mammals, 2 insects, and a crustacean species are listed or considered federal- and/or State-listed wildlife species known to occur in the City. Development within or near habitat for special-status wildlife species could result in adverse impacts on these species.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 16 -
Fish
Impacts on fish from construction-related disturbances include increased sedimentation and turbidity, release of contaminants into surrounding water bodies, noise disturbance, and change in fish habitat.

A change in fish habitat could result from the removal of terrestrial vegetation from streambanks, removal of riparian trees and aquatic vegetation, or rip-rapping banks for erosion control. Increases in sedimentation and turbidity have been shown to affect fish physiology, behavior, and habitat. Stress responses are generally higher with increasing turbidity and decreasing particle size. Migrating adult salmonids have been reported to avoid high waterways with silt loads or cease migration when such loads are unavoidable (Cordone and Kelley 1961).

Future construction activities may also involve the storage, use, or discharge of toxic and other harmful substances near water bodies or in areas that drain to these water bodies. Heavy construction equipment often uses petroleum products, such as fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and coolants, all of which may be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. An accidental spill or inadvertent discharge of these materials could affect the water quality of the river or water body and thereby affect fish or fish habitat.

Impact Significance Determination
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Before any development or redevelopment activities would occur in the City, all such activities would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements. Therefore, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to the direct development or redevelopment of a specific project. Future development facilitated by the proposed project could impact special-status species. However, the General Plan Update contains several policies in the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element and Conservation Element that would preserve and enhance areas that may provide habitat for special-status species, including Policies LU-5.7, OS2.10, OS-8.1, OS-8.2, and OS-8.5. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Compliance with FESA and CESA would require agencies to consult with the USFWS or CDFW on proposed actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed (for listing) species or critical habitat that may support the species. The MBTA implements international treaties between the U.S. and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, and any of their parts, eggs, and nests, from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. All future development within the City would be required to comply with the MBTA. Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code would require future projects to notify CDFW of any proposed alteration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes with the intention of protecting habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. The NPPA prohibits the take of rare and endangered plants, including special-status plant species and compliance with the NPPA would ensure that endangered or rare native plants are protected.

The goals and policies in the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the proposed project and compliance with the policies and regulations under the FESA, MBTA, CESA, California Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 17 -
Fish and Game Code, CWA, and NPPA would ensure impacts to special-status species associated with new development allowed under the proposed project are less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to habitat or special species. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.3-17)
Impact 5.3-2: The proposed project would not adversely impact sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and riparian habitat. [Threshold B-2 and B3] Sensitive natural communities are those that are ranked as critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable, per the State ranking system. According to a CNDDB search, three sensitive natural vegetation communities were recorded within or near the City: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Dune Scrub, and Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub.

While the City is mostly urbanized, it does contain open space areas that may be suitable for sensitive natural communities such as wetlands and riparian habitats. These habitats may support special-status plant and animal species and are known to be highly productive and diverse ecosystems. The City contains riparian communities adjacent to wetlands and near King Harbor Marina. Implementation of the proposed project would increase development in the City, which could indirectly impact sensitive natural communities with an overall increase in the City’s population (resident and work).

Future development in accordance with the proposed project could impact waters and wetlands jurisdictional to the CCC, CDFW, USACE, and Los Angeles RWQCB. Waters of the United States are jurisdictional to the USACE; waters of the State are jurisdictional to the Los Angeles RWQCB and the CDFW; and wetlands meeting certain criteria are jurisdictional to the CCC, USACE and/or the CDFW.

Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update. Construction projects in the City would also have the potential to affect riparian habitats by spreading or introducing invasive plant species to currently uninfected areas.

Invasive species spread aggressively and crowd out native species, potentially altering the species composition of natural communities. A predominance of invasive species reduces the overall habitat quality for native plants and wildlife. However, the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan Update include several policies that would mitigate potential impacts on natural communities such as riparian habitat and wetlands, including Polices LU-5.7, OS-8.2, OS-8.5, and OS-8.6.

If the USACE determines that waters of the United States are present, a Section 404 permit from the USACE for placement of fill within waters of the United States and a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB would be required. Placement of fill materials into waters of the United States would require compensation to ensure no net loss of aquatic resources. Additionally, disturbance or alteration of streams, lakes, or non-federally protected (non-jurisdictional) wetlands would require a permit, which would include conditions to protect these sensitive natural communities. A Section 1602 Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 18 -
streambed alteration agreement would be needed from the CDFW prior to initiation of project construction activities within the City that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake or that would use material from a streambed. Non-jurisdictional wetlands include wetland features that are not hydrologically connected to navigable waters in rivers and are not under USACE jurisdiction. These wetlands would still be considered waters of the State and would be regulated according to waste discharge requirements that would be issued by the RWQCB.

Implementation of the General Plan Update goals and policies, with conditions associated with streambed alteration agreements and waste discharge requirements, would ensure that impacts on riparian corridors and other sensitive natural communities are less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to sensitive natural communities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.3-19)
Impact 5.3-3: The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. [Threshold B-4] The City of Redondo Beach is built out with urban land uses, and there is little native habitat available for wildlife movement remaining in the City. Thus, there are no major or regional officially designated wildlife corridors passing through the City. Furthermore, the City of Redondo Beach does not contain natural waterways that would allow for the movement of a native resident or migratory fish.

Additionally, parks, the bluffs, and open space areas within and adjacent to the City could provide terrestrial connectivity.

The City lies within the Pacific Flyway, a bird migration route extending from the Arctic to South America. Two categories of birds use the Flyway: waterfowl, such as ducks and geese; and shorebirds (or waders) such as sandpipers, avocets, stilts, and plovers. Developed land uses in the City contain ornamental landscaping including trees and shrubs. Such vegetation may be used by migrating birds protected by the MBTA. The MBTA implements international treaties between the U.S. and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, and any of their parts, eggs, and nests, from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. All future development within the City would be required to comply with the MBTA.

Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update. The Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan Update contain goals and policies that address potential impacts to native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and corridors, such as Policy LU-5.7, which ensures connectivity of habitat with Torrance and Hermosa Beach and applies strategies and approaches to fund and incentivize expansion of native habitat and plants throughout the City on both public and private property. Policy OS-8.1 directs the City to coordinate with the neighboring cities, Los Angeles County, regional agencies, and environmental and conservation communities/groups to ensure critical habitat areas are preserved, expanded, and connected.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 19 -
The proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, in combination with other federal and State policies and regulations, would ensure impacts to migratory species are less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wildlife or wildlife corridors. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.3-21)
Impact 5.3-4: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. [Thresholds B-5 and B-6] The General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Master Plan aims to restore the natural diversity of the remnant dunes and bluffs along the Santa Monica Bay between Ballona Creek and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This Master Plan prioritizes sites that could be restored and describes actions for education and community involvement. Furthermore, the goals of the Master Plan increase the ecological value of the beach bluffs by restoring the native vegetation, increase recreational value by providing stewardship opportunities for restored bluffs, and provide a public education program about the beach bluffs and their coastal environment. The City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code includes Title 10 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 5, Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance, which prohibits trimming or disturbance of trees that have been used for breeding and nesting by bird species listed pursuant to the FESA, California bird species of special concern, and wading birds (herons or egrets) within the previous five years. The General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable policies and plans pertaining to biological resources and would not conflict with such policies and ordinances.

Additionally, Policy OS-8.4, Urban Forest, seeks to expand the City’s urban forest in a consistent, coordinated, and environmentally conscious manner and prioritize native trees and associated companion species and habitats. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur in this regard.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conservation plans. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.3-21)
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 20 -

4. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-3: Future development facilitated by the proposed project could potentially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. [Threshold C-3]
Soil-disturbing activities associated with future development in accordance with the proposed project could result in the discovery of human remains. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Specifically, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with the proposed project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to human remains. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.4-16)
Energy
Impact 5.5-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. [Threshold E-1]
Short-Term Construction Impacts
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Construction of individual development project facilitated by the proposed project would create temporary demands for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 21 -
be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.

Future individual development projects would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of project construction.

Furthermore, the construction contractors would minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article

4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption during the construction of individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project. Therefore, the construction of individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use (energy resources).

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of new development projects accommodated under the proposed project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; and lighting. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance would reflect new land use designations and densities specified by the Focused General Plan Update. Updates to the LCP would include revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. These modifications would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the Focused General Plan Update and the recently certified Housing Element and would not substantially affect energy.

Nontransportation Energy
Electrical service to the City is provided by SCE and CPA through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 5.5-4 of the PEIR, Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2050, electricity use in the City would increase by 230,624,940 kWh/year, or approximately 35 percent, from existing conditions.

As shown in Table 5.5-5 of the PEIR, Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, existing natural gas use in the City totals11,148,598 therms annually. By 2050, natural gas use in the City would increase by 2,623,262 therms annually, or approximately 24 percent, from existing conditions to a total of 13,771,860 therms per year.

While the electricity and natural gas demand for the City would increase compared to existing conditions, development accommodated under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 22 -
would contribute to reducing the energy demands shown in Tables 5.5- and 5.5-5. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving ZNE.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the General Plan Update includes policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources.

Policies S-10.1, S-10.4, and S-10.6 would support energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements at homes, businesses, and City-owned facilities. Encouraging sustainable and energyefficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies would further reduce energy consumption and move closer to achieving ZNE goals.

Transportation Energy
The growth accommodated under the General Plan Update would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity).

Table 5.5-6 of the PEIR, Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage: Net Change from Existing, shows the net change in VMT, fuel usage, and fuel efficiency under horizon year 2050 General Plan Update conditions from existing baseline year 2023 conditions and existing uses under year 2050 conditions.

When compared to existing baseline year conditions, the General Plan Update would result in an increase in VMT for gasoline-, electric-, and diesel-powered vehicles. Although annual VMT would increase for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, the fuel efficiency would increase by 6.84 mpg and

0.90 mpg, respectively. For electric-powered vehicles, annual VMT would increase by 53,072,198 miles and annual consumption would increase by 11,978,432 kWh. The large increase in VMT and fuel usage for electric-powered vehicles are primarily based on the assumption in EMFAC that a greater mix of light-duty automobiles would be electric-powered in future years based on regulatory (e.g., Advanced Clean Cars) and consumer trends. Overall, the increase in VMT would be primarily attributable to the population growth associated with the General Plan Update (see Table 5.12-7 in Chapter 5.12, Population and Housing).

Compared to existing uses under year 2050 conditions, the General Plan Update would result in an increase in VMT and fuel usage for all fuel types (see “Net Change from Existing Year 2050” column).

However, the fuel efficiency between the existing uses under 2050 conditions and the uses under the General Plan Update buildout would be the same, and implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in less efficiency in transportation fuel usage.

The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to regulatory compliance (e.g., CAFE standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to residents or land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, residents and employees of Redondo Beach do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the City more fuel-efficient vehicle options. Furthermore, while Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 23 -
the demand in electricity would increase under the proposed project, in conjunction with the regulatory (i.e., Renewables Portfolio Standard, SB 350, and SB 100) and general trend toward increasing the supply and production of energy from renewable sources, it is anticipated that a greater share of electricity used to power electric vehicles would be from renewable sources in future years (e.g., individual photovoltaic systems, purchased electricity from SCE or CPA, and/or purchased electricity from SCE or CPA that is generated from renewable sources).

In addition to regulatory compliance that would contribute to more fuel-efficient vehicles and less demand for fuels, the General Plan Update includes policies that will contribute to minimizing overall VMT, and thus fuel usage associated with the City. Policies LU-2.8, LU-3.7, LU-4.6, OS-1.8, and OS1.10 would encourage nonvehicular travel modes in the design and development of future projects.

Policies LU-3.8, LU-3.10, and LU-6.22 would aid in minimizing VMT through incentives for vanpools or home-based businesses and improve corridor connectivity for passive uses along City streets.

Collectively, the policies and action listed above would minimize overall VMT, and thus fuel usage associated with potential future development in Redondo Beach. Furthermore, the proposed project would rely on mixed-use, transit-oriented development, and infill development for projected growth in the Redondo Beach region, thus contributing to reduced energy use from the transportation sector.

For example, Policy LU-4.6 in the Land Use Element would encourage expansion of connectivity between residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors/businesses. Although population and VMT are projected to grow, the jobs-housing ratio would increase from 0.94 to 1.02—closer to a more equal distribution of employment and housing (see Impact 5.12-1 of this PEIR). Having a jobs-rich city would encourage employment opportunities for city residents and workers commuting out of Redondo Beach. Therefore, this could result in shorter distances traveled between where people work and live and to amenities.

Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, Renewable Portfolio Standards, and CAFE standards) will increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies related to land use, transportation planning, energy efficiency, and renewable energy generation that would contribute to minimizing the City's total energy consumption. Implementation of policies under the General Plan Update in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.5-27) Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 24 -

5. Geology and Soils
Impact 5.6-1: Project residents and visitors would be subject to potential seismic-related hazards; however, development associated with the proposed project would adhere to existing structural safety requirements. [Threshold G-1i–iv]) Seismic Hazards
Earthquakes can be expected in the Redondo Beach area on any of the faults in the region listed in Table 5.6 1, Estimated Maximum Earthquake Magnitude and Distance to Faults Near Redondo Beach.

In Redondo Beach, earthquake effects include possible ground shaking and secondary effects of earthquakes, including landslides, liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, collapse, ground lurching, and tsunami-related erosion.

Secondary effects are nontectonic processes such as ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, which are the leading causes of damage to structures during a moderate to large earthquake.

Ground Shaking
The City is in a seismically active part of Southern California. Conformance with the CBC would reduce impacts to new development associated with strong seismically induced ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable, under currently accepted engineering practices. The CBC sets forth structural design parameters for buildings to withstand seismic shaking without substantial structural damage. Section 1803 of the CBC requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation to assess the degree of potential seismic hazards and recommend appropriate design/mitigation measures.

The 2022 CBC contains standards and regulations relating to seismic safety and construction standards for building foundations. Conformance with the CBC, as required by State law, would minimize the potential for damage of new structures and their foundations.

Liquefaction
Areas of concern for potential liquefaction in Redondo Beach are areas along the City’s southwestern boundary, and the location of the sand and gravel-filled deposits that make up the sediment along the City’s beaches. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular materials at depths of less than 50 feet with silt and clay contents of less than 30 percent saturated by relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. These geological conditions are typical in parts of southern California, including Redondo Beach, and in valley regions and alluvial floodplains. The City’s southwestern edge along the coast is susceptible to liquefaction. Areas of liquefaction hazard are shown in Figure 5.6-3, Liquefaction Zones in Redondo Beach. Policy S-4.5 would require new development in liquefaction zones to implement specific measures in CBC Chapter 18 to reduce damage in an earthquake event. Redondo Beach includes both hillside topography with some areas of steep slopes and areas that are relatively flat. The City is made up of Pleistocene and Holocene soil deposits. These deposits make for stable soil conditions. Liquefaction related to potential erosion is still a concern for the City because coastal areas are made up of loose soils and are susceptible to liquefaction. Tsunamis from seismic-related events may also be potentially significant to the City in areas within a few miles Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 25 -
of the ocean, primarily along the southwestern edge of the City. Policy OS-6.4 addresses soil erosion in coastal areas and its applicable coordination with the county and other agencies when addressing the erosion hazards and impacts.

Landslides
Marginally stable slopes (including existing landslides) may be subject to landslides caused by earthquakes. The landslide hazard depends on many factors, including existing slope stability, shaking potential, and presence of existing landslides. Although there are some areas of slope in the City, much of the terrain of the City is relatively flat and built up. Landslides are not a concern for the City of Redondo Beach (USGS 2024d). Although the City has varying topography in sections of the City, such as areas in the neighborhoods in the upper Avenues, Beryl Heights, and areas near Dominguez Park, soils in these areas tend to be compact in nature and would not affect existing facilities or future uses due to landslide hazards. Since Redondo Beach is mainly built-up and areas where there is varying topography, have established infrastructure, landslide susceptibility is not a concern for the City (USGS 2024e). Adherence to Policy S-4.4 would introduce notifications for owners on or near faults/newly discovered faults, and requirements for review of soils and their hazards, relative to seismicity prior to various steps in the planning process. Additional policies that would enforce regulations and mitigation efforts for seismicity include Policy S-2-1, Policy S 2-2, Policy S 3.1, Policy S-3.2, Policy S-4.1, Policy S-4.2, Policy S-4.3, Policy S-4.5, Policy S-4.6, Policy S-4.7, Policy S-4.9, Policy S-4.10, and Policy S4.11. Impacts of seismic-related hazards would be less than significant.

Settlement, Subsidence, and/or Collapse
Subsidence refers to the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. It may be caused by a variety of human and natural activities, including underground mining, oil and gas extraction, sinkholes, or drainage and decomposition of organic soils. Most of the early documented cases of subsidence affected only agricultural land or open space. As urban areas have expanded, so too have the impacts of subsidence on structures for human occupancy. Although there have been isolated incidents, Redondo Beach is not susceptible to soil subsidence. (Redondo Beach 1993 USGS 2024e).

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to seismic-related hazards. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.6-25)
Impact 5.6-2: Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion and loss of topsoil, could result from development of the proposed project; however, such development would adhere to existing regulatory requirements. [Thresholds G-2, G-3, and G-4]
Development facilitated by the proposed project would involve soil disturbance, construction, and operation of developed land uses that could each be subject to unstable soil conditions.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 26 -
Soil Erosion
Soils are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase of development, especially during heavy rains. The use of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices for temporary erosion control, would reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of a SWPPP for proposed projects within the City to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. The SWPPP must include an erosion control plan that prescribes measures, such as phased grading, limited areas of disturbance, designated restricted-entry zones, diversion of runoff from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection, and provisions for revegetation or mulching.

The young alluvial sediment underlying the City is generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading can increase the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. General Plan Policy OS-6.4, would prevent erosion of beaches and coastal bluffs by maintaining stormwater systems, educating the public about erosion factors, restricting pedestrian access to vegetated areas, continuing beach bluff restoration, and coordinating with the County and other entities.

Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, and compliance with the Proposed General Plan policies, would help mitigate issues associated with erosion in the project area and would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

Expansive Soils
Most of the City consists of alluvial sediments, and therefore there is some potential for expansive soils throughout the City. Expansive soils are possible wherever clays and elastic silts may be present, including alluvial soils and weathered granitic and fine-grained sedimentary rocks. The presence of expansive soils represents a potential hazard to structures and people.

The City has adopted the latest version of the CBC (2022 CBC), which requires that structures be designed to mitigate for expansive soils. Methods that could be used to reduce the impact of expansive soils include drainage control devices to limit water infiltration near foundation, over-excavation and recompacting of engineered fill, or support of the foundation with piles. Applicable General Plan policies include Policy S-4.5 and S-18, which would require adherence to the CBC and implementation of measures to reduce damage due to liquefaction, and requirements for geotechnical reports and EIRs to be adherent to the CBC which would map areas susceptible to landslides, and mudflows. The methods in the CBC, as well as policies in the Proposed General Plan, would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant.

Settlement and Collapse
Settlement or collapse is a risk in areas with alluvial soils. Areas of large settlement can damage or destroy structures. Compressible soil in the City is a hazard to structures and people. The CBC requires that structures be designed to mitigate compressible soils. Methods that could be used to reduce the impact of compressible soils include using piles to transfer the weight of the structure to underlying noncompressible layers, and over-excavating compressible soils and recompacting with engineered fill.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 27 -
Adherence to policies in the Proposed General Plan would help to mitigate problems associated with settlement or collapse, such as Policies S-4.5 and S-4.11, which would set standards and requirements for building or project planning that would identify multiple soil characteristics and their risks. These standards would reduce the impact of settlement or compressible soils to less than significant.

Subsidence
Hazards surrounding subsidence are not a large issue in the City of Redondo Beach (USGS 2024e).

Additionally, there are no active oil wells in the City that would cause a concern for subsidence, caused by oil wells. Subsidence-related hazards would be less than significant. Section 5.8.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, addresses oil wells and their current statuses, and there are no currently active oil wells within City boundaries that would pose a threat of subsidence.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to geologic hazards, erosion, and loss of topsoil. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.6-26)
Impact 5.6-3: Soil conditions may adequately support proposed septic tanks. [Threshold G5] Septic systems are allowed in the City if they adhere to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 7.111, which outlines the provisions on septic waste: “No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical or septic waste to precipitation in an area where a discharge to City streets or MS4 may or does occur,” or are seeking improvements to existing single-family residences, in which a Coastal Development Permit would be required prior to implementation (Redondo Beach 2021).

Redondo Beach has also adopted the 2022 CBC and the 2022 Plumbing Code, which outline provisions, regulations, and provisions associated with excavation and implementation for septic tanks.

In Redondo Beach, permits are required before installing a septic tank in areas where connection to the City’s sewer facilities are not feasible. Pursuant to the CBC, a site investigation must determine that soil conditions are suitable. The provisions and requirements of the 2022 Plumbing Code and the CBC and the City’s municipal code outline the provisions for installing septic tanks in the City; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to geologic hazards and soil conditions. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.6-26)
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 28 -

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.8-1: Project construction and operations would not create a significant impact due to the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions; and would not impact an existing or proposed school. [Thresholds H-1, H-2, and H-3]
Construction
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Potentially hazardous materials used during construction include substances such as paints, sealants, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and diesel fuel. There is potential for these materials to spill or to create hazardous conditions. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or one time in nature. Project construction workers would be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials use.

To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, state, and federal laws—such as those listed under Section 5.8.1.2, Regulatory Background—are to be enforced at construction sites as well as during the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. For example, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities. Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the RBFD would be required throughout the duration of project construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
The proposed project would allow for the development of a variety of land uses, including industrial, residential, commercial, office, civic/institutional, and open space uses. Industrial uses and some commercial uses utilize greater amounts of hazardous materials than other uses, such as residential uses and schools. Operation of future residential and some commercial uses that would be accommodated would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. Operation of future industrial and some types of commercial uses would involve use of larger amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuel/diesel, and commercial grade chemicals, solvents, cleaners, etc. These types of industrial and commercial uses, and therefore, the specific types of hazardous materials to be used, are not yet known.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 29 -
The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by future residents and commercial and industrial tenants/owners would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies, including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, US Environmental Protection Agency, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, California Department of Transportation, and LA County Fire Department. Regulations that would be required of the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials include RCRA, which provides the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes; CERCLA, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; International Fire Code, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials; CCR Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; and CCR Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid wastes. For development in California, Government Code Section 65850.2 requires that no final certificate of occupancy or its substantial equivalent be issued unless there is verification that the owner or authorized agent has met, or is meeting, the applicable requirements of the Health and Safety Code, Sections 25500 through 25520.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, future residential and nonresidential uses under the proposed project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements of the RBFD and County Fire.

County Fire’s Health Hazardous Materials Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Redondo Beach. County Fire and the RBFD work together to implement the City’s proposed Emergency Operations Plan that addresses Redondo Beach’s planned response to emergencies. The CUPA is responsible for managing the following programs in the county:
 Underground Storage Tank Program
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements
 Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs  Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plan)  California Accidental Release Prevention
 Hazardous Material Management Plans
Additionally, several policies in the General Plan Update would minimize risks from businesses that use hazardous materials. For Example, Policy S-8.3 would identify and coordinate with local businesses to minimize hazardous waste produced by businesses that must use those materials, and Policy S-8.7 would ensure that the use and disposal of hazardous materials in the City comply with local, regional, state, and federal safety standards. Additional policies that relate to storage, operation, transport, and emergency procedures for hazardous sites/wastes are S-8.1, S-8.2, S-8.4, S-8.5, S-8.6, S-8.8, and S-8-9.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Demolition
Future development projects under the proposed project may involve demolition of existing buildings and structures associated with a specific development site. Some building materials used in the mid- Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 30 -
and late-1900s are considered hazardous to the environment and harmful to people. For example, while asbestos was generally not used in building materials by 1980, it was still occasionally used until the late 1980s. Lead-based paint was banned for residential use in 1978 and phased out for commercial structures in 1993.

Typical hazardous materials of concern for existing older structures in the City include asbestos, lead, mold, PCBs, and radon.

For buildings constructed before the 1950s, it is likely that some contain ACMs and LBP as well as other building materials containing lead (e.g., ceramic tile and insulation). Demolition of these buildings could cause encapsulated ACM (if present) to become friable (i.e., easily crumbled or pulverized); once airborne, they are considered a carcinogen. Demolition could also cause the release of lead into the air.

The EPA has classified lead and inorganic lead compounds as “probable human carcinogens,” and such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around a proposed development site (EPA 2004).

The presence of visible water damage, damp materials, visible mold, or mold odor in buildings increases the potential risks for respiratory disease in occupants. According to the California Department of Public Health, known health risks include the development of asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections; the triggering of asthma attacks; and increased wheezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, and other symptoms.

PCBs are synthetic chemicals that were manufactured for use in various industrial and commercial applications––including oil in electrical and hydraulic equipment, and plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products––because of their nonflammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulation properties. When released into the environment, PCBs persist for many years and bioaccumulate in organisms. The EPA has classified PCBs as probable human carcinogens. In 1979, the USEPA banned the use of PCBs in most new electrical equipment and began a program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment.

State agencies, in conjunction with the EPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations; medical evaluation and monitoring are required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. The regulations include warnings and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified in South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). California Government Code Sections 1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and ACMs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 31 -
Accidental Release
The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes in compliance with the laws and regulations mentioned above would minimize the potential for releases of hazardous materials that could pose substantial hazards to the public or the environment and would entail prompt containment and cleanup of spills. Residential uses, some civic/institutional uses such as schools and parks, and some commercial uses utilize only small amounts of hazardous materials—such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides—and mostly or entirely for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Use of such small amounts of hazardous materials would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the environment through accidental releases. Businesses handling reporting quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials would maintain business plans including: procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release, procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance, contact information for company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

Under CalARP, Cal OES must adopt implementing regulations and seek delegation of the program from the EPA. CalARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. In most cases, local governments will have the lead role for working directly with businesses in this program. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is the CUPA designated as the administering agency for CalARP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Pipelines
As noted in Section 5.8.1.3, Existing Conditions, hazardous pipelines run through the City (DOT 2024). (See Figure 5-8.1, Gas Transmission Pipelines in Redondo Beach, and Figure 5.8-2, Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in Redondo Beach.) Additionally, municipal code Section 11-4.16 would provide guidelines to follow within the City that concern coordination with the local fire department, producing a pipeline safety plan, and any other applicable law. Furthermore, policies such as Policy 6.8.1, Policy 6.8.2, Policy 6.8.3, and Policy 6.8.4 all pertain to petroleum utility operations encompassing improvements, maintenance, requirements, and overall work surrounding petroleum pipelines.

Schools
There are currently 13 public schools and 12 private schools in Redondo Beach. Policy S-8.8 would prohibit any new facilities using, storing, or producing hazardous materials from being located directly adjacent to existing residential or school uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, to release of hazardous materials, and to emission and handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.8-34) Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 32 -
Impact 5.8-2: There are sites with the planning area that are on the list of hazardous materials sites but would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. [Threshold H-4]
There are currently 14 hazardous waste sites within the City (see Table 5.6-3, Active or Open Hazardous Waste Sites in Redondo Beach). Properties contaminated by hazardous substances are regulated at the local, state, and federal level and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigations and remediation. For example, compliance with the CERCLA, RCRA, CCR Title 22, and related requirements would remedy all potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Additionally, there are several policies in the General Plan Update that would ensure impacts as a result of hazardous materials would be reduced. For example, Policy S-8.1 would make sites coordinate with Los Angeles County to effectively manage hazardous waste facilities and materials, including household hazardous waste, through the enforcement of federal, state, and local regulations, to ensure safe handling, transport, use, and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials.

Additionally, Policies S-8.2, S-8.3, S-8.4, S-8.5, S-8.6, S-8.7, S-8.8, and S-8.9 have set regulations and procedures to follow for sites that handle, store, operate, and dispose of hazardous materials.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts relating to safety hazard to the public or environment. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.8-35)
Impact 5.8-3: The project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. [Threshold H-5] Airport operations and their accompanying safety hazards require careful land use planning on adjacent and nearby lands to protect the residential and business communities from the potential hazards that could be created by airport operations. Pursuant to Section 21096 of the Public Resources Code, the lead agency must consider whether the project would result in a safety hazard for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in a project area.

Redondo Beach is not within the vicinity of any airports or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. The closest airport is approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the City. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to airports in the area. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.8-35)
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 33 -
Impact 5.8-4: Project development would not affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold H-6]
The regional access roads located in the City include SR-1 and SR-107. There are many local arterials in the City for accessibility of execution of emergency operations. Additionally, the proposed project has many policies associated with emergency operations. For example, Policy S-1.1 and Policy S-1.4 address cooperation and coordination with the City of Redondo Beach EOP, COOP, and the local Emergency Operations Center. Additional policies that would address emergency operations and preparedness include S-1.2, S-1.3, S-1.5, S-1.6, S-1.7, S-1.8, S-2.4, S-2.5, S-4.2, S-4.3, S-4.6, and S-5.2.

Regarding emergency operations and notification systems for citizens and visitors of Redondo Beach, many policies are in place to ensure public safety and early notification in the event of emergencies.

For example, Policy S-1.3 and Policy S-1.7 aim to increase public awareness and knowledge of emergency response planning, procedures, and opportunities for public engagement, participation, and support. They provide for alerts about potential, developing, and ongoing emergency situations through extensive early-warning and notification systems that convey information to all residents in multiple languages and formats to ensure it is widely accessible.

Additionally, the use of Redondo Beach’s LHMP would serve as a reference for available evacuation routes and procedures to accompany emergency operations. Policy S-1.5 aims to incorporate the current LHMP, most recently approved by FEMA and adopted by the City in July 2020, into the Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6, to ensure that emergency response and evacuation routes are accessible throughout the City.

Furthermore, to better ensure adequate coordination and services are maintained during future hazardous events, the City plans to develop a COOP and EOP, which will provide procedures that address readiness, mobilization, and contingency planning to allow for uninterrupted delivery of essential functions during disasters. The COOP and EOP aim to save lives, prevent property damage, protect and assist the public with emergencies, and facilitate recovery after a disaster. Additional policies that would address emergency operations and preparedness include Policy S-1.1 and Policy S1.4 that aim to adopt and maintain a COOP and EOP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to emergency response plans. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.8-36)
Impact 5.8-5: The project site is not in a designated fire hazard zone and could expose structures and/or residences to fire danger. [Threshold H-7] The City of Redondo Beach is not in any fire severity zones (Los Angeles 2024). The City has policies in place that would help mitigate or assist in operations where fire may occur. Policy S-9.1 addresses fire services by providing fire prevention, protection, and emergency preparedness services that adequately protect residents, employees, visitors, and structures from fire and fire-related emergencies.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 34 -
Policy S-9.3 addresses the City’s coordination to continue to implement the regional fire protection agreement by continuing to cooperate with fire, paramedic, and emergency operations personnel in adjacent municipalities, the RBFD, and the County of Los Angeles to assist each other in carrying out the existing regional fire protection agreement. Policy S-9.4 addresses new development standards by continuing to enforce and, as necessary, adopt new development standards to reduce fire hazard risks for new and existing development to minimize property damage and loss of life. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to fire zones. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.8-36)

7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.9-1: The proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. [Threshold HYD-1]
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Before any development or redevelopment activities would occur in the City, all such activities would be required to be analyzed for conformance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements. Therefore, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to the direct development or redevelopment of a specific project. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update. Buildout consistent with the proposed project would involve soil disturbance, construction, and operation of developed land uses that could generate pollutants affecting stormwater. Buildout of the proposed project would add 4,956 dwelling units and 5,681,999 nonresidential square feet in the City based on the land use changes proposed under the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Project Description). Impacts related to the potential for accidental discharges of hazardous materials into receiving waters are addressed in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Construction
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with future buildout of the proposed project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials, such as fuels, solvents, and paints, may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment on-site during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

To minimize these potential impacts, development pursuant to the proposed project must comply with the CGP Water Quality Order 2022-0057-DWQ, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. Examples of BMPs include jute swales, silt fencing, storm drain Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 35 -
protection, covering of soil and other similar measures designed to slow or stop the flow of water to allow sediment or debris from entering the storm drainage system. The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land obtain coverage under the Statewide CGP. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, including a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, SWPPP, and post-construction water balance calculations. The construction contractor is always required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes preparation of a SWPPP.

Categories of potential BMPs that would be implemented for this project are described in Table 5.9-5, Construction BMPs.

Construction activities are also regulated under Section 5-7.112 of the RBMC which requires proof of compliance with the NPDES Permit submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading, building or occupancy permits. Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP throughout the construction phase of projects pursuant to the proposed project will address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities associated with projects larger than one acre, reducing water quality impacts to less than significant.

Projects that disturb less than one acre must implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs listed in Table 13, Minimum Set of BMPs for All Construction Sites, in the LA County MS4 Permit (NPDES No. CAS004001), to prevent erosion and sediment loss and the discharge of construction wastes. These BMPs include but are not limited to preservation of existing vegetation, providing sandbag barriers, water conservation practices, spill prevention and control, and stockpile management. Compliance with these BMPs would ensure that impacts related to construction activities for projects that disturb less than one acre are less than significant. As a result, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Future development under the proposed project would also include construction work that could impact USACE and CDFW jurisdictional waters. Under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA, a permit is required from the USACE, and a Water Quality Certification is required from the Los Angeles RWQCB for USACE jurisdictional waters. Under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, construction activities in CDFW jurisdiction are regulated by a lake or streambed alteration agreement.

Additionally, compliance with construction BMPs in projects’ SWPPPs would ensure construction activities would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality related to jurisdictional waters.

Dewatering
Construction activities under the proposed project may also involve site dewatering. Dewatering is the process of removing unwanted water from excavations such as foundations or basements to enable construction. Any discharge of dewatered groundwater to surface waters must comply with the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted Order R4-2018-0215. Discharges to land would comply with SWRCB’s Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ. Additionally, per LACDPW’s Construction Site BMP Manual, discharge Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 36 -
of groundwater during dewatering activities to the LACSD sanitary sewer system, street/gutter, ground, or any other location would not be permitted until approved by the LACDPW Engineer. A construction dewatering plan must also be submitted to the LACDPW Engineer for approval, prior to any dewatering discharge. Compliance with these mandated regulations would ensure construction activities would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality related to dewatering.

Operation
Development resulting from the proposed project may have long-term impacts on the quality of stormwater and urban runoff, subsequently impacting downstream water quality. This development has the potential to increase the postconstruction pollutant loadings of certain constituent pollutants associated with the proposed land uses and their associated features, such as landscaping, parking lots, storage areas, and plaza areas.

Future development under the proposed project would prepare and submit SUSMPs, which would include LID/site design and source control BMPs to address post-construction stormwater runoff management, as required under the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and RBMC Chapter 7, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Selection of LID and additional treatment control BMPs is based on the pollutants of concern for the specific project site and the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, in consideration of site conditions and constraints.

Policies under the proposed project also encourage the implementation of BMPs and other educational efforts that support maintaining water quality in receiving waters. Policy OS-7.3 in the Open Space Element requires the incorporation of BMPs such as maximizing permeable surfaces, using native landscaping, and installing stormwater gardens for new public and private projects in addition to expanding the application of the City LID stormwater management program in the LCP. For example, a stormwater garden, also known as a rain garden or bioretention cell, is a shallow depression in the ground that's planted with native plants to capture and filter stormwater runoff. Policies in the existing General Plan’s Utilities Element also present strategies that help to reduce water quality impacts. Policy

6.2.9 directs the City to examine the feasibility of an improved filtering or purification system to treat collected stormwater prior to its discharge into Santa Monica Bay and the Pacific Ocean at the various drainage outfall points. Policy 6.2.14 encourages providing additional information and education of the proper or improper disposal of debris or materials into the storm drainage system, and Policy 6.3.9 directs the City to ensure continued monitoring and maintenance of water quality in the community's supply of potable water.

Implementation of these measures would ensure that projects effectively retain or treat the water runoff of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm for pollutants such as bacteria, metals, nutrients, oil and grease, organics, pesticides, sediment, trash, and oxygen-demanding substances prior to discharge off their property. As properties in the City undergo redevelopment, existing properties that do not have water quality BMPs will be replaced with projects incorporating LID BMPs. Therefore, long-term surface water quality of runoff from development in the City would be expected to improve over existing conditions as more LID BMPs are implemented.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 37 -
In addition to LID BMPs associated with development, the City is part of the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area, which requires the City to identify regional projects to improve water quality in the local receiving waters. Over the next 20 years, the City will contribute to engineering design, construction and operations, and maintenance of regional watershed improvement projects in accordance with the approved EWMP and in partnership with other cities and LA County.

Additionally, as part of the statewide mandate to reduce trash in receiving waters, the City is required to adhere to the requirements of the California Trash Amendments. The requirements include the installation and maintenance of trash screening devices at all public curb inlets, grate inlets, and catch basin inlets. The trash screening devices must be certified trash full-capture systems and must be installed on all inlets by 2030. Furthermore, all development that discharges stormwater associated with industrial activity shall also comply with the requirements of the Statewide General Industrial Permit (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ), as amended in 2018 by Order No. 2015-0122-DWQ.

Compliance with these existing State, regional, and local plans, goals, policies, and regulations would ensure that impacts to surface water and groundwater quality are less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to surface or groundwater quality. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.9-36)
Impact 5.9-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that it may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. [Threshold HYD-2] The City overlies the West Coast Subbasin (West Coast Basin) within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin. Groundwater from the West Coast Basin is actively managed by numerous water agencies and stakeholders, including the West Basin Municipal Water District and WRD. Stakeholders of the Basin agreed to adjudicate water from the Basin with a limiting APA of 80 percent; the City’s APA is 4,070 afy from the Basin. Additionally, the West Coast Basin is currently categorized as a very low priority basin by DWR and therefore does not require the implementation of a GSP. Adjudication of groundwater from the basin ensures that excess production is restricted to emergencies.

Furthermore, individual development projects under the proposed project would not utilize sitespecific wells for groundwater supply. The implementation of LID features would allow for stormwater infiltration and therefore groundwater recharge at project sites.

Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies that target groundwater recharge in the proposed Open Space Element. Policy OS-7.3 directs development to include BMPs such as maximizing permeable surfaces, using native landscaping, and installing stormwater gardens, on new public and private projects and retrofits to incorporate BMPs, and Policy OS-7.4 directs the City to coordinate with the County, utility companies, and other agencies operating in the City to replenish the groundwater supplies in the region. Through management by the local water districts, development under the proposed project would not result in interference with groundwater recharge or management of the groundwater basin.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 38 -
Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impediment of sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.9-37) Impact 5.9-3: Development under the proposed project would not 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 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; Impede or redirect flood flows. [Threshold HYD-3] Development under the proposed project is largely expected to maintain existing drainage patterns and utilize the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. Current runoff is captured and conveyed by existing City storm drain infrastructure that discharges to County flood control facilities and channels before ultimately reaching the Pacific Ocean. The City is primarily built out, so no major changes in flood flows are anticipated. The City and County have policies in place to require detention systems to mitigate peak flows for certain development projects, and/or if downstream drainage facilities ever become deficient.

Erosion and Siltation
All potential future development pursuant to the proposed project would be required to implement construction-phase BMPs as well as post-construction site design, source control measures, and treatment controls in accordance with the requirements of the CGP; RBMC Title 5, Chapter 7; the Los Angeles RWQCB MS4 Permit; and the Beach Cities EWMP. As described in Impact 5.9-1, typical construction BMPs include silt fences, fiber rolls, catch basin inlet protection, water trucks, street sweeping, and stabilization of truck entrances/exits. Each new development or redevelopment project that disturbs one or more acre of land would be required to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the SWRCB that describes the measures to control erosion and sedimentation due to construction activities. For projects of less than one acre, the minimum BMPs for construction sites listed in the MS4 Permit would be required.

Once future development projects have been constructed, the MS4 permit requirements for new development or redevelopment projects must be implemented and include site design measures, source control measures, LID, and treatment measures that address stormwater runoff and would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation. LID measures include the use of permeable pavements, directing runoff to pervious areas, and the construction of bioretention areas. Project-specific SUSMPs submitted to the City must include BMPs that are maintained during the operational life of the project in accordance with the Los Angeles RWQCB MS4 Permit. Adherence to the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code and 404 and 401 permits, as applicable, would further reduce erosion and siltation impacts that may occur due to streambed alterations.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 39 -
Additionally, the majority of storm drainage structures, streams, and channels that collect runoff in the City are concrete lined and not susceptible to scour or erosion. For areas that are tributary to streams and may be susceptible to scour, hydromodification requirements, as part of the regional MS4 permit, would ensure that impacts are minimized. Overall impacts to erosion and siltation as a result of development under the proposed project would be less than significant.

Flooding On- or Off-Site
New development and/or redevelopment and changes in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities. For proposed development that would include storm drain system improvements that directly connect to Los Angeles County Flood Control systems, hydrology and LID studies would be prepared, reviewed, and approved by LACDPW. LACFCD’s Hydraulic Design Manual presents the design criteria to be used for both closed conduits and open channels. Regulated projects must implement BMPs, pursuant to the Los Angeles RWQCB MS4 Permit, including LID BMPs and site design BMPs, which effectively minimize imperviousness, retain or detain stormwater on-site, decrease surface water flows, and slow runoff rates. Additionally, Chapter 14 of the 2006 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual includes procedures for requesting Q-allowable, or the maximum stormwater discharges that would be allowed from the proposed development associated with the proposed storm drain connection. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment in the City. Therefore, potential future development under the proposed project would not result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage System Capacity
As stated in the impact discussions above, an increase in impervious surfaces with new development or redevelopment could result in increases in stormwater runoff, which in turn could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

Development that meets the requirements of Section VI(D)(7)(b) (Section 5-7.113(d) in the RBMC) in the MS4 Permit would trigger the implementation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater runoff, in the MS4 Permit. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City will require completion and submittal of a SUSMP report for review and approval to ensure that these requirements are met. Stormwater treatment measures must be sufficiently designed and constructed to treat or filter the first 0.75 inches of stormwater runoff from a 24-hour storm event, and postdevelopment peak runoff rates and volumes cannot exceed peak runoff rates and volumes of predevelopment conditions where the increased peak stormwater discharge rate will result in increased potential for downstream erosion. Implementation of the LID requirements and BMPs required by the MS4 Permit and RBMC would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that is ultimately discharged to the receiving waters. Also, as part of the permitting process, future development would be required to pay drainage fees pursuant to RBMC Section 5-7.107. The fees are used to offset the City's costs of NPDES-related implementation and enforcement.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 40 -
Furthermore, policies in the Utilities Element of the existing General Plan support the improvement of the City’s storm drainage infrastructure. Policy 6.2.3 requires that the approval of new development in the City be contingent upon the ability of the project to be served with adequate storm drainage infrastructure and service. Policy 6.2.5 directs the City to plan and provide for the ongoing construction of upgraded and expanded storm drainage facilities in areas of the city currently underserved by such facilities. Policy 6.2.7 requires that improvements to or expansion of existing storm drainage facilities necessitated by specific new development projects be borne by the project proponent, either through the payment of impact fees or the actual construction of such improvements. These policies would further help to ensure that new development is served by storm drainage facilities.

With implementation of these provisions for new development and redevelopment projects, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain facilities, and the impact is less than significant.

Redirecting Flood Flows
The discussion above regarding on- and off-site flooding is also applicable to the analysis of impeding or redirecting flood flows. Since new development projects are required to comply with the MS4 Permit and retain stormwater on-site via the use of bioretention facilities or other stormwater treatment measures, any flood flows would also be detained temporarily on-site, which would minimize the potential for flooding impacts. Impact 5.10-4 discusses the potential for impeding or redirecting flood flows with development in areas within areas at risk of flood hazards. Based on these discussions, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.

With compliance with the MS4 permit, the City’s stormwater requirements, and the implementation of General Plan goals and policies in the Utilities Element which require the City to ensure adequate storm drainage, potential future development under the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff which would result in flooding, impede or redirect flood flows, or exceed the capacity of the drainage system.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to alteration or addition of impervious surfaces. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.9-39) Impact 5.9-4: The proposed project would not increase the risk of pollutant release due to inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. [Threshold HYD-4] Pollutant Release in Flood Hazard Zones
While a majority of land in the City is outside the 100-year flood zone, areas adjacent to the coastline and other portions of the City defined as Zone AE and VE have a 1 percent chance of annual flood hazards, as shown on Figure 5.9-2. All development in these areas would require conformance with FEMA requirements and setbacks to adequately protect structures from flood hazards. Future development within the 100-year flood zones would also be subject to the floodplain requirements in Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 41 -
RBMC Chapter 12, Flood Damage Prevention, which requires new construction to be built above the base flood elevation or be designed to mitigate flooding impacts. Upon completion of a structure in an SFHA, the building must be certified by a registered civil engineer and verified by the community building inspector and City Floodplain Administrator. In general, the standards of construction include provisions for flood risk reduction, including anchoring and flood-resistant materials and construction methods, with the lowest floors elevated at or one foot above the base flood elevation. The City does not allow structures to be built within floodways, i.e., the drainage area necessary for a 100-year floodplain. Compliance with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program requirements and RBMC requirements would reduce potential flood hazards and ensure that pollutants are not released during flood inundation.

Additionally, several policies from the proposed Safety Element would help to reduce flood risks for new development in the City. Policy S-6.1 encourages coordination between local, regional, State, and federal flood control agencies; Policy S-6.2 promotes public education of flood-control measures; Policy S-6.3 directs the City to ensure that City-owned buildings and infrastructure are fortified against flood hazards; and Policy S-6.5 requires new development in the 100-year or 500-year floodplain to comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.

Conformance with the FEMA requirements and the provisions of Title 9 Chapter 12, Flood Damage Prevention, of the RBMC would reduce impacts related to flood hazards for new development or redevelopment to less than significant.

Pollutant Release from Dam Inundation, Tsunamis, and Seiches The King Harbor area, including the commercial/visitor accommodations west of Harbor Drive, is in a tsunami hazard zone. Based on the frequency of historical tsunamis, the probability of occurrence of any tsunami during buildout of the proposed project is low. In the unlikely event one does occur, the Redondo Beach Fire Department has recommended evacuation routes, a tsunami inundation map, and tsunami safety and awareness guidelines. Also, the National Weather Service’s tsunami warning system would keep residents and businesses up to date on evacuation orders. The proposed Safety Element of the General Plan Update includes Policy S-5.2, which directs the City to obtain information from the U.S. Tsunami Warning System and the Tsunami Ready Communities program to send evacuation notices to community members in the event of a tsunami. Policy S-7.7 would require structures along to the coast to be built or upgraded to withstand strong waves from a storm surge. The City’s LCP also requires development within a tsunami inundation zone to provide information concerning the height and force of likely tsunami run-up on the property.

All facilities within King Harbor are required to follow tsunami guidelines and emergency preparedness requirements, in addition to the City’s policies that aim to reduce tsunami risks to the extent possible.

These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The City is not within proximity to any dam inundation areas, as determined by the DWR’s Inundation Maps, and would therefore not be subject to dam breach inundation risks. The City may be subject to impacts from seiches on the Pacific Ocean. The policies and regulations that reduce risks associated with tsunamis would also reduce risks from seiches. For example, Policy S-7.7 would require structures Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 42 -
along the coast to be fortified against waves from a storm surge. Therefore, risks associated with seiches would also be less than significant.

Pollutant Release Due to Sea Level Rise
Additionally, the City faces increased flooding risks associated with rising sea levels which are expected to increase by 13 to 23 inches on the California coast by 2050. As shown in Section 5.9.3, the proposed Safety Element of the General Plan Update includes policies that aim to locate new development outside of areas at risk of coastal inundation and increase the resiliency of structures within these areas.

For example, Policy S-7.1 requires new development of residential buildings and critical infrastructure to be outside of the highest level of sea level rise expected during the life of the project. Policy S-7.4 directs the City to integrate nature-based solutions into sea level rise adaptation strategies, including the construction of living shorelines. Policy S-7.5 would integrate sea level rise projections into the City development and environmental review process. Policy S-7.7 would also help to protect structures from storm surges related to higher tides.

The City’s 2020 LHMP includes hazard mitigation actions to help reduce flooding risks associated with coastal flooding, sea level rise, and storm surge. These actions include developing a Marina Climate Resiliency Master Plan, requiring structures along the coast to be built to withstand strong wave action from storm surge (also implemented by proposed Safety Element Policy S-7.7), and upgrading Cityowned assets to withstand coastal hazards. The City’s LCP also requires wave uprush studies to be submitted to the City for development in the Pier or Harbor area. These policies, strategies, and regulatory requirements would help to reduce the risks of coastal inundation for new development, ensuring impacts are less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.9-41) Impact 5.9-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. [Threshold HYD-5]
New development and redevelopment under the proposed project would implement the requirements of the Statewide CGP, the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, and Title 5 Chapter 7, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the RBMC. Furthermore, Industrial development and redevelopment would abide by the Statewide General Industrial Permit. Policies in the proposed Open Space Element also promote efforts to sustainably manage the City’s groundwater supply from the West Coast Basin. Policy OS-7.4 directs the City to coordinate with the County, utility companies, and other agencies operating in the City to replenish the groundwater supplies in the region, and Policy OS-7.3 directs development to include BMPs that improve natural groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Utilities Element of the General Plan contains policies that target the protection of groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion, including Policy 6.7.1, which directs the City to ensure the continued operation, maintenance, upkeep, and expansion (as necessary) of the existing West Coast Basin Barrier Project groundwater (seawater) intrusion barrier. Policy 6.7.3 ensures that any new development Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 43 -
proposed in the area of the existing groundwater (saltwater) intrusion barrier and freshwater injection well facilities is reviewed to prevent potential impacts or damage to the system.

Adherence to these regulations ensures that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction and operation of development under the proposed project. As a result, site development would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Basin Plan or California Ocean Plan. Proposed development would be connected to the City’s public water supply, and no development would connect to on-site wells for use of groundwater. As discussed in Impact 5.9-2, increased demand due to development pursuant to the GPU would not adversely impact the sustainable management of the West Coast Basin. Due to its status as a low-priority basin, the West Coast Basin does not have an adopted GSP. The supply of the West Coast Basin is also adjudicated to ensure that stakeholders do not exceed the Allowable Pumping Allocation of the Basin. Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.9-42)

8. Land Use and Planning
Impact 5.10-1: Project implementation would not divide an established community. [Threshold LU-1]
Division of an established community commonly occurs because of development and construction of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. In Redondo Beach, SR-1, a north-south highway, bisects the southern portion of the City. Other barriers in the City may include incomplete trails, cul-de-sacs, or noise walls in an existing neighborhood that all require use of an automobile to get around.

The Land Use Element of the proposed project provides policies designed to ensure the prevention of dividing communities. The proposed project includes Policy LU-1.1, which aims to preserve existing residential neighborhood patterns, while balancing development trends and state mandates, Policy LU3.8, which recognizes corridors and the importance of connectivity throughout Redondo Beach, and Policy LU-4.6, which aims to facilitate linkages to parks, beaches, residential neighborhoods, and commercial destinations.

As noted above, several policies of the proposed project would not only improve connectivity, but compatibility between existing and future development. A primary goal of the proposed project is to retain the City’s current character, and several policies of the proposed project address consistency of new development with existing developments using materials, siting, and other design techniques, such as Policy LU-6.14, which requires new development and redevelopment projects to create unique, high-quality places that add value to and are complementary with the community, and Policy LU-3.1, which aims to foster compatibility between land uses to enhance livability and promote healthy Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 44 -
lifestyles. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve amendments to land-use and development standards that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

No aspect of the proposed project would divide the existing City. To the contrary, the proposed project includes provisions that directly address land use connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing neighborhoods and land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact regarding the division of an established community.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to physical division of an established community. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.10-12)

9. Noise
Impact 5.11-3: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan. [Threshold N-2]
Aircraft overflight occurs regularly as the City is near the Hawthorne Municipal Airport (two miles northeast), Torrance Municipal Airport (two miles southeast), and Los Angeles International Airport (three miles north). As previously described, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission’s Airport Land Use Plan (adopted in 1991 and revised in 2004) covers all of the public airports in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission is responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and the Commission’s Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan identifies noise compatibility zones in the form of airport noise contour graphics that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations. No portions of the City are within the 65 dBA noise contours, or any noise contours, of any of these airports. Therefore, people within Redondo Beach would not be exposed to excessive noise levels and there would be no impact.

Finding. The proposed project would have no significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to airport noise. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.11-45)

10. Population and Housing
Impact 5.12-2: Project implementation would not result in displacing people and/or housing. [Threshold P-2]
Redondo Beach is developed with a variety of land uses, and the proposed project includes minor changes in land use. Changes would occur on lands that offer opportunities for enhancement and in areas where business prosperity, job opportunities, and civic activity can be strengthened. These land use changes are intended to shape future development to protect existing residential neighborhoods, economically successful commercial and industrial districts, and parks and open spaces. Additionally, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 45 -
some of these land use changes also seek to support transit-oriented development (TOD) principles and revitalization efforts of some commercial centers. Updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, and LCP would include modifications for consistency with the proposed Focused General Plan Update and would not involve land-use changes that would cause a greater increase in population and employment growth than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update.

Land use changes under the proposed project would increase opportunities for housing in the City— for example, by converting commercial designations to mixed-use and increasing residential density in existing residential areas. The proposed Land Use Plan would provide land use designations for a variety of housing types and provide for additional residential opportunities throughout Redondo Beach. The proposed project would accommodate 4,956 new housing units compared to existing conditions, exceeding the RHNA goal of 2,490 new units. Therefore, impacts to the displacement of people and/or housing would be less than significant as a result of the proposed project implementation as existing residential uses within proposed commercial zones shall be considered legally conforming.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to the displacement of people. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.12-12)

11. Public Services
Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project would introduce new structures and residents into the Redondo Beach Fire Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection equipment and personnel. [Threshold FP-1] The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Future development and population growth in the City accommodated by the proposed project would increase the demand for the provision of local fire services including new fire apparatuses and personnel to maintain adequate response times. The proposed project would result in an increase of 8,667 people by 2050 buildout, resulting in a total of 78,978 people in the City.

RBFD did not identify any deficiencies in its department, and there are no intended improvements or expansions of the existing fire stations within Redondo Beach (Regan 2023). Implementation of the proposed project would require additional staffing at Stations #1 through #3 to continue delivering the current level of service to existing and new residents and businesses. Implementation of Policy S9.2 will ensure that equipment and personnel keep pace with service demand.

Funds for facilities, equipment, and service personnel come from the City’s property taxes. Funding from property taxes would be expected to grow roughly proportional to any increase in residential units, businesses, and/or industrial/manufacturing in Redondo Beach. The additional demand for fire services and protection generated in the City would be satisfied through property taxes. Development Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 46 -
in the City would also be reviewed by RBFD for compliance with applicable provisions of the California fire and residential codes.

Furthermore, policies S-9.1 through S-9.6 in the Safety Element of the Redondo Beach General Plan would ensure adequate protection of public health and safety related to fire and emergency services, by adopting new development standards to reduce fire hazard risks and support programs that assist in the reduction of fires. Compliance with these policies will ensure that the implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Funding for additional staff, equipment, and facilities to serve the City’s future growth in residential/commercial/industrial developments and population would come from the City’s property taxes. Therefore, impacts to fire protection and emergency services and facilities would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to fire protection services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.13-7)
Impact 5.13-2: The proposed project would introduce new structures, businesses, and residents into the Redondo Beach Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for police protection equipment and personnel. [Threshold PP-1]
As the City’s population and employment growth increases, the need for police services is expected to grow. The Redondo Reach General Plan would result in an increase of 8,667 people by 2050 buildout, resulting in total of 78,978 people in the City.

RBPD’s response time target to all calls is 30 seconds from the time of call. As noted above, the average time for Priority One calls was 2:54 minutes, and the average time for Priority Two calls was approximately 4:31 minutes. Increases in population in Redondo Beach have the potential to further impact service response times below the target goal established by the RBPD. If calls for service increase and exceed the capacity of RBPD’s existing workforce, additional staff would be needed, and ongoing revenue would be needed to fund additional staff. The additional officers would not be hired all at the same time because the growth in population would occur over time. Moreover, the hiring of additional officers would be dependent on the department’s assessed needs, based primarily on the growing number of calls for service or decreases in average response times in the future.

Funds for facilities, equipment, and service personnel come from the City’s property taxes, the City’s general fund, and are supplemented by State and Federal grant programs. Funding would be expected to grow roughly proportional to any increase in residential units, businesses, and/or industrial/manufacturing businesses in Redondo Beach. The additional demand for police services and protection generated within the City would be satisfied through property taxes and the general fund.

Additionally, as identified in the service letter provided by RBPD, there are no existing deficiencies in the police department and the General Plan Update would not affect RBPD’s ability to provide service (Sprengel 2024). Therefore, impacts to police services and facilities would be less than significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 47 -
Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to police protection services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.13-11)
Impact 5.13-3: The proposed project would generate new students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of area schools. [Threshold SS-1] The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of additional dwelling units and an increase in population, resulting in an increase in student population in the City, which is served by RBUSD.

School districts use district-specific rates to project the number of students that will be generated by new residential development so they can plan for future facilities expansions or constructions.

According to the Fee Justification Study prepared for RBUSD, by the 2028/2029 school year, the district is projected to have surplus capacity available throughout the school district.

The proposed project would result in an increase of 4,956 residential dwelling units. Of the 4,956 dwelling units, 1,408 would accommodate single family dwelling units and 3,548 would accommodate multi-family dwelling units. Therefore, based on RBUSD's established student generation rates shown in Table 13-4, implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 1,751 students, which would include 823 elementary students, 383 middle school students, and 545 high school students. The City is served by eight elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one adult school, and one alternative education school; these existing schools could likely serve these new students because districtwide, RBUSD has available capacity for additional students and historically the enrollment capacity has remained consistent (see Table 5.15-8). Additionally, RBUSD expressed that it may increase classrooms at the existing elementary schools to accommodate full-day kindergarten programs, which would continue to increase school and districtwide capacity (Naile 2023).

If RBUSD needs to expand and construct new facilities to accommodate the growth generated by buildout of the Redondo Beach General Plan, funding for new schools would be obtained from the fee program pursuant to SB 50, and state and federal funding programs. Pursuant to Section 65996 of the Government Code, payment of school fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. At the general plan level of analysis, it is speculative and infeasible to evaluate projectspecific environmental impacts associated with the specific construction of future school facilities since specific sites and time frames for development are unknown. When specific projects are necessary to meet the growth demands from buildout of the proposed project, the appropriate level of analysis required under CEQA would be conducted by the RBUSD. Furthermore, policies in the Land Use Element would ensure adequate school services, including Policies LU-1.5 and LU-1.13. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Redondo Beach General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact related to schools.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to school services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 48 -
required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.13-17)
Impact 5.13-4: The proposed project would generate new residents who would impact the library capabilities of the City. [Threshold LS-1]
The buildout of the proposed project would result in an increase in population and thus, a demand for library services. As described by Redondo Beach Library personnel, the two libraries are approximately 62,000 square feet and have a collection of 207,000 items. The Redondo Beach Library continues to assess the use of its materials and prepares a strategic plan. Therefore, any new increase in library uses would be assessed and addressed in the strategic plan (Vinke 2023).

Funding for library services comes primarily from the City’s property taxes as well as library fines; fees collected from patrons; and state, federal, or local government aid. Therefore, as development occurs, property taxes would grow proportionally with the proposed new residents. Additionally, access to online resources, including e-books and audiobooks, are available at the Redondo Beach Libraries.

Therefore, impacts to library facilities would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to library services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.13-19)

12. Recreation
Impact 5.14-1: The proposed project would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. [Threshold R-1] The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Buildout of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 4,956 dwelling units, which would result in an estimated population of 8,667 residents. The proposed project would increase the existing population in the City from 70,311 residents to 78,978 residents by buildout. This increase in population would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in a demand for new parks.

Each jurisdiction determines the appropriate park standard based on the guidance provided by Section 66472 of the California Government Code, commonly referred to as the Quimby Act, which allows a City to require a standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Currently, Redondo Beach has 148.8 acres of developed parkland. This excludes recreational opportunities at schools and other private facilities. As shown in Table 5.14-2, Demand for Public Parks in the City at General Plan Buildout, based on its current population of approximately 70,311, there are 2.12 acres of existing park land per 1,000 people; as a result, the City currently does not meet the recommended standard of 3 acres per 1,000 people. The proposed project would result in an anticipated increase of 8,667 people which Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 49 -
results in a demand for approximately 26 additional acres of parks to accommodate Redondo Beach’s population at buildout.

The proposed project identifies two future opportunities to develop park facilities, totaling 38 acres, which include 34 acres associated with Southern California Edison Right-of-Way (includes portions used for nursery and turf areas that are not accessible to the public)and 3.2 acres of green spaces such as Wylie Sump, Don Owens Parkette and Edward P Greene Parkette. In addition, the AES Powerplant site may be redeveloped with non-industrial uses as it represents the largest opportunity for the City to reclaim land for parks and open space. While the powerplant is no longer operational, demolition, clean up, and other site mitigation could take time to achieve, and as a result, the site may not be available for conversion to public parkland during the 20-year planning horizon of this element. Furthermore, new residential subdivision development would be required to dedicate parkland or pay an in-lieu fee, as included in Policy OS-5.1, and OS-5.3, which would allow the for the establishment of financing districts to fund the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parkland and recreational facilities.

The availability of new facilities would prevent the accelerated physical deterioration of existing facilities. Additionally, there are a number of other potential park and recreational facilities in the City, such as trails, recreational programs and amenities, and joint-use school facilities, to serve the proposed residents. Additionally, the proposed project includes several policies, OS-2.1, OS-2.5, OS-5.5, and OS-5.6, which support development of a variety of park types, upgrade existing facilities, and finding alternate funding to build new facilities. Therefore, with development of additional park facilities on the aforementioned opportunity sites, dedicated parkland or in-lieu fees as well as the goals, polices and implementation actions included as part of the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to the use of existing park facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.14-15)
Impact 5.14-2: Project implementation would result in environmental impacts to provide new and expanded recreational facilities. [Threshold R 2]
Based on the City’s population growth and availability of funds, portions of undeveloped land would be improved as parks and recreational facilities to provide residents with new recreational opportunities while meeting the parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Parks are also a permitted use under other land use designations (e.g., residential land uses), which could result in the development of additional parkland opportunities outside of park-designated parcels.

The proposed project identifies two future opportunities to develop park facilities, which include 34 acres associated with Southern California Edison Right-of-Way (includes portions used for nursery and turf areas that are not accessible to the public) and 3.2 acres of green spaces such as Wylie Sump, Don Owens Parkette and Edward P Greene Parkette. Development and operation of future new or expanded parks and recreational facilities may have an adverse physical effect on the environment, including impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, lighting, noise, and traffic. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of new and/or expansions of existing recreational facilities in Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 50 -
accordance with the proposed land use plan are addressed separately. Construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.13, Noise. Addressing the site-specific impacts of these parks at this time is beyond the scope of this EIR.

Subsequent environmental review for individual park developments would be required. Further, potentially adverse impacts to the environment that may result from the expansion of parks and recreational facilities pursuant to buildout of the proposed land use plan would be less than significant upon the implementation of the Redondo Beach General Plan policies, such as Policy OS-2.1 and OS2.5, and existing federal, state, and local regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts relating to new or expanded recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.14-15)

13. Transportation
Impact 5.15-3: The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Thresholds T-3] The proposed project has been prepared at a programmatic level and does not propose any incompatible uses that would significantly increase hazards. Future development would undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with adopted standards, including site plan review, and environmental review. Therefore, future development projects will be subject to the detailed project-level reviews, and any potential for hazards associated with geometric design features would be addressed through the environmental and site plan review of individual projects to include the provision of safe access for vehicles, pedestrian, and bicyclists, which would incorporate standards for adequate sight distance, sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian movement controls to protect pedestrian and enhance bicycle safety. Furthermore, the SBBMP safety policies target bicycle safety, bicycle facility improvements and bicycle-transit integration. This impact is considered to be less than significant for the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to hazards caused by geometric design features. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.15-45) Impact 5.15-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access [Threshold T-4]
The proposed project has been prepared at a programmatic level and does not include elements that would impede emergency vehicle access. Future development projects would be required to be reviewed and evaluated for emergency access, and other project-level reviews in the context of design and environmental review. Policy S-4.3 of the Safety Element would ensure that new development, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 51 -
especially high-occupancy facilities, allow for evacuation of occupants through stabilized corridors and access points in the event of an emergency. Public roadways and buildings would require conformance to City and Fire Code standards for access. Additionally, a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. At that time, any specific improvements needed to maintain adequate emergency access would be identified and required of the development. Since all future projects will undergo such reviews and requirements to assess the potential for effects to emergency access, this impact is considered less than significant for the proposed project, and no mitigation is required.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to emergency access. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.15-45)

14. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 5.17-1: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate projectgenerated wastewater infrastructure demands and not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. [Threshold U-1]
Implementation of the proposed project would require construction of new sewer infrastructure where existing sewer lines are not sufficient to accommodate the increased demand. These determinations would be made on a project-by-project basis, including site-specific sewer flow monitoring and hydraulic sewer analysis. Although the City’s SSMP does not include criteria for determination of hydraulic capacity, typical criteria include D/d (flow depth over diameter ratio) of not greater than 50 to 75 percent. The CIP process along with the City’s sewer impact and sewer user fees facilitates and funds City-constructed upgrades to sewer pipelines based on flow depth assumptions.

As noted above, the City’s sewer infrastructure has struggled to meet the demand of new ADUs and higher density housing conversions. Preparation of a Sewer Master Plan would help prioritize future sewer upgrades and support the buildout of the City. Part of this process would include obtaining current sewer flow conditions to assist with capacity evaluations. All development or redevelopment projects resulting in changes to existing sewer flows would be required to perform sewer flow monitoring tests at specific manholes approved by the Public Works Department to confirm existing flow depths, D/d values and impacts of the proposed development on the existing sewer system. The developer or applicant would be responsible for any sewer upgrades needed to support the project while maintaining the sewer capacity for existing customers (Fuscoe 2024). As directed by Policies

6.1.7, 6.1.8, and 6.1.9 in the existing Utilities Element, the Sewer Master Plan should include a sewer rate study that would review existing sewer impact and user fees and connection fees (capital facility fee) to determine if adjustments and changes are required in order for the City to collect the adequate fees to maintain existing service and plan accordingly for future regional improvements.

The construction of on-site and off-site sewer lines and associated improvements would primarily include trenching for the pipelines. All construction would be performed in accordance with the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 52 -
Construction General Permit, which would include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan if the area of disturbance exceeds one acre. Any work that may affect services to the existing sewer lines would be coordinated with the City and LACSD. LACSD shall review all future developments within the City to determine whether sufficient trunk sewer capacity exists to serve each development and if the LACSD’s facilities would be impacted by the development. This review is accomplished through the LACSD’s Will-Serve Program. A Will-Serve letter from LACSD would include information regarding the anticipated wastewater flows that would be generated by the proposed development, along with a statement of whether the LACSD’s trunk sewer system would have capacity to accept the flows. The most recent data demonstrates that peak flows throughout the City are well below the design capacity of the LACSD trunk lines, indicating that there is sufficient capacity for growth, as stated in LACSD’s response to the NOP for the proposed project (see Appendix A). The City also requires the approval of new development to be contingent upon the ability of the proposed development to be served by sewer infrastructure under Policy 6.1.5 in the existing Utilities Element.

Septic systems in the City are regulated under Section 5-7.111, of Title 5, Chapter 7, of the RBMC.

While septic systems are permitted in the City, it is unlawful to leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical or septic waste to precipitation in an area that discharges to City streets or MS4. Septic systems are also regulated by the 2022 Plumbing Code (Title 24, Part 5 of the California Code of Regulations), which is adopted with amendments into the RBMC as Title 9, Chapter 5.

Furthermore, a Construction Management Plan or equivalent, which would ensure safe pedestrian access as well as emergency vehicle access and safe vehicle travel in general, would be implemented to reduce any temporary pedestrian and traffic impacts occurring as a result of construction activities from future development of wastewater facilities. Title 3, Chapter 14 of the RBMC requires construction activities in the right-of-way to obtain an encroachment permit. Compliance with LACSD procedures and City policy would ensure that impacts associated with the potential future construction of wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to construction and/or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-14) Impact 5.17-2: Project-generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the wastewater service provider for the project. [Threshold U-3]
Buildout of the proposed project would result in the addition of 4,956 dwelling units and 5,681,999 square feet of nonresidential uses. In lieu of City-specific sewer generation factors, the City of Los Angeles’ “Sewerage Facilities Charge and Sewage Generation Factors for Residential and Commercial Categories” was used to estimate the net increase in sewer flows as a result of the General Plan buildout.

Table 5.17-2, Proposed Project Sewer Generation, shows how the increases in dwelling units and nonresidential square footage under the proposed land use plan would increase sewer flows.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 53 -
The buildout of the proposed project as a result of the proposed land use plan is estimated to result in an additional 960 acre-feet per year (afy) (0.86 million gallons per day) or approximately 0.86 mgd of sewer flows. These estimates are considered conservative since the available unit flow factors from the City of Los Angeles’ Sewerage Facilities Charge are generalized for a limited number of land use categories. More information about the assumptions used to generate these sewer flow factors is provided in Appendix B and D of Appendix F.

Additionally, the projected increase in sewer flows shown in Table 5.17-2 is lower than estimates provided by LACSD in their formal comment letter associated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (See Appendix F). LACSD estimated that the General Plan Update would generate up to 2.8 mgd, but the calculations in Table 5.17-2 take into account a more detailed land use breakdown and assume lower sewer generation rates due to more recent trends in water use. Water demand rates have dropped significantly over the past decade due to drought caused water-saving requirements, improvements in water efficiency for new construction, and recognition that higher density residential tends to utilize less water per unit than other residential types. In general, local water providers have made significant strides to analyze and provide more current water demands influenced by these factors while sewer flow projections have remained conservative. In addition to conservation trends, legislation has also resulted in lower water demands, which in turn result in lower sewer demands. SB 1157 requires the standard for indoor water usage to be no more than 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) currently and reduces it to 47 gpcd in 2025. Based on these trends, agencies may produce water demand estimates that are lower than the sewer flow projections for the same project. Therefore, the City of Los Angeles’ sewer generation rates were utilized as they are more reflective of current water and sewer demands.

While the land use plan under the proposed project is expected to increase sewer flows by approximately 0.86 mgd, this would be within the JWPCP’s remaining treatment capacity of 156.9 mgd.

Discharges from the JWPCP and its associated wastewater collection system and outfalls are required to comply with the Plant’s NPDES Permit (NPDES No. CA0053813, Order No. R4-2023-0181). As development occurs, sewer flow increases would be evaluated alongside JWPCP’s other service areas.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wastewater treatment. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-15)
Impact 5.17-3: The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. [Threshold U-1] Buildout of the proposed project would add 4,956 dwelling units and 5,681,999 nonresidential square feet in the City, based on the land use changes proposed under the General Plan Update (see Chapter 3, Project Description). The City of Los Angeles’ “Sewerage Facilities Charge and Sewage Generation Factors for Residential and Commercial Categories” was utilized to estimate changes in water demand associated with the changes in land use. Each of the proposed General Plan land uses was aligned to land use types listed on the sewerage facilities sheet and multiplied by 110 percent to yield a conservative indoor and outdoor water demand. Table 5.17-7, Net Change in Water Demand Under Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 54 -
the Proposed Project, shows the net change in water demand as a result of the proposed land use changes. As shown in the table, water demand would increase by 1,056 afy under proposed conditions.

Projects under the General Plan Update would require the construction of new water infrastructure where existing water lines are not sufficient to accommodate the increased supply demands. These determinations would be made on a project-by-project basis because development projects in the City would be required to obtain a Will-Serve letter from Cal Water, pay connection fees, and undergo sitespecific fire-flow tests and hydraulic pressure analyses.

The Will-Serve process requires the applicant to provide a detailed description of the proposed project, including the existing water demands and the proposed water demands. Based on the increased demand, connection fees will be applied to ensure the water agency collects funds to provide the additional demand while maintaining services to existing consumers and set aside reserves for future upgrades where needed. The results of the fire flow and hydraulic pressure analyses determine the onsite and off-site improvements required to ensure proper water delivery and fire flow to the project site while maintaining services to existing clients. Cal Water typically requires a minimum of 20 psi (pounds per square inch) as a lower limit of pressure within the water pipeline during fire suppression operations. This ensures that firefighters have access to water of sufficient pressure. Additionally, the American Water Works Association recommends a normal static pressure of 60 to 75 psi throughout the water system. A minimum normal operating pressure of 35 to 45 psi is typically permitted for peakhour flow conditions. Maximum allowable velocities within the pipelines range from 5 to 8 feet per second for peak-hour scenarios, and 10 to 12 feet per second for fire suppression operations. This process covers both potable water systems and recycled water systems.

Future improvements to the City’s water system may include upsizing water lines on-site and off-site and the additions of boosters in low-pressure areas. Additionally, the 2025 UWMP for the HermosaRedondo District would be required to incorporate the proposed land use changes under the General Plan Update into its water demand and supply projections out to 2050.

Policies in the Utilities Element of the existing General Plan also ensure that new development is served by water infrastructure. For example, Policy 6.3.1 directs the City to provide adequate water supply, transmission, distribution, and storage throughout the City, while Policy 6.3.2 would ensure that these systems are upgraded and expanded as necessary to meet the demands of new development, and Policy 6.3.3 directs the City to replace and maintain these systems as necessary. Policy 6.3.5 also requires that the approval of new development be contingent on the ability of the development to be served by adequate water infrastructure and service. Policy 6.3.7 requires new development to pay its fair share for water supply and conveyance infrastructure through the payment of impact fees or by the actual construction of the necessary physical improvements.

Other existing State regulations and policies would also ensure that new development provides water service that meets adopted water conservation requirements. For example, new construction would be required to comply with the water-efficiency requirements of CALGreen, California Plumbing Code, and the City’s MWELO. New construction for both residential and commercial land uses typically achieves a reduction in water usage rates of 20 percent through compliance with these regulations.

Additionally, projects that meet the criteria under California Water Code Section 10912 would be Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 55 -
required to prepare a WSA that demonstrates that project water demands would not exceed water supplies. Furthermore, residential, commercial, and industrial water usage can be expected to decrease in the future as a result of the implementation of AB 1668 and SB 606, which set new standards for indoor and outdoor residential water use, commercial water use for landscape irrigation with dedicated meters, and water loss standards.

The construction of the on-site and off-site water lines and associated improvements would primarily include trenching for the pipelines. All construction would be performed in accordance with the Construction General Permit and associated requirements. Any work that may affect services to the existing water lines would be coordinated with the City and Cal Water, including the obtainment of encroachment permits from the City for all improvements within the public right-of-way. When considering impacts resulting from the installation of any required water infrastructure, all impacts are of a relatively short-term duration and would cease once the installation is complete. Therefore, impacts with the expansion of water infrastructure to serve the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to construction of new or expanded water facilities (potable and nonpotable).

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-37) Impact 5.17-4: Available water supplies are sufficient to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. [Threshold U-2]
As shown in Table 5.17-4, the Hermosa-Redondo District estimates that from 2020 to 2045 water supply will decrease from 11,153 afy to 10,757 afy. Cal Water plans to purchase less imported water from WBMWD and rely more on groundwater from the West Coast Subbasin. This trend is a result of Cal Water’s plans to maximize the use of its groundwater and recycled water supplies. The projected purchases from WBMWD shown in Table 5.17-8, Purchased Water Supply, are the differences between projected demand and other projected (groundwater and recycled water) supplies. The projected groundwater supplies match the Cal Water’s total allowable pumping allocation of 4,070 afy.

The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that it will be able to serve 100 percent of projected demands in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years (WBMUD 2021). Because of this, Cal Water expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, purchased water supplies, in combination with groundwater and recycled supplies will fully meet future demands. Cal Water has purchased up to 10,450 afy of imported water through the WBMWD (as shown in Table 5.17-4). Table 5.17-8 shows the projected water supplies from Cal Water’s 2015 UWMP. As shown in Table 5.17-8, Cal Water projected purchasing up to 8,527 afy by the year 2040 within its 2015 UWMP (Cal Water 2016).

The proposed project would result in an increase of 1,056 afy at buildout when compared to the current General Plan. As shown in Table 5.17-8, this increase is within the conservative residual water supply numbers available to Cal Water from WBMWD if needed.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 56 -
New construction is also subject to a number of regulations and policies that would further reduce water use. For example, developments would be required to comply with the water efficient requirements of CALGreen, California Plumbing Code, and the City’s MWELO. New construction for both residential and commercial land uses typically achieve a reduction in water usage rates of 20 percent through compliance with these regulations. Also, Policy OS-7.1 in the proposed Open Space and Conservation Element directs new development to adopt the most efficient available water practices. The City seeks to improve public education of water conservation practices through Policy OS-7.2 and improve coordination with its water purveyors to promote the most efficient operation and maintenance of the City’s water supply, transmission, distribution, and storage system and facilities through Policy 6.3.5 in the existing Utilities Element.

As documented in Tables 5.17-5, the Hermosa-Redondo District can meet all customers’ demands during normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions with excess water available. In addition, the District will continue to implement and expand its water conservation program, which includes water efficiency rebates to residential and commercial customers, water waste prevention ordinances, conservation pricing, and public education and outreach.

Water supplies would be available to meet the demand of the proposed project and therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to water supply. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-38)
Impact 5.17-5: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the proposed project and not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. [Threshold U-1]
The City is primarily built-out with buildings, roadways, pavement, and other impervious surfaces therefore no new sources of stormwater or flood flows are anticipated. Current runoff is captured and conveyed by existing City storm drain infrastructure throughout the City before discharging to County flood control facilities and channels and ultimately reaching the Pacific Ocean. New land development consistent with the proposed project would connect to the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. Additionally, existing City and County regulations would ensure that new development and redevelopment does not exceed the capacity of storm drainage facilities.

For example, per the requirements of the LACDPW, as detailed in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual and the Los Angeles County Hydraulic Design Manual, development under the proposed project would be required to have site-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies to determine the capacity of the existing storm drain systems and project impacts on such systems prior to approval by the LACDPW. Development under the proposed project would be required to comply with sitespecific “allowable discharge rates” that limit post-project peak-flow discharges compared to existing conditions, thus minimizing the potential for flooding on- or off-site and exceedance of the capacity Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 57 -
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The hydrology and hydraulic studies must be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Development projects would also be required to prepare and submit a SUSMP per the MS4 permit and Section 5-7.113 of the RMBC, which would include applicable low impact development requirements in the MS4 permit and Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Projects would be designed to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume as reasonably feasible by controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. The final BMPs to be implemented for the proposed project would be determined through the City’s review of the SUSMP, which would occur during the City’s building plan check process. Additionally, the proposed project would incorporate into the project a stormwater mitigation plan, including the BMPs necessary to control stormwater pollution from project operations as set forth in the SUSMP. Structural or treatment control BMPs in project plans would meet the design standards in the SUSMP and MS4 permit. The project developer would also provide verification of maintenance provisions for treatment and structural control BMPs.

Furthermore, the City’s policy on flood control requires that developers seeking to construct a multifamily residential project of more than four units or a commercial project of more than one acre will be allowed to discharge one cubic foot per second per acre of site area. Detention systems would be required, when necessary, to mitigate the drainage impacts.

Moreover, policies within the existing Utilities Element also ensure that new development is adequately served by storm drainage utilities. For example, Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 require the City to provide, operate, maintain, and repair storm drainage facilities in the City. Policy 6.2.3 requires that the approval of new development be contingent upon the ability of the development to be served with adequate storm drainage infrastructure. Policy 6.2.5 also directs the City to upgrade and expand storm drainage facilities for areas currently underserved by such facilities. Policy 6.2.7 would ensure that expansions for service to new development are paid for by the project proponent.

In addition, the specific location and design of future storm drainage systems (new or expanded) required to provide services in accordance with the proposed project are not known at this time, and therefore it would be speculative to provide environmental analysis for construction-related impacts.

Improvements would also be subject to the proposed General Plan goals and policies; federal, state, and local regulations; and applicable mitigation measures as detailed in each topical section of this Draft PEIR. Therefore, construction-related impacts are concluded less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-49) Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 58 -
Impact 5.17-6: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate projectgenerated solid waste, and the proposed project would comply with related solid waste regulations and reduction goals. [Thresholds U-4 and U-5] The baseline solid waste disposal for the City (2022-2023) is estimated to be 78,704 tons. The existing (2023) service population in Redondo Beach is assumed to be 98,949, which accounts for employees and residents. Therefore, the baseline waste generation rate for the City is 0.8 tons/service population/year. The service population of the City under buildout of the General Plan is projected to be 115,605 residents and employees (see Table 3-4, Summary of Existing and Proposed Land Uses). Using the City’s baseline waste generation rate, the anticipated waste generation for the City per year under buildout of the General Plan by 2050 is 92,484 tons.1 This represents a net increase of 13,780 tons of waste by 2050. This assumes that the current diversion rate for Redondo Beach remains the same. It is likely that with the expansion of organics and recycling programs, the diversion rate would increase in the future, resulting in a decrease in solid waste landfill disposal.

A total of 13,780 tons/year would average about 46 tons/day (assuming 300 disposal days/year). This increase would be approximately 0.2 percent of the current excess capacity of 24,513 tons/day at the landfills listed in Table 5.17-10. In addition, these calculations conservatively assume that current diversion rates remain the same and there is no increased diversion rate for organics and recycling.

Furthermore, all development pursuant to the proposed project would comply with Section 4.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The California Building Code and Redondo Beach Municipal Code also require a construction and demolition materials management plan prior to issuance of building permits for large projects. Furthermore, project-related construction and operation phases would comply with the following federal, state, and local laws and regulations that govern solid waste disposal:
 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, which govern solid waste disposal.
 AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.), which required diversion of 50 percent of waste from landfills and required each county to provide landfill capacity for a 15-year period.
 AB 1327 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) which requires local agencies to adopt ordinances mandating the use of recyclable materials in development projects.  AB 1826, which mandates that businesses that generate two or more cubic yards of solid waste, recycling, and organic waste combined per week to start recycling organic waste.  AB 341 that mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses as well as schools and school districts. Businesses and housing that includes five or more units must also arrange for organic waste recycling services if they generate two or more cubic yards per week of 1 0.8 tons per service population per year * 115,605 service population = 92,484 tons per year Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 59 -
solid waste (including recycling and organic waste), in accordance with AB 1826. Organic waste generation would be reduced in line with the targets set by SB 1383.

Additionally, the policies listed in the City’s existing Solid Waste Management and Recycling Element, including Policies 7.1.1 through 7.2.5, promote compliance with State and federal waste management policies and encourage monitoring of waste services to increase waste diversion in the City.

Development under the General Plan would also be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 5, Sanitation and Health, of the RBMC. Article 7 of the RBMC requires covered projects to submit a recycling report after the completion of a demolition project in addition to a waste management plan, and Article 8 requires single-family residences and commercial businesses to dispose of organic waste. With continued compliance with the applicable regulations, leading to increased recycling and waste diversion and adherence to the General Plan goals, objectives, policies, anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to solid waste. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-59)
Impact 5.17-7: Development pursuant to the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. [Threshold U-1] Electricity
Electrical service to the City is provided by SCE and CPA through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Section 5.5, Table 5.5-3, Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2050, electricity use in the City would increase by 230,624,940 kWh/year, or approximately 35 percent, from existing conditions. The total mid-electricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to increase by approximately 23,200 GWh between 2022 and 2035 (CEC 2024c). Therefore, the forecast increase in electricity demand for the plan area is well within the forecast demand in SCE’s service area. Buildout of the General Plan would not require SCE to obtain additional electricity supplies, and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, any development pursuant to the proposed GPU would be required to comply with energy efficiency standards set forth by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, appliance efficiency regulations set forth by Title 20 of the California Administrative Code, and CALGreen. Furthermore, several policies in the existing Utilities Element would ensure that new development is served by electrical utilities and that the utilities comply with energy efficiency standards. For example, Policy

6.4.2 requires that the approval of new development in the City be contingent upon the ability of the project to be served with adequate electrical infrastructure and service. Policy 6.4.7 directs the City to work with SCE to develop and implement a menu of programs for public information/education and action to encourage electricity conservation practices. Therefore, project development would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies, and impacts would be less than significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 60 -
Natural Gas
As shown in Table 5.5-4, Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, in Section 5.5, existing natural gas use in the City totals 11,148,598 therms annually. By 2050, natural gas use in the City would increase by 2,623,262 therms annually, or approximately 24 percent, from existing conditions to a total of 13,771,860 therms per year. This increase is less than 0.01 percent of the total natural gas consumed in the SoCalGas service area in 2022 of 6,565 million therms. SoCalGas forecasts that it will have sufficient supplies to meet demands in its service area (CGEU 2018).

Therefore, the net increase in natural gas demand due to the buildout of the proposed project is within the amount that SoCalGas forecasts that it will supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies. Additionally, policies in the existing Utilities Element would ensure that new development is served by natural gas utilities. For example, Policy 6.5.1 directs the City to improve communication with SoCalGas to ensure the most efficient and safe operation and maintenance of the City’s natural gas supply system and facilities. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the approval of new development in the City to be served by natural gas be contingent upon the ability of the project to be served with adequate natural gas infrastructure and service. Policy 6.5.3 requires that all new development to be served by natural gas install on-site pipeline connections to distribution facilities underground. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed project would not require SoCalGas to obtain new or expanded natural gas supplies, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts to electrical and natural gas utilities would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the General Plan Update would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Furthermore, a number of franchised telecommunications providers are available in the region, and no significant expansion or construction of the telecommunications network is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, several policies in the existing General Plan Utilities Element would also ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is modernized and provided where needed and when new infrastructure is added, so it does not result in impacts to the environment. For example, Policy 6.6.1 directs the City to provide for the continued development, expansion, and modernization of telecommunications systems, and Policy 6.6.3 directs the City to pursue the expansion of coverage and availability of local cable television programming for government and community service meetings and events, public service notices and activities, and other nonprofit or community-serving programs that may be of interest or value to the community. Policy 6.6.6 directs the City to work with telecommunications providers to ensure that outdoor telephone facilities are located and designed so as to prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties. As discussed, the General Plan Update would not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.17-70).

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 61 -
C. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CAN BE

REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures in the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.

1. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-2: Future development facilitated by the proposed project could impact or cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of known and/or unknown archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2]
Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the PRC. Cultural resources are also recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the PRC and CEQA. Per Section 21083.2 of CEQA, the lead agency is required to determine whether a development project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the project-level CEQA document being prepared for the development project is required to address the issue of those resources.

The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Before any development or redevelopment activities would occur in the City, all such activities would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Therefore, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to the disturbance of archaeological resources.

Although the proposed project includes policies that would minimize impacts to archaeological resources, such as OS 2.10, long-term implementation of the proposed project could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Therefore, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded archaeological resources, and impacts could be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR in an abundance of caution and are applicable to the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the Final PEIR.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 62 -
CUL-2 Cultural Resources Assessment. For discretionary projects that involve grounddisturbing activities during construction on areas where no previous ground disturbance or excavation has occurred, or ground-disturbing activities would occur in native soil, a site-specific cultural resources study shall be completed prior to project approval. The study shall include records searches of the California Historical Resources Information System and the Sacred Lands File maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches shall determine if the proposed project has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If the records search identifies a sensitivity for archaeological resources, an archaeological resources assessment shall be performed under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. If the archaeological assessment indicates the area to be of medium sensitivity for archaeological resources, an archaeologist who meets the PQS shall be retained on an on-call basis.

If the archaeological assessment indicated the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities.

CUL-3 All Projects. If cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, archaeologist, tribal representatives, and the Director of the Community Development Department, or their assigned designee. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representatives, developer, and archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Director of the Community Development Department, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Policies incorporated into the proposed project and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require specific measures to identify, protect, and preserve cultural resources such as conducting site-specific archeological resources studies, monitoring earth-disturbing activities, and evaluating and recovering cultural resources found during construction activities. Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts associated with archaeological resources to a level that is less than significant Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 63 -
by avoiding or recovering the archaeological resource(s). Therefore, no significant adverse impacts relating to archaeological resources have been identified. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.4-15)

2. Geology and Soils
Impact 5.6-4: Development under the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. [Threshold G-6] Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Adoption of the proposed project would not directly affect paleontological resources. Long-term implementation of the General Plan update land use plan could allow development, including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, future development accommodated by the proposed project could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Review and protection of paleontological resources are afforded by CEQA for individual development projects subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the Proposed General Plan.

Research conducted by Cogstone using the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the University of California Museum of Paleontology database, the PaleoBiology Database, and various print sources, indicate that paleontological sensitivity rankings (see Table 5.6-2) do not surpass level 3, indicating moderate sensitivity. Within the given sensitivities, records show palaeontologic resources are mainly found in Pleistocene deposits.

Long-term implementation of the proposed project could allow development, including grading, on portions of the City with sensitivity to paleontological resources. Therefore, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 requires evaluating paleontological sensitivities prior to grading, and GEO-2 dictates the required process in the event of fossil discovery. Additionally, Policy OS-2.10 requires proper planning when dealing with the preservation and enhancement of unique and valuable community resources as part of the planning and development of various projects within the City.

GEO-1 Low to High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for discretionary projects that involve ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have sensitivity, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 64 -
Mitigation Plan. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during ground disturbing activities as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-2.

GEO-2 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, ground disturbing activities shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified, and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed as part of the Paleontological Impact Mitigation Plan (GEO-1) and prior to collection of the fossils.

Rationale for Finding
Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, Impact 5.6-4 would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.6-27)

3. Noise
Impact 5.11-2: Buildout of the proposed project may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration [N-2]
Construction Vibration
Construction vibration is a potential occurrence within Redondo Beach and will continue to be so regardless of whether the General Plan Update is adopted. Construction-related vibration near individual construction sites associated with development and activities under the proposed General Plan Update would not be substantially different from what they would be under the existing 1992 City of Redondo Beach General Plan.

Construction activities will occur in a variety of locations throughout Redondo Beach and will most likely require the use of off-road equipment known to generate some degree of vibration. Construction activities that generate excessive vibration, such as blasting, would not be expected to occur from future development due to the geography of Redondo Beach and the small number of properties with potential development, which reduces the likelihood of blasting during construction.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 65 -
Receptors sensitive to vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and the sick), and equipment (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging equipment, high resolution lithographic, optical and electron microscopes). Regarding the potential effects of ground borne vibration to people, except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health. The majority of construction equipment is not situated at any one location during construction activities but spread throughout a construction site and at various distances from sensitive receptors. Since specific future projects under the proposed General Plan Update are unknown at this time, it is conservatively assumed that the construction areas associated with these future projects could be within 50 feet of sensitive structures. The primary vibrationgenerating activities would occur during grading, placement of underground utilities, and construction of foundations. Table 5.11-11, Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at 50 feet.

The City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section 4-24-503 of Article 5 states that all construction activity is prohibited, except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday, or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day are observed. Furthermore, Section 4-24- 504 of Article 5 establishes requirements to protect the inhabitants of the City against ground borne vibration. Specifically, Section 4-24-504 states that the operation of any device which creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or public right of- way, is prohibited. For the purposes of this section, "vibration perception threshold" means the minimum ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or the visual observation of moving objects. Adherence to the City Municipal Code would ensure that vibration reduction is being provided to minimize temporary construction-related vibration impacts. However, as shown in the Table 5.11-11, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future projectlevel developments under the general plan buildout are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. Therefore, this would be a potentially significant impact.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Industrial operations throughout the City would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibrationsensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would facilitate the implementation of the General Plan updates related to land use and implement required Zoning Map changes and programs pursuant to the City’s existing Certified Housing Element. The proposed project would also include amending portions of both the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 66 -
Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) components of its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed changes to the LUP include updates to the Land Use Map consistent with the Land Use Map in the Focused General Plan Update. Therefore, with the potential for sensitive uses to be exposed to annoying and/or interfering levels of vibration from industrial operations, operationsrelated vibration impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are considered potentially significant.

Train Vibration
As discussed in Impact 5.11.4.2, the proposed project would not generate any new train trips through Redondo Beach. Vibration levels as a result of trains traveling along the existing railroad under the proposed General Plan Update would remain the same as existing conditions, unless otherwise changed by the respective rail authority. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
N-2 Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed these thresholds, alternative uses shall be used, such as drilling piles instead of pile driving and static rollers instead of vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

N-3 Vibration Analysis. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (i.e., nonexempt projects), that utilize equipment that has the potential to result in vibration (e.g., pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers), a vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential vibration impacts. This vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 67 -
are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Policies in the proposed project as well as Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3 would reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to noise have been identified. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.11-45)

4. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.16-1: The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource 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). [Threshold TCR-1]
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Before any development or redevelopment activities would occur in the City, all such activities would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Therefore, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to the disturbance of TCRs.

Although the proposed project includes policies that would minimize impacts to TCRs, such as OS-2.10, long-term implementation of the proposed project could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of TCRs. Therefore, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded TCRS resources, and impacts could be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR in an abundance of caution and are applicable to the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the Final PEIR.

CUL-2 Cultural Resources Assessment. For discretionary projects that involve grounddisturbing activities during construction on areas where no previous ground disturbance or excavation has occurred, or ground-disturbing activities would occur in native soil, a site-specific cultural resources study shall be completed prior to project approval. The study shall include records searches of the California Historical Resources Information System and the Sacred Lands File maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches shall determine if the proposed project has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 68 -
and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated.

If the records search identifies a sensitivity for archaeological resources, an archaeological resources assessment shall be performed under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. If the archaeological assessment indicates the area to be of medium sensitivity for archaeological resources, an archaeologist who meets the PQS shall be retained on an on-call basis.

Rationale for Finding
Policies in the proposed project as well as Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.

Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to tribal cultural resources have been identified. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.16-8)
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 69 -
D. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE

MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or the mitigation measures are under the control of another agency. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

1. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1: Buildout of the proposed project and associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. [Threshold AQ-1] The South Coast AQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SoCAB to achieve the National and California AAQS and has responded to this requirement by preparing an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP, which is a regional and multiagency effort (South Coast AQMD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA).

A consistency determination with the AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the AQMP.

The two principal criteria for conformance with an AQMP are:

1. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.

2. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.

SCAG is South Coast AQMD’s partner in the preparation of the AQMP, providing the latest economic and demographic forecasts and developing transportation measures. Regional population, housing, and employment projects developed by SCAG are based, in part, on general plan land use designations.

These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP.

Criterion 1
Table 5.2-10, Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast, compares the population and employment growth forecast under the General Plan Update to the existing conditions. The table shows that the General Plan Update would result in more VMT because of an increase in population and employment.

This leads to an increase in VMT per service population compared to the existing and current General Plan conditions. As a result, the General Plan Update would provide a less efficient land use that would increase VMT per resident and employee. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.2-10, the General Plan Update would also result in an increase in VMT per service population compared to the current General Plan. It is presumed that the land use designations of the current General Plan either directly or indirectly contributed to any SCAG projections used in the latest AQMP emissions inventory.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 70 -
Updates to the Zoning Ordinance would reflect new land use designations and densities specified by the Focused General Plan Update. Updates to the LCP would include revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. These modifications would not involve land-use changes that would cause a greater increase in population and employment growth than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update. Since the Focused General Plan Update would lead to an increase in VMT per service population compared to existing conditions and the current General Plan, implementation of the proposed project would not be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.

Criterion 2
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS (CARB 2024a). Because the General Plan Update involves long-term growth associated with buildout of the City, cumulative emissions generated from operation of individual development projects would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional and localized thresholds (see Impact 5.2-3). Consequently, emissions generated by development projects in addition to existing sources in the City are considered to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Buildout of the proposed land use plan associated with the General Plan Update could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout would result in a significant air quality impact.

Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve land-use changes that would cause a greater increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. However, as identified in Impact 5.2-3, the General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase in VOC, NOX, and CO compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion.

Summary
New growth would be focused in areas of the City where services exist and in proximity to existing major transit centers, which may contribute to reducing VMT per service population. However, as shown in Table 5.2-10, buildout of the proposed project would increase VMT per service population and would not be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion. In addition, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the AQMP.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 71 -
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If constructionrelated criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Building & Safety Division shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
- Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. - Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. - Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant-coatings.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.

AQ 2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 72 -
Redondo Beach Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen. • Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a lessthan-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)).

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 73 -
including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 into future development projects would reduce operation-phase criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project.

Additionally, goals and policies in the General Plan would promote increased capacity for alternate transportation modes. Nevertheless, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.2-46)
Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. [Threshold AQ-2 and AQ-3]
Construction activities under the General Plan Update would also temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX, SOX, and CO regional emissions in the SoCAB. The primary source of NOX, CO, and SOX emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary sources of VOC emissions are the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities is included under “Air Pollutants of Concern” in Section 5.2.1, Environmental Setting.

Construction activities associated with the General Plan Update would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. Due to the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the General Plan Update, the projects cumulative emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, emissions that exceed the regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis. For the General Plan Update, which is a broad-based policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the South Coast AQMD's short-term regional or localized construction emissions thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures—e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures—mitigation imposed at the project level may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment.

While individual projects under the General Plan Update may not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, the likely scale and extent of the combined construction activities associated with the future development project under the General Plan Update would likely exceed the relevant South Coast AQMD thresholds. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 74 -
involve land-use changes that would result in the generation of construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions greater than the General Plan Update. Overall, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR in an abundance of caution and is applicable to the proposed project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final PEIR.

AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If constructionrelated criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Building & Safety Division shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
- Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. - Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. - Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant-coatings.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 75 -
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and the goals and policies of the Redondo Beach General Plan would reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, individual projects accommodated under the proposed project might exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.2-47)
Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional, long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria and cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designations. [Threshold AQ-2]
The General Plan Update guides growth and development in the City by designating allowed land uses by parcel and through implementation of its goals and policies. New development would increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to the overall emissions in the SoCAB. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by operational activities is included under “Air Pollutants of Concern” in Section 5.2.1, Environmental Setting. The General Plan Update sets up the framework for growth and development, but does not directly result in development. Before development can occur, it must be analyzed for conformance with the general plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 76 -
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast
The emissions forecast for Redondo Beach is shown in Table 5.2-11, City of Redondo Beach Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast. As shown in the table, buildout of the General Plan Update would continue to result in an increase in long-term emissions that exceed the daily South Coast AQMD thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. Emissions of SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would slightly increase compared to the existing land uses in the City in 2050, but would not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds.

The increase in VOC emissions compared to the existing land uses is a result of the increase in residential uses, which results in an increase in consumer product use in the City. Emissions of VOC that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The increase in NOX and CO emissions is a result of the increase in mobile source and off-road equipment emissions within the City and are precursors to the formation of O3. In addition, NOX is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Therefore, emissions of NOX that exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Furthermore, the General Plan Update includes policies that would contribute to reducing operational emissions associated with development projects. Policies S-10.1, S-10.4, and S-10.6 would reduce GHG emissions and energy demand to provide air quality co-benefits. Policies LU-3.7, LU-3.10, LU4.6, and LU 6.22 would help reduce VMT and vehicle congestion to further improve air quality. Despite the policies in the General Plan Update, the General Plan Update would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve major landuse changes that would cause a greater increase in criteria air pollutant emissions than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update. However, since the Focused General Plan Update would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and result in a potentially significant impact.

AQ 2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 77 -
exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.

Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 78 -
including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, in addition to the goals and policies of the proposed project, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants in the city. However, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in VOCs associated with the proposed project from consumer product use by residential development. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.2-49) Impact 5.2-4: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-3] Development and operation of new land uses accommodated under the proposed land use plan could generate new sources of localized criteria air pollutant and TACs in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.

CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS.

The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the attainment by South Coast AQMD did not predict a violation of CO standards at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods. As identified in South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not of congestion at a particular intersection (South Coast AQMD 1992; South Coast AQMD 2003).

Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2023).

Implementation of the General Plan Update under horizon year conditions would not result in hourly traffic increases of this magnitude. According to traffic volume data provided by Fehr & Peers, the intersection that would experience the greatest traffic volumes in the forecast year would be Artesia Boulevard east of Rindge Lane, with an estimated 31,800 average daily trips (ADT). The peak hour trips at this intersection would be even fewer than the estimated average daily trips. As an industry standard, the ADT are divided by 10 to identify the estimated peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection. Based on adjusting the ADT to identify the peak hour volumes, the intersection at Artesia Boulevard east of Rindge Lane would experience an estimated 3,180 peak hour vehicle trips. Thus, implementation of the General Plan Update would not produce the volume of traffic required to Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 79 -
generate a CO hotspot. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve major land-use changes that would produce a greater CO hotspot impact compared to buildout of the Focused General Plan Update. As such, the proposed project would result in a less than significant CO hotspots impact.

Localized Significance Thresholds
Implementation of the General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels. Unlike mass of emissions shown in Table 5.2-11, described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. LSTs are the amount of project-related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area.

Construction LSTs
Buildout of the General Plan Update would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan via several smaller projects, each with its own construction time frame and equipment. Because an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project-level, quantification of LSTs is not applicable for the program-level environmental analysis of the General Plan Update. Because potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve major land-use changes that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations greater than what is considered under buildout of the Focused General Plan Update. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in potentially significant impacts.

Operation LSTs
The types of land uses that could generate substantial amounts of stationary source emissions include industrial land uses, which is an accommodated land use under the General Plan Update (see Table 3-1, Existing Land Use Summary, and Table 3-4, Summary of Existing and Proposed Land Uses).

Implementation of the General Plan Update policies could contribute to reducing criteria air pollutant emissions to nearby sensitive receptors. Policies LU-5.7, and OS-8.4 would encourage expansion of urban forests and buffer distances to reduce air quality impacts in the City. Policy LU-3.4 and LU-5.5 would ensure proposed industrial and other non-residential development would be compatible with surrounding land uses to reduce environmental effects on sensitive receptors. Policy LU-5.1 would ensure new development would be compatible with existing development to minimize the impacts of future development on air quality in the City. The aforementioned policies of the General Plan Update would contribute to minimizing localized operation-related emissions from individual land use development projects accommodated in the General Plan Update to the extent possible.

However, per the LST methodology, information regarding specific development projects and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the levels of localized operation and Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 80 -
construction-related impacts associated with future development projects. Thus, because the General Plan Update is a broad-based policy plan and does not itself propose specific development projects, it is not possible to calculate individual project-related operation emissions at this time. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve major land-use changes that would generate greater localized operation impacts than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update.

Overall, because of the likely scale of future development and the inclusion of industrial uses that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update, some development projects could likely exceed the LSTs. Therefore, localized operation-related air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are considered potentially significant impacts.

Health Risk: Toxic Air Contaminants
The allowed development under the General Plan Update could elevate concentrations of TACs (i.e., DPM) in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during temporary construction activities that would use offroad equipment operating on-site, and at different levels depending on the type of activity (for example, limited to none during installation of utilities, and more during grading activities). Operation of the development allowed under the General Plan Update would also generate DPM emissions from diesel truck activity (truck maneuvering and idling), TRUs, and diesel-fueled off-road equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard trucks) in proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.

Permitted Stationary Sources
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the proposed land use plan would be expected to release TACs. Industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from South Coast AQMD.

As mentioned before, Policy LU 3.4, LU-5.1, and LU-5.5 would ensure development to be compatible with surrounding land uses to reduce environmental effects on sensitive receptors. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve industrial land-use changes (greater than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update) that would have the potential to release TACs, therefore no impacts would occur. Moreover, emissions of TACs would be controlled by South Coast AQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, which would ensure less than significant impacts.

Industrial Land Uses
Warehousing or industrial operations generate substantial DPM emissions from off-road equipment use, truck idling, and/or use of transport refrigeration units for cold storage. The General Plan Update could result in a net increase of 3,859,102 square feet of industrial land use in Industrial I-1, Industrial I-3, and Industrial Flex zones (refer to Figure 3-6). Though stationary sources associated with the General Plan Update would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, truck idling does not fall under the purview of the air district. However, Policy LU-3.4 calls for mitigating potential air quality impacts associated with industrial and other nonresidential land uses. Policy LU-5.5 would require new industrial and sensitive land uses to implement buffer distances as recommended by CARB. Overall, these policies would contribute to minimizing health risk impacts to the surrounding Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 81 -
sensitive receptors. However, until specific future development projects are proposed, the associated emissions and concentrations cannot be determined or modeled. Thus, health risk impacts from development of industrial land uses associated with the General Plan Update are considered potentially significant. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would not involve industrial land-use changes greater than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update therefore no additional impacts would occur.

Environmental Justice (EJ)
South Coast AQMD is taking steps to address localized impacts and exposures in EJ communities, which are disproportionally impacted by various types of pollution and experience health, social, and economic inequalities. These inequities can also make residents of EJ communities more vulnerable to the effects of environmental pollution. These communities are often located near multiple air pollution sources, including mobile sources and commercial and industrial facilities (South Coast AQMD 2022).

The most critical air pollutant affecting health in the SoCAB is PM2.5, which includes DPM. Although there are no identified EJ communities in the City, Policies LU-3.2, LU-3.4, LU-5.1, and LU-5.5 in the Land Use Element would ensure development to be compatible with surrounding land uses to reduce environmental effects on sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR; and in an abundance of caution, is applicable to the proposed project. The measures as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final PEIR.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 82 -
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant-coatings.

AQ 2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 83 -
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.

AQ-3 Industrial and Warehouse Development Health Risk Assessments. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating dieselpowered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast AQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceeds the respective threshold, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. TBACTs may include but are not limited to restricting idling on-site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 84 -
including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
Buildout of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Redondo Beach.

Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant.

However, implementation of the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. While individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of risk in the City as a whole.

Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.2-52)

2. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-1: Future development facilitated by the proposed project could impact or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an identified or potentially eligible historic resource. [Threshold C-1]
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and LCP would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update.

Therefore, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to demolition or material alteration of any historic resource.

The proposed project includes policies that would minimize impacts to historic resources, such as LU7.1, LU-7.2, LU-4.3, LU-4.4, and OS-2.10. However, identified historic structures and sites that are potentially eligible for future historic resources listing may be vulnerable to development activities accompanying infill, redevelopment, or revitalization that would be accommodated by the proposed project. For instance, the placement of new buildings adjacent to a historic resource may result in indirect impacts to access, visibility, and visual context, and renovations or modifications to historic resources may deteriorate or destroy the characteristics that make those resources important or unique.

In addition, other buildings or structures that could meet the NRHP criteria upon reaching 50 years of age might be impacted by development or redevelopment activity that would be accommodated by the proposed project. Although Title 10, Chapter 4, Historic Resources Preservation, of the Redondo Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 85 -
Beach Municipal Code provides regulations to protect cultural and historical resources within the City limits, impacts to historic resources are considered potentially significant.

CUL-1 Historical Resources Assessment. For discretionary projects that involve construction activities that may adversely impact potentially eligible historical resources (i.e., structures 45 years or older), a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural historian or a historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history.

The assessment shall include a records search to determine if any resources that may be potentially affected by the project have been previously recorded, evaluated, and/or designated in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or local register of historic resources. Following the records search, the qualified historian or architectural historian shall conduct a reconnaissance-level and/or intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded potential historical resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project.

Pursuant to the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, potential historical resources shall be evaluated under a developed historic context. The assessment shall provide the historic context, methods, results, and recommendations for appropriate findings. The assessment shall be provided to the Director of the Community Development Department for concurrence as to the appropriate mitigation for historic resources.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 86 -
Rationale for Finding
Policies in the proposed project as well as Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with historic resources. However, if a proposed project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource, it cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. As a result, impacts on historic resources as a result of future development in accordance with the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.4-15)

3. Energy
Impact 5.5-2: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. [Threshold E-2]
California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program.

Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. As stated, the RPS goals have been updated since adoption of SB 1078 in 2002. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE and CPA, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Furthermore, as discussed for Impact 5.5-1, the General Plan Update includes Policies LU-5.3, S-2.6, and S-10.1, which would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Policy S-10.4 would promote energy efficient city-owned facilities, including battery storage systems. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, and no impact would occur.

City of Redondo Beach Climate Action Plan
As mentioned previously, the City’s CAP serves as a guide for action by setting GHG emission reduction goals consistent with the State's AB 32 GHG emission reduction targets and establishing strategies and policies to achieve desired outcomes over the next 20 years (Redondo Beach 2017). A consistency analysis with the applicable City's CAP goals is shown in Table 5.5-7, Consistency Analysis with the City of Redondo Beach Climate Action Plan.

The General Plan Update includes goals and policies that would contribute toward minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary transportation energy consumption, increasing building energy efficiency, and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy. Moreover, the land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 87 -
However, as identified in Table 5.5-7, while the General Plan Update would be consistent with many of the strategies in the City’s CAP, the General Plan Update would not be consistent with Goal LUT:

G – Land Use Strategies and several SCAG'S RTP/SCS goals (see Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, Table 5.10-1, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS Goal Consistency Analysis). Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City's CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures for this impact.

Finding
The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-thansignificant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)).

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
There are no feasible mitigation measures that could fully mitigate the proposed project's population growth and VMT levels to less than significant and fully reduce the proposed project's inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG's 2024-2050 RTP/SCS. Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in beneficial energy impacts by contributing to reducing VMT, increasing energy and water use efficiency, and increasing renewable energy improvements. However, because the proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development, and thus VMT, use of VMT reduction strategies would need to be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to be inconsistent with the land use strategies of the City’s CAP as it pertains to reducing VMT. Project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.5-31)

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.7-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in emissions but would not place the City on a trajectory to achieve the goals established under Executive Order S-03-05 or progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goal. [Threshold GHG-1]
Development under the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses in the City. A general plan does not directly result in development without subsequent approvals of development projects. Updates to the Zoning Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 88 -
Ordinance would reflect new land use designations and densities specified by the Focused General Plan Update. Updates to the LCP would include revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) consistent with the Land Use Map in the Focused General Plan Update.

These modifications would not involve land-use changes that would cause a substantially greater impact in GHG emissions compared to what is evaluated from buildout of the Focused General Plan Update.

Horizon Year 2050 Emissions Forecast
Buildout of the General Plan Update is not linked to a specific development time frame but is assumed over a 25-year horizon. Implementation of the General Plan Update by the horizon year of 2050 would result in a net increase of 8,667 residents and 7,989 employees in the City. Development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update would generate a net increase of 266,380 daily VMT at buildout. The community GHG emissions inventory for the General Plan Update at buildout compared to existing conditions is in Table 5.7-5 of the PEIR, City of Redondo Beach GHG Emissions Forecast.

As shown in Table 5.7-5, buildout of the land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions from existing conditions. In addition, GHG emissions per service population (SP) would decrease. The primary reason for the decrease in overall community-wide GHG emissions, despite an increase in population and employment in the City, is due to regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions and turnover of California’s on-road vehicle fleets.

Consistency with the State’s GHG Reduction Targets and Carbon Neutrality Goals To determine whether the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact, the proposed project must demonstrate consistency with the State’s 2045 GHG reduction target of carbon neutrality. Under the General Plan Update, new growth would be focused on areas of the City where services exist or can be expanded and/or extended to serve additional and more intensive development and in proximity to existing and proposed major transit centers. However, even with the planned intensification of existing development and transit-oriented development, as identified in Table 5.7-5, the General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions and would not achieve an 85 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2045.

Reduction strategies to meet the long-term 2050 GHG reduction goal in addition to establishment of a 2050 reduction target would be required to be included in the planned future updates to the Climate Action Plan. Additionally, state strategies to achieve post-2030 targets would be necessary. Therefore, until such time, GHG emissions impacts for the General Plan Update are considered potentially significant in regard to meeting the long-term year 2050 reduction goal.

General Plan Update Policies That May Reduce GHG Emissions As identified in Table 5.7-5, the majority of emissions are from on-road transportation (40 percent) and building electricity (28 percent). While growth in the City would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions impacts, implementation of the General Plan Update policies could also help minimize energy and mobile-source emissions. Policies S-10.1, S-10.4, and S-10.6 would contribute to reducing Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 89 -
emissions from energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements in households, businesses, and City-owned facilities. Policies LU-2.8, LU-3.7, LU3.8, LU-4.6, and OS-1.8 contribute to reducing GHG emissions from mobile sources by promoting pedestrian access and public transportation, reducing vehicle congestion, and supporting TDM measures where feasible.

Summary
It is anticipated that the proposed project would reduce energy sector emissions by increasing energy efficiency, energy conservation, and use of renewable energy. Implementation of these energy-related policies would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions associated with the City to the extent feasible.

However, as described and shown in Table 5.7-5, GHG emissions reduction are only 1 percent less than the CEQA baseline and not the 85 percent necessary to ensure the City is on a trajectory to achieve the long-term reductions goals AB 1279 and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 The City of Redondo Beach shall prepare an update Climate Action Plan (CAP) to achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets of Senate Bill (SB) 32 for the year 2030 and chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term GHG reduction goal set by Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The updated CAP shall be completed within three years of certification of the General Plan EIR. The updated CAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving a specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under SB 32 for year 2030, AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update.

The CAP update shall include the following:
• GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the GHG reduction goals of Senate Bill 32 for year 2030.
• Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 of AB 1279.
• Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed updated CAP:
- Administration and Staffing
Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 90 -
- Finance and Budgeting
- Timelines for Measure Implementation
- Community Outreach and Education
- Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
- Tracking Tools.

Rationale for Finding
Policies in the proposed project as well as Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with GHG. However, it is possible that as a result of the proposed project the GHG emissions will not ensure carbon neutrality. As a result, impacts on GHG as a result of future development in accordance with the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.7-32)

5. Noise
Impact 5.11-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. The proposed project would not result in the generation of substantial 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. [Threshold N-1]
The Noise Element of the proposed General Plan Update provides policy direction for minimizing noise impacts on the community and establishes noise control measures for construction and operation of land use projects. By identifying noise-sensitive land uses and establishing compatibility guidelines for those land uses, noise considerations would influence the general distribution, location, and intensity of future land uses. The result is that effective land use planning and project design can alleviate the majority of noise problems.

Temporary Construction Noise
Under the proposed General Plan Update, the primary source of temporary noise within the City would be demolition and construction activities associated with development projects and activities.

Construction activities would involve both off-road demolition/construction equipment (excavators, dozers, cranes, etc.), general demolition/construction equipment (compressors, jack hammers, saws), and transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites. Table 5.11-8, Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels (50 Feet from Source), shows typical noise levels produced by the types of demolition/construction equipment and off-road equipment that would likely be used Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 91 -
during future construction within Redondo Beach. It is noted that future development under the General Plan Update could potentially require installation of pile foundations that utilize impact pile drivers or similar equipment that generates high noise levels.

Construction noise is currently a substantial source of temporary noise within Redondo Beach and will continue to be so regardless of whether the General Plan Update is adopted. Noise levels near individual construction sites associated with development and activities under the proposed General Plan Update would not be substantially different from what they would be under the existing 1992 City of Redondo Beach General Plan. Since specific future projects within the City are unknown at this time, it is conservatively assumed that the construction areas associated with these future projects could be within 50 feet of sensitive land uses. As depicted in Table 5.11-8, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 101.3 dBA Lmax at 50 feet and 67.7 dBA to 94.3 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Average hourly noise levels associated with construction projects can vary, depending on the activities performed. Short-term increases in vehicle traffic, including worker commute trips and haul truck trips, may also result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels at nearby receptors. During each stage of construction, a different mix of equipment would operate, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment on-site and the location of the activity. Construction noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and the receptor. Intervening structures or terrain would result in lower noise levels at distant receivers.

The City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Article 5, Section 4-24-503, states that all construction activity is prohibited, except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day are observed. It is common for cities to regulate construction noise in this manner because construction noise is temporary, short term, and intermittent in nature, and ceases upon completion of construction.

Additionally, Noise Element Policy N-1.10 of the proposed General Plan addresses construction noise by minimizing the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses through the enforcement of mitigation requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance, such as legal hours of operation, advance noticing of construction operations, incorporating physical barriers as necessary, and using tools and equipment properly outfitted with sound-dampeners. Implementation would be as follows:
 Implementation Measure N-20: Construction Noise. Continue to implement best practices in controlling construction noise including designated work hours, noise dampening equipment, noise barriers, and public noticing. The City’s Municipal Code Section 4-24-503 of Article 5 ensures that noise limitations are imposed to minimize temporary noise impacts associated with construction by restricting it to the daytime hours when many people are away from their residences. Through implementation of proposed General Plan Policy N-1.10, the City would require construction noise limits, including through limiting construction hours, consistent with the City Municipal Code. Lastly, Implementation Measure N 20 requires best practices be implemented at construction sites to control construction noise.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 92 -
The City’s Municipal Code Section 4-24-503 of Article 5 ensures that noise limitations are imposed to minimize temporary noise impacts associated with construction by restricting it to daytime hours.

Through implementation of proposed General Plan Policy N- 1.10, the City would require construction noise limits, including through limiting construction hours, consistent with the City Municipal Code. Lastly, Implementation Measure N-20 requires best practices be implemented at construction sites to control construction noise. However, because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because, depending on the project type, equipment list, time of day, phasing and overall construction durations, noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time or during the more sensitive nighttime hours, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are considered potentially significant.

Stationary Source Noise
The development of residential, automotive, industrial, or other uses and activities under the proposed General Plan Update could generate substantial stationary noise. Such sources could generate noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment, back-up diesel generators in some cases, parking lot activity, backup beepers from internal truck and equipment maneuvering, and other sources. Table 5.11-9, Stationary Source Noise Levels, identifies noise levels generally associated with common stationary noise sources.

Stationary source noise is currently a substantial source of noise within Redondo Beach and will continue to be so regardless of whether the proposed General Plan Update is adopted. Noise levels near individual sources under the proposed General Plan Update would not be substantially different from what they would be under the existing 1992 City of Redondo Beach General Plan. The Noise Element of the proposed General Plan addresses stationary noise with Policies N-1.1, N-1.4, N-1.5, and N-1.6 and the following implementation measures:
 Implementation Measure N-1: Noise Evaluation. Continue to evaluate the noise impacts of new projects during the development review process; begin evaluation of the impacts cumulative noise conditions may have on proposed noise-sensitive uses, including residential, during the development review process; consider requirements for noise analysis conducted by an acoustical specialist for projects involving land uses where operations are likely to impact adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
 Implementation Measure N-3: Mitigate Existing Impacts. Identify existing business operations that produce exterior noise above the maximum levels specified in the City’s General Plan or noise ordinance for adjacent land uses. Reach out to those businesses to provide educational resources about best practices for noise prevention and mitigation. Assist businesses to implement mitigation strategies through permit assistance, expedited permitting, and other incentives. If the noise impact cannot be mitigated, provide site selection assistance to help businesses relocate to other areas of the City.
 Implementation Measure N-4: Best practice. Conduct a study of best practices for the prevention and mitigation of noise impacts on sensitive land uses caused by existing or new business operations.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 93 -
 Implementation Measure N-7. Site Design and Technology. Require designs of parking structures, terminals, and loading docks for noise-generating land uses that minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on-site and on adjacent land uses. Encourage and/or require feasible technological options to reduce noise to acceptable levels.

Policy N-1.1 would require the integration of noise considerations into land use planning decisions to minimize new noise impacts, including noise impacts from stationary sources, from new development and new uses. Implementation Measure N-1 and Policies N-1.4 and N-1.5 would require an acoustical analysis for all new projects and consideration of identified noise-reducing measures. Implementation Measure N-3 would seek to identify existing business operations that produce exterior noise above the maximum levels specified in Table N-01 of the proposed General Plan and then to assist these businesses to implement noise-reduction mitigation strategies through permit assistance, expedited permitting, and other incentives. Implementation Measure N-4 would instigate an analysis of best practices for the prevention and mitigation of noise impacts on sensitive land uses caused by existing or new business operations while Policy N-1.6 requires the mitigation of identified noise impacts of business operations that are persistent, periodic, or impulsive on surrounding neighborhoods and nearby sensitive receptors. Similarly, Implementation Measure N-7 would require designs of parking structures, terminals, and loading docks for noise-generating land uses that minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on-site and on adjacent land uses. With implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and Implementation Measures identified above, future development and activities under the proposed General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise sources.

Rail Noise
Freight and Metrolink trains are a mobile noise source at the eastern edge of the City. The single railway corridor affecting the City enters Redondo Beach just north of the Hawthorne Boulevard/W 190th Street intersection and generally traverses north-south, skirting residences and El Nido Park before crossing 182nd Street. The corridor continues north-south past the Pacific Crest Cemetery, Target shopping center, and residences before crossing Artesia Boulevard and exiting the City. This rail corridor reenters the City at Inglewood Avenue, traversing an industrial-commercial area before once again exiting the City at Marine Avenue. The Metrolink railway currently ends west of the I-405 near the intersection of Marine Avenue and Redondo Beach Avenue.

Noise levels along the existing railroad under the proposed General Plan Update would remain the same as existing conditions; any changes to the frequency of trains or to train equipment would be initiated and implemented by the respective rail authority rather than the City of Redondo Beach, and they are not part of the proposed General Plan Update.

No aspect of the proposed General Plan Update would increase railway noise levels along the existing railroad corridor. Adherence to the proposed General Plan policy provisions identified above would ensure that the noise environment in Redondo Beach does not increase in a manner that worsens existing noise compatibility or exposes noise-sensitive land uses to “unacceptable” noise levels.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 94 -
Traffic Noise
Future development and activities under the proposed General Plan Update are expected to affect the community noise environment mainly by generating additional traffic. Transportation-source noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with traffic counts provided by Fehr & Peers (2024). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. Future traffic noise contours are mapped on Figure 5.11-3, Future Traffic Noise Contours. Table 5.11-10, Future Roadway Noise Levels, shows the calculated off-site roadway noise levels under existing traffic levels compared to future buildout under the proposed General Plan Update.

As previously described in Section 5.11.1.1, a 5 dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response is expected. Based on this fact, a significant increase in traffic noise is considered to be an increase in the existing ambient noise environment of at least 5 dBA Ldn. As reflected in Table 5.11-10, this analysis included a large sample of local roadways segments but did not include all roadways within Redondo Beach. The analyzed segments were selected to illustrate potential changes in roadway noise throughout Redondo Beach. Therefore, additional roadways segments in Redondo Beach may experience increased traffic noise.

As shown in Table 5.11-10, no City roadway segment would experience an increase of more than 5.0 dBA Ldn over existing conditions with buildout anticipated under the proposed General Plan Update.

It is noted that despite projected increases in regional population in the Redondo Beach area, automobile traffic and thus traffic noise, is projected to decrease slightly over time on several roadways within Redondo Beach. The traffic modeling includes both the citywide and regional changes in housing units, employment and regional transportation projects that would occur over the life of the General Plan Update (Fehr & Peers, 2024). Changes in both citywide and regional land use patterns and transportation networks, such as the increased development of mixed-use areas or changing concentrations of job opportunities from certain locations to others, particularly those accessible to existing and planned public transit can result in a shift in traffic patterns thereby decreasing traffic on certain roadways.

The Noise Element of the proposed General Plan addresses traffic noise with Policies N-1.1, N-1.7, and N 1.11 and implementation measures N-1, N-15, N-16, N-17, N-21, and N-22.

The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would facilitate the implementation of the General Plan updates related to land use and implement required Zoning Map changes and programs pursuant to the City’s existing Certified Housing Element. The proposed project would also include amending portions of both the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) components of its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed changes to the LUP include updates to the Land Use Map consistent with the Land Use Map in the Focused General Plan Update. With implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and implementation measures identified above, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 95 -
future development and activities under the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to traffic noise sources.

Mitigation Measures
N-1 Construction Noise Measures. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Redondo Beach. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Redondo Beach Planning and Building Divisions shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
 During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.  Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
 Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors, shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
 Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
 Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions.  At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
 During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 96 -
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
 If construction is anticipated for prolonged periods, as required by the Community Development Director or their assigned designee, erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-ofsight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redondo Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible through implementation of construction best management practices. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, Impact 5.11-1 could result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions.

Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.11-43)

6. Land use and Planning
Impact 5.10-2: Project Implementation would conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU-2] SCAG Connect SoCal Consistency
The proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS. Implementation of the proposed project would support a variety of land use types including high-density housing and mixed-use development that encourages better connectivity to employment and commercial uses, and in closer proximity to public transit. However, as discussed below in Table 5.10-2, SCAG Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis, the proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with several of the goals of SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS at buildout. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 5.15, Transportation, impacts associated with air quality, GHG and VMT would be significant. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals aimed at improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be considered significant.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 97 -
Table 5.10-2 SCAG Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis
Connect SoCal Goals Project Consistency Analysis
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network.

Support investments that are wellmaintained and operated, coordinated, resilient and result in improved safety,
improved air quality and minimized
greenhouse gas emissions.

Inconsistent. Although the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS, as discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 5.15, Transportation, impacts associated with air quality, GHG and VMT would be significant and therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with this goal.

Ensure that reliable, accessible,
affordable and appealing travel options
are readily available, while striving to
enhance equity in the offerings in highneed communities.

Consistent. See Section 5.15, Transportation, of this DEIR, which discusses transportation, mobility, and circulation and how the proposed project, including the proposed policies, would align with RTP/SCS goals and policies.

Support planning for people of all ages,
abilities and backgrounds.

Consistent. The proposed project includes many policies throughout the General Plan Elements to support the health of its residents and ensure equitable access to resources, including Policy LU-3.1 through LU-4.6, which encourage compatibility between land uses to promote healthy lifestyles, active transportation, access to transit, new open space and parkland opportunities, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to recreational amenities. See also section 5.15, Transportation, of this DEIR, which discusses transportation, mobility, and circulation and how the proposed project, including the proposed policies, would align with RTP/SCS goals and policies.

Communities: Develop, connect and sustain livable and thriving communities.

Create human-centered communities in
urban, suburban and rural settings to
increase mobility options and reduce
travel distances.

Consistent. See section 5.15, Transportation, of this DEIR, which discusses transportation, mobility, and circulation and how the proposed project, including the proposed policies, would align with RTP/SCS goals and policies.

Produce and preserve diverse housing
types in an effort to improve affordability,
accessibility and opportunities for all
households.

Consistent. The proposed project supports a variety of housing types, including High Density Residential, Residential Overlays, and mixed-use development to encourage better connectivity to employment and commercial uses. Policies LU-1.1 through LU 1.10 encourage a balanced land use pattern, a diversity of housing types, jobs-housing balance, and transitoriented development. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow.

Develop communities that are resilient
and can mitigate, adapt to and respond
to chronic and acute stresses and
disruptions, such as climate change.

Inconsistent. Although the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS, as discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, impacts associated with VMT, air quality and GHG, would be significant and therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with this goal.

Integrate the region’s development
pattern and transportation network to
improve air quality, reduce greenhouse
gas emission and enable more
sustainable use of energy and water.

Inconsistent. See section 5.15, Transportation, of this DEIR,which discusses transportation, mobility, and circulation and how the proposed project, including the proposed policies, would align with RTP/SCS goals and policies. Although the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS, as discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, impacts associated with VMT, air quality and GHG, would be significant and therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with this goal.

Conserve the region’s resources. Consistent. The proposed project contains several policies in the Land Use and Open Space & Conservation Elements that would preserve and enhance areas that may provide habitat for specialstatus species (LU-5.7, OS-2.10, OS-8.1, OS-8.2, OS-8.5 andOS-8.6). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region.

Improve access to jobs and educational
resources.

Consistent. This RTP/SCS goal focuses on adopting policies and investments in regional infrastructure in support of improving regional economic development and competitiveness.

Proposed Land Use policies such as LU-1.4, LU-1.9, LU-1.14 and LU-3.9 encourage employment opportunities and infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect the ability of SCAG to align plan investments and policies with economic development and competitiveness and would contribute to achieving this goal by advancing the other RTP/SCS goals.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 98 -
Table 5.10-2 SCAG Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis
Connect SoCal Goals Project Consistency Analysis
Advance a resilient and efficient goods
movement system that supports the
economic vitality of the region, attainment
of clean air and quality of life for our
communities.

Consistent. This RTP/SCS goal focuses on adopting policies and investments in regional infrastructure in support of improving regional economic development and competitiveness.

Consistency with City Land Use Plans and Regulations
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. As discussed in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, Section 1.2.2, Type and Purpose of This DEIR, use of this Program DEIR provides the City an opportunity to consider broad policy and program wide mitigation measures to address projectspecific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.

As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will codify the community’s vision as established in the Focused General Plan Update process, facilitate the implementation of key General Plan concepts related to land use, and implement required Zoning Map changes and programs pursuant to the City’s existing Certified Housing Element as discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description. Table 3-7, Summary of Zoning Map, Regulations and Standards Updates, in Chapter 3, Project Description, summarizes the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Map to align with the General Plan Update and implement the City’s existing, Certified Housing Element. Table 3- 8 Administrative and Procedural Zoning Ordinance Updates to Align with State Laws, summarizes the Zoning Ordinance updates that are procedural, administrative, or required to formally align the City’s Municipal Code with state laws and it’s Certified Housing Element inclusive of all its “Programs” followed by a summary of the required amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text.

Furthermore, to implement the changes proposed by the Focused General Plan Update and the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update within the coastal zone, the City must also amend portions of both the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) of its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed changes to the CLUP include updates to the Land Use Map consistent with the Land Use Map in the Focused General Plan Update. Proposed changes to the IP will include updates to the Zoning Map within the Coastal Zone to implement the Focused General Plan Update and updates to the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone that largely mirror the changes described in the tables 3-7 and 3-8, above. Therefore, the General Plan Update would not conflict with the City’s Zoning Ordinance or the LCP.

Mitigation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures for this impact.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 99 -
Finding
The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible to fully reduce the proposed project’s inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS. As a result, future development in accordance with the proposed project would conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and project impacts, and cumulative impacts.

Rationale for Finding
There are no feasible mitigation measures that could fully mitigate the proposed project's population growth and fully reduce the proposed project's inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG's 2024-2050 RTP/SCS. Implementation of the General Plan Update would foster development of a variety of housing options citywide that accommodates the lifestyles and affordability needs of all residents, while meeting the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element. Additionally, the proposed project would balance land uses with anticipated growth, including residential, retail, employment, open space, and public uses with existing land uses and community character. However, because the proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development, changes to land uses would be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to be inconsistent with the goals of SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS.

Project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR pg. 5.10-15).

7. Population and Housing
Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area. [Threshold P-1]
One of the purposes of a general plan is to adequately plan for and accommodate future growth. As shown in Table 5.12-7, Buildout Comparison of Existing Conditions to the Redondo Beach General Plan 2050, implementation of the proposed project would allow for an increase of 4,956 housing units, 8,667 residents, and 7,989 jobs over approximately 20 years (see Appendix B, Buildout Methodology).

Population projections are a conservative/reasonable estimate based on full buildout of the 2050 proposed project for the purpose of the CEQA analysis; however, it is worth noting that the current general plan failed to reach its population projection during the plan period.

Housing and Population Growth
At the projected buildout, there would be 33,314 households and 78,978 people in Redondo Beach.

As shown in Table 5.12-8, Buildout Comparison of the Redondo Beach General Plan to SCAG Projections, the forecast population and households (78,978 persons and 33,314 households) at proposed project buildout would exceed the SCAG growth projections (73,100 persons and 30,948 households) by 8 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

It is important to note the differences between project buildout and SCAG projections. SCAG projections are utilized in this analysis for general comparison purposes. Buildout of the City is not Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 100 -
linked to a development timeline and is based on a reasonable buildout of the parcels in the City. The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. SCAG projections are based on annual increments in order to develop regional growth projections for land use and transportation planning over a 20-year horizon to 2050.

A comparison of the proposed project buildout to SCAG’s population, housing, and employment projections assists in providing context for comparison. More importantly, the state of California has a shortage of housing. In 2019, Governor Newsom signed several bills to address the need for more housing, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330). As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, of this PEIR, the buildout of the proposed project is consistent with other elements of the General Plan update and includes growth in the areas identified in the certified Housing Element as suitable for housing development by 2029. The proposed Land Use designations target change in areas essential to satisfy the City’s State-mandated obligation to demonstrate it could meet its RHNA requirements for housing. The Redondo Beach Housing Element and the Land Use Element of the proposed project include policies to support a variety of housing types and densities. For example, Policies LU-1.1 and 1.2 of the Land Use Element require the City to provide a diversity of residential densities, product types, lot sizes, and designs to meet the community’s demand. Thus, increases to population and housing units would be greater than SCAG’s regional forecasts for 2050.

Employment Growth
The proposed project would allow for 5,681,999 square feet of additional nonresidential development.

The development would consist of job-generating land uses, such as commercial, office, industrial, and institutional uses. These uses are estimated to generate a total of 36,327 jobs, approximately 7,989 more jobs compared to existing conditions. This is considered a substantial increase in employment and an increase that would indirectly induce population growth. The forecast for employment (36,327 jobs) in the City at proposed project buildout would exceed the SCAG growth projections (31,100 jobs) by 17 percent. The Land Use Element identifies several policies aimed at promoting employment growth for Redondo Beach residents, such as Policy LU-6.3, LU-6.9, and LU-6.21. Nonetheless, buildout of the proposed project would directly and indirectly induce population and employment growth.

Jobs-Housing Balance
As stated above, implementation of the proposed project would create up to 36,327 jobs and 35,387 residential units in Redondo Beach. This would result in the City’s job-housing ratio increasing from

0.94 to 1.02 which would below APA’s recommended range target of 1.5 jobs per housing unit and recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7 jobs per housing unit. The proposed project would introduce more job-generating land uses than are currently available. In general, the land uses identified in the proposed project would provide opportunities for residents to both live and work in the City rather than commuting to other areas. The Land Use Element identifies several policies aimed at promoting workforce/job balance for Redondo Beach residents, such as Policies LU-1.4, -6.2, -6.3, -6.9, and -

6.21. Therefore, though buildout of the proposed project would directly and indirectly induce population and employment growth, the jobs-housing ratio in the City would improve the job-housing balance with implementation of the proposed project compared to both existing conditions and SCAG projections.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 101 -
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population and employment growth in the area but would slightly improve the jobs-housing balance. The proposed project would accommodate future growth by providing for infrastructure and public services to accommodate the projected growth (see Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 5.13, Public Services; Section 5.15, Transportation; and Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems). Proposed policies under the Redondo Beach General Plan’s Housing and Land Use Elements would ensure the City supports a variety of housing types and densities and provides job growth to accommodate Redondo Beach residents. Updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone would include modifications for consistency with the proposed Focused General Plan Update, recently adopted Housing Element, and in the context of State laws such as Senate Bills 35 and 330. Updates to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) would include revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementing Plan. These modifications would not involve land-use changes that would cause a greater increase in population and employment growth than what is considered under the Focused General Plan Update.

Nonetheless, as the proposed project’s buildout projections are greater than the projected growth through SCAG, implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to population and employment growth.

Mitigation Measures
The city finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures for this impact.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project’s impacts to population growth. As a result, impacts to population growth, and cumulative impacts, as a result of future development in accordance with the proposed project, are significant and unavoidable (Draft PEIR pg. 5.12-13).

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 102 -

8. Transportation
Impact 5.15-1: The proposed project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. [Threshold T-1]
The purpose of this section is to determine whether the proposed project conflicts with transportationrelated programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system. The proposed project is evaluated against the documents detailed in Section 5.15.1.1, Regulatory Background. In general, those documents focus on promoting multimodal transportation, reducing GHG emissions, and improving accessibility and safety for all users. Furthermore, the focus on complete streets, promotion of active transportation (e.g., walking, biking), and enhancing transit systems are relatively consistent across the policies and plans.

Table 5.15-3 of the PEIR, Programs, Plans, Ordinance, and Policy Consistency Review, details an evaluation of the regional and local plans and policies with which the proposed General Plan would have the potential to be inconsistent. As summarized in Table 5.15-3, several potential conflicts are identified with respect to SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS.

As shown in Table 5.15-3, the proposed project would conflict with some policies from SCAG’s 2024– 2050 RTP/SCS, as buildout facilitated by the proposed project would increase VMT per service population beyond the threshold (16.8% below SBCCOG Baseline Conditions) and would result in a significant impact, as further discussed below under Impact 5.15-2. Accordingly, the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB (see Section

5.2, Air Quality). Additionally, given the growth in population and employment within the City and the magnitude of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, GHG emissions are considered significant (see Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Although the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS, and would otherwise be consistent with implementation of programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, impacts associated with VMT, Air Quality and GHG, would be significant and therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS and impacts would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
The city finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures for this impact.

Finding
The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-thansignificant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IV of Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 103 -
these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)).

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Rationale for Finding
There are no feasible mitigation measures to fully reduce the proposed project’s inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS. As a result, future development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may conflict with programs and plans addressing the circulation system and project and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. This conclusion does not preclude a finding of less-than-significant impacts at the project level (Draft PEIR pg. 5.15-49).

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and therefore merit in-depth consideration, and which ones are infeasible.

Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project that could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section describes the potential alternatives to the project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
 “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]).
 “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1])
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 104 -
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f])
 “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]).  “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A])  “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][3]) A. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project objectives while significantly lessening any significant effects of the project.

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft PEIR.

Alternative Location
The proposed project covers the entire City of Redondo Beach. Alternative locations are typically included in an environmental document to avoid, lessen, or eliminate the significant impacts of a project by considering the proposed development in an entirely different location. To be feasible, development of off-site locations must be able to fulfill the project purpose and meet most of the project’s objectives. Given the nature of the proposed project (adoption of a Redondo Beach General Plan, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the entire City), it is not possible to consider an off-site alternative. For this reason, an offsite alternative was considered infeasible pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) and rejected as a feasible project alternative.

Finding
The City finds that there are no alternative development areas for the proposed project as the City does not have jurisdiction over land uses outside of the City’s boundaries. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Reduced Residential Density and Intensity Alternative
A Reduced Residential Density and Intensity Alternative would result in fewer residences and nonresidential uses, which would theoretically reduce traffic and thereby reduce community impacts such as air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and demand for utilities and public services. However, such an alternative would not achieve or would only partially achieve the proposed project objectives of providing for growth and job creation within the City. This alternative would not be consistent with regional planning strategies that require accommodation of regional housing needs as established by the State of California and would be inconsistent with the existing certified Housing Element. Finally, by restricting residential and nonresidential growth, the environmental impact of the projected growth would increase development pressure elsewhere in the region, which could increase vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and thereby further degrade air quality and increases in GHG emissions. If regional growth estimates remain constant, it is reasonable to assume that a Reduced Residential Density and Intensity Alternative would relocate impacts from development to other agencies outside of the City and would not meet the project objectives locally or regionally, therefore this option was not evaluated in the Draft PEIR.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 106 -
Finding
The City finds that this alternative would not be consistent with the Housing Element and would not meet regional housing needs. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.

No Project Alternative
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the proposed General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Amendment would not be implemented by the City. The current General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program would remain in effect. Buildout statistics for the proposed project and the current General Plan are compared in Table 6-1. It should be noted that the existing conditions within the City do not meet the current General Plan buildout, therefore there would still be growth within the City under this alternative. The proposed land use designations under the proposed project would not be implemented under this alternative.

Impacts of the No Project/Existing General Plan alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Impacts would be greater for land use and planning. Impacts would be reduced for public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems.

Finding
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would meet most of the project objectives but to a lesser extent and would not meet the objectives of 1, 2, and 9; however, this alternative would not implement the proposed project policies, which are designed to further enhance the project objectives compared to the current General Plan. Under this alternative, the current Redondo Beach General Plan would not be updated to address changes in state laws and the Redondo Beach General Plan would continue to be out-of-compliance with the latest legislation. The City Council hereby rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative for the foregoing reasons, each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to justify rejection of the Alternative.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 107 -
Increased Residential Density and Intensity in Transit Oriented Design (TOD) Areas Alternative
The Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would increase buildout beyond what is projected by the proposed project and would concentrate the additional residential and non-residential growth in TOD areas. While growth would occur citywide, and in compliance with the certified housing element, like the proposed project, and the No Project Alternative, under this alternative residential density and non-residential intensity would increase in Special Policy Areas 1, Tech District, and 2, Galleria District (see Figure 3-5, Proposed Land Use Plan), which are located in close proximity to existing and proposed metro stations. As shown below in Table 6-2, the Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would result in an approximately 9.7% increase in population (7,671 persons), 9.6% more dwelling units (3,424 dwelling units) and 8.1% more non-residential square footage (1.4 million square feet) compared to the proposed project.

Under this alternative, residential density and nonresidential land use intensity would occur throughout the City consistent with the proposed project; however, the additional growth would be concentrated and increased in Special Policy Areas 1, Tech District, and 2, Galleria District. Under this alternative, non-residential growth would need to increase relative to the increase in residential density in TOD areas in order to implement a land use pattern that reduces VMT. Implementation of this alternative would require greater FAR and residential density, as compared to the proposed project, which would likely result in changes to development standards within the TOD areas to allow for increased building heights and minimal setbacks to accommodate greater development.

Finding
Impacts of the Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would be similar for agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources. geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Impacts would be greater for aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and system services. Impacts would be slightly reduced for air quality, energy, GHG emissions, land use and transportation. The Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would meet three project objectives to a lesser extent, and would only meet one project objective to a greater extent as compared to the proposed project. The City Council hereby rejects the Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative for the foregoing reasons, each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to justify rejection of the Alternative.

D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would slightly reduce impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and transportation. Other impacts would increase as compared to the proposed project, such as aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and system services. The Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would slightly reduce the effect on the environment with respect to regional VMT and thus air quality and GHG emissions, and energy, but would not eliminate a significant impact identified in the Draft PEIR. Therefore, the Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative is the “environmentally superior” alternative as it slightly reduces the overall impact on the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 108 -
environment compared to the proposed project. Table 6-3 shows how each of the alternatives meets the project objectives. The Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative would meet all the project objectives but to a lesser extent. Although the Increased Residential Density and Intensity in TOD Areas Alternative is deemed the “environmentally superior” alternative, all the alternatives would result in the same determination in terms of their level of impact, No Impact; Less than Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; Significant and Unavoidable for each of the issue areas analyzed.

V. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROJECT
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;  The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

In the case of the proposed project, implementation would cause the following significant irreversible changes:
 Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Future developments in accordance with the proposed project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 109 -
 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services would also be required (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services). The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.  Population growth related to project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Central Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10).  Future development in accordance with the proposed project is a long-term irreversible commitment of vacant parcels of land or redevelopment of existing developed land in the city.

Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.

B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Pursuant to Section 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
 Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
 Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
 Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR.

Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? Future growth facilitated by the proposed project would allow for infill development and intensification in the City. This would indirectly induce construction of site-specific infrastructure Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 110 -
upgrades, extensions, and improvements, such as roadways, storm drains, sewer lines, water pipes, solid waste collection systems, and energy/communications extensions. Additionally, the proposed project would induce growth through the removal of obstacles to development by simplifying and streamlining land use and zoning regulations for the project area. The proposed project does not, however, propose any specific infrastructure improvements that would result in growth. The proposed project does not approve the construction of specific development projects and would largely accommodate growth based on specific, future development proposals pursuant to market conditions.

However, in some locations, the project would allow increased development intensity and/or mix of land uses (e.g., residential development of different densities on the same property, or a combination of retail and/or office land uses and residential land uses) compared to existing conditions. Specifically, the proposed project provides opportunities for intensification or reuse of focused areas of the City and targets change in areas essential to satisfy the City’s State-mandated obligation to demonstrate it could meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for housing. Therefore, the proposed project removes regulatory obstacles to growth and is considered growth inducing.

Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
The proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not directly result in development. Direct growth-inducing impacts are commonly associated with the extension of new public services, utilities, and roads into areas that have previously been undeveloped. Growth facilitated by the proposed project would allow for infill development and intensification in the City, which is already served by public services. As discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services, there are several mechanisms in place to ensure there is adequate funding for expansion of services as buildout facilitated by the proposed project continues, such as budgets, development impact fees, and coordination with local and regional agencies. Future projects facilitated by the proposed project would be evaluated on an individual basis for conformance with funding mechanisms as applicable. Over time, the City anticipates the need to expand services to meet the needs of growth envisioned in the proposed project.

Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Implementation of the proposed project would encourage or facilitate economic effects. Temporary jobs would be created during development of future projects (e.g., design, planning, engineering, construction, etc.), facilitated by the proposed project, which would result in direct economic effects.

As the population grows and occupies new dwellings units in accordance with the proposed project, new residents would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would facilitate economic transactions of goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs. Furthermore, the proposed increases in development capacity for office, commercial, and retail uses would serve the shopping and services needs of the future residents and would generate additional employment opportunities. The physical impacts of job growth are reflected in the analysis in the Draft PEIR and are expected to be localized in the City. As the proposed project is a regulatory document and does not directly result in development, before any development or redevelopment activities would occur in the City, such Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 111 -
activities would be analyzed for conformance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements to ensure that future projects would not adversely affect the environment. There is nothing unusual about the anticipated growth facilitated by the proposed project that would significantly affect the environment.

Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Cities and counties in California periodically update their general plans elements pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65300 et seq., and the adoption of these types of plans do not necessarily set a precedent that could encourage and facilitate other activities that may significantly affect the environment. The General Plan Update refines and adds to the goals and policies and changes land uses in the City. New and/or modified goals and policies in the proposed General Plan Update either replace, supplement, or elaborate on those in the existing General Plan. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program (LCP) would involve land-use changes that would be consistent with the General Plan Update. Development facilitated by the proposed project would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and may tier from the General Plan EIR if appropriate. Future development proposals would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements to ensure that future projects would not adversely affect the environment. Moreover, no changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement the proposed project. Although the proposed project would include actions that set precedents within the City to facilitate future growth, these precedents are not anticipated to encourage and/or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.

VI. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR AND

REVISIONS TO THE FINAL PEIR
The Final PEIR contains response to comments, clarifications, revisions, and corrections to the Draft PEIR. The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in the comments, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). In Section 2 of the Final PEIR, the City provided written responses to each comment made by a public agency, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), and revisions and corrections to the Draft PEIR are in Section 3 of the Final PEIR.

CEQA requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review, but before certification. “Information” includes changes in the project. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

New information is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” includes a disclosure showing that:

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 112 -
 A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
 A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted;
 A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or
 The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Based on the responses to comments, the Planning Commission’s recommendations, and in those instances noted below, planning staff recommendations, changes to the project considered include the following:
 In response to a comment letter submitted by the California Department of Conservation, references to the State Tsunami Hazard Area Maps and ASCE Tsunami Design Zone Maps were incorporated; The correction of the sources and updates to figures does not change the conclusions reached by the Draft PEIR.
 In response to public comments and Planning Commission’s recommendations proposed changes/edits to the Land Use Element and Implementation Actions (See Section 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR of the Final PEIR) are being considered. These proposed text updates to the policies and implementation actions of the Land Use Elements do not change the conclusions reached by the Draft PEIR.
 In response to a letter submitted to the City by the Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) on the General Plan Update (dated July 17, 2024), revisions have been considered to change the proposed land use designation of Open Space (OS) to Public Institutional (PI) at the Lincoln Elementary School Fields and Blacktop Area, the Alta Vista Elementary School Fields, and the former Franklin School Site. This change to the proposed land use does not change the analysis or impact conclusion of the Final PEIR as the three subject properties are currently designated as Public Institutional (PI), which is consistent with the current and future intended use of the property. These three sites were not factored into the open space calculations included in the Open Space and Conservation Element and reverting the properties back to their original designation will have no material effect on the Final PEIR.  In response to planning staff ’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations, revisions have been considered to not change the existing land use designation of the AES powerplant site and the SCE ROW site to Public Utility (PU) but retain their Public or Institutional (P) designations.

The current General Plan includes a “P” (Public or Institutional) designation for the AES powerplant site and the SCE ROW and the only permitted uses allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and LCP for the AES site are park/open space and utilities. The SCE ROW also conditionally permits agricultural uses, parking lots, and accessory structures in addition to the uses allowed on Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 113 -
the AES site. The updated General Plan considered changing these properties to a newly created designation, Public Utility (PU), which is defined as providing “for utility uses including easements with public access for recreation and parking.” Since the time that this designation was created, the powerplant has been decommissioned and is no longer in operation. Additionally, some changes are likely to the associated SCE ROW infrastructure in the future. Staff and the Planning Commission therefore recommends maintaining the original designation of these properties as “P” (Public or Institutional), which provides Governmental administrative and capital facilities, parks, schools, libraries, hospitals and associated medical offices, public cultural facilities, public open space, utility easements, and other public uses. Therefore, maintaining the properties with their original designation will have no material effect on the Final PEIR.  .
 In response to planning staff ’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations, revisions have been considered to raise the proposed minimum non-residential FAR from 0.35 to 0.40 for all Mixed-Use land use designations. This revision would have no material effect on the FPEIR.  In response to planning staff ’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations, revisions have been considered to change all Utility (U) designation to Public (P). The proposed Public/Utility (U) land use designation provides for utility uses including easements with public access for recreation and parking. Maximum FAR 0.10. Therefore, this revision would have no material effect on the FPEIR.

None of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft PEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft PEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate.

Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final PEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 114 -
A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings of Fact, 12 project impacts remain for which complete mitigation is not feasible. The EIR identified the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project.

Air Quality
 Impact 5.2-1
 Impact 5.2-2
 Impact 5.2-3.
 Impact 5.2-4
Cultural Resources
 Impact 5.4-1.

Energy
 Impact 5.5-2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Impact 5.7-1.
 Impact 5.7-2
Land Use and Planning
 Impact 5.10-2
Noise
 Impact 5.11-1
Population and Housing
 Impact 5.12-1
Transportation
 Impact 5.15-1
B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes the benefits of the proposed project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the Final PEIR has indicated that 12 significant project impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 115 -
Considerations will be included in the record of the project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed project through all feasible mitigation measures, as described previously, and balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality, cultural resources, energy, GHG emissions, land use and planning, noise, and population and housing, and transportation, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons.

Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The proposed project would provide goals and policies that would facilitate and achieve the project objectives: