HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 23-7363 (LANE RECONFIGURATIONS) Page 1 of 3 RES NO. 23-7363
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 23-7363
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ESTABLISHING PERMANENT LANE RECONFIGURATIONS AND BIKE LANES
ON HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE, CLOSING A PORTION OF
PUBLIC STREET CONNECTING GREENWICH VILLAGE TO HERMOSA
AVENUE, AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, On June 9, 2020, the Hermosa Beach City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 20-1410U, Implementing a Temporary Permit for Outdoor
Dining/Seating and Outdoor Retail Display to Assist in the Reopening of
Restaurants, Food, and Retail Establishments during COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, On July 14, 2020, the City Council extended the provisions of
Ordinance No. 20-1410U until at least January 13, 2021, in light of the ongoing
pandemic, and directed City staff to work with a traffic engineering consultant to
develop options for closing parking and vehicle lanes of/n the downtown sections
of Hermosa and Pier Avenues that would encourage foot traffic and expand
socially distanced outdoor dining and retail opportunities in the public right-of-
way; and
WHEREAS, On August 25, 2020, the City Council approved a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to close parts of public streets on a temporary basis
and, specifically, a section of Greenwich Village to allow the North End Bar and
Grill to have outdoor dining; and
WHEREAS, On September 8, 2020, the City Council authorized plans to
temporarily close one lane of vehicular traffic in each direction on Pier Avenue,
between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive, and plans to temporarily close
vehicular traffic the northbound and southbound # 2 travel lanes (closest to the
curb) on Hermosa Avenue from the 800 block at 8th Street to the 1300 block at
14th street to facilitate outdoor recreational and economic activity in the City’s
downtown area on a temporary basis and add a Class 2 Bike Lane in both
directions throughout this project area; and
WHEREAS, The lane closures were necessary to facilitate outdoor economic
and recreational activity in compliance with County Health Officer Orders to
reduce the spread of COVID-19. Implementation of the Order was thus exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the statutory
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Page 2 of 3 RES NO. 23-7363
exemption for actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency (Public
Resources Code § 21080(b)(4); CEQA Guidelines § 15269(c)) and the categorical
exemption for minor temporary use of land (CEQA Guidelines § 15304(e)); and
WHEREAS, In October 2021, City Council directed staff to develop
permanent versions of the temporary extended outdoor dining and lane
reconfiguration programs implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, City staff has worked with traffic engineering professionals to
determine that these permanent lane reconfigurations, street closures, and
bicycle lanes are an acceptable and desirable complement to the proposed
permanent outdoor dining program; and
WHEREAS, the City has studied the environmental impacts of the project
and has declared that the proposed temporary project is categorically exempt
under CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby declare that the recitals set forth
above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference; and
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the following:
A. The closure of one lane of vehicular traffic in each direction on Pier
Avenue, between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive;
B. The closure of the northbound and southbound # 2 travel lanes (closest
to the curb) of vehicular traffic on Hermosa Avenue from the 800 block at 8th
Street to the 1300 block at 14th Street;
C. The addition of a Class 2 Bike Lane in both directions throughout the
project area; and
D. The closure of parts of public streets connecting Greenwich Village to
Hermosa Ave.
The closures and bike lane additions are detailed in the attached Exhibit “A” is
incorporated into this Resolution.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or word of this resolution is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
remaining provisions of this resolution.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Page 3 of 3 RES NO. 23-7363
SECTION 4. Environmental Review.The proposed project is Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section
15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, as follow:
The Lane Reconfiguration component of the project is exempt in accordance
with Section 15301 which addresses minor alterations of existing public facilities;
and Section 15304 which addresses minor alterations to public land. More
specifically, the following two subcategories of exemption both apply.
15301(c) – Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and
pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the
purpose of public safety), and other alterations such as the addition of
bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking, bicycle-share
facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes,
pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not
create additional automobile lanes.
15304(h) – The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way.
Environmental analysis in support of these exemptions is attached as Exhibit “B”
and is incorporated into this resolution.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which
shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 25th day of April, 2023.
Mayor Raymond A. Jackson
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________
Myra Maravilla Patrick Donegan
City Clerk City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Exhibit A
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM
Supplemental Environmental Analysis
In addition to identifying the project’s exemption status under CEQA, City Staff and
consultants reviewed the proposed project’s potential to result in adverse environmental
effects, guided by the topics of the Initial Study checklist derived from Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study checklist is used by the City to determine the
potential for environmental effects and the possible need for an Environmental Impact
Report or other forms of CEQA documentation.
A. Direct physical Impacts
Impacts of proposed projects are of two types – construction related impacts and
operational (post-construction) impacts. Most construction-related impacts are avoided
if the project results in no, or minimal, subsurface disturbance of soils, grading or
excavation, as is the case with the proposed Outdoor Dining Program. Because the
project will not result in substantial subsurface disturbance, it will not significantly affect
any of the following natural or cultural resources considered under CEQA:
▪Geology & Soils
▪Biological Resources
▪Hydrology & Water Quality
▪Wildlife
▪Agriculture & Forestry
▪Cultural Resources (including Historical & Paleontological Resources)
▪Tribal Resources
▪Mineral Resources
None of these resources will be impacted by the project as a result of either
construction-related or operational impacts.
B. Impacts to Services, Facilities, Utilities and Housing
A small group of potential impacts addressed under CEQA relate to adverse effects on
public services (police and fire), utilities (water, waste water, storm drain), public
facilities (parks, schools, libraries) and housing. Impacts to these resources result when
a project introduces a substantial number of new residents into the local population, or a
substantial number of additional employees, or otherwise creates an increased demand
for these services. Although the outdoor dining project has the potential to result in a
minor increase in seating capacity at local restaurants, a potential incremental increase
in patronage will not substantially increase the demand for services, or in the capacity of
public utilities or facilities, or result in a substantial increase in housing demand. Nor will
the project directly impact public facilities or utilities physically, either during construction
or as an effect of their long-term operation. Avoidance of any physical impact is assured
through the project’s provision that the use does not obstruct access to public utilities
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
and infrastructure for emergency or maintenance purposes (See Project
Characteristics).
C. Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
Impact assessment under CEQA considers a project’s potential conflict with any land
use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental
effect. The proposed project poses no such conflict and thus avoids this category of
potential impact.
D. Transportation and Traffic
The evaluation of potential impacts related to transportation (including traffic) under
CEQA is limited to four topics:
(1)Will the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The lane configuration component of the project proposes to modify lanes in specific
road segments. Rather than conflict with programs, plans, ordinances or policies
addressing the circulation system, the project implements policies of Goal 3 of PLAN
Hermosa’s Mobility Element, including Policy 3.1 Enhance public right-of-ways, Policy
3.6 Complete bicycle network, Policy 3.8 Encourage shared streets, and Policy 3.10
Require ADA standards. Consistent with its goal to improve safety for multimodal traffic,
the project will result in the addition of approximately 7,000 linear feet of new Class II
bike lanes available for electric and conventional bicycles and other wheeled devices,
and new on-street ADA accessible parking spaces with associated signage and
pavement markings.
(2)Will the project result in a significant increase in vehicle miles travelled?
Based on screening thresholds recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research1, a project that consists of less than 50,000 square feet of retail use (including
retail restaurants) will not have a significant impact related to vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) and is too small to warrant a technical analysis of VMT impacts. The proposed
project has a maximum square footage of 9,500 square feet, well below the
recommended screening threshold.
(3)Will the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature?
The proposed lane reconfigurations are identical to those that have been put in place
under the temporary outdoor dining program. They were designed by the City’s traffic
engineer to avoid the creation of any hazardous conditions.
1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts
in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
(4) Will the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The City’s traffic engineer has determined that the proposed lane reconfigurations with
their reduction in vehicular travel lanes will not result in inadequate emergency access
at any of the proposed locations, or along any designated emergency route.
Traffic Issues Raised by the Public
In addition to the questions posed by CEQA, the supplemental environmental analysis
addressed comments received from the public. In correspondence received by City
Staff in June 2022, a Hermosa Beach resident, speaking of the temporary outdoor
dining program, asserted that “the Pier Avenue Lane Reduction Project has shifted
more and more commercial and commuter traffic into residential neighborhoods and
turned 27th street into a defacto truck-route serving the plaza area businesses.” To
respond to this concern, City Staff and consultants performed a technical analysis
focused on the question of traffic diverting from downtown as a result of the temporary
lane reductions and impacting other areas in the city. The study investigated potential
diversion effects throughout the city, but also specifically investigated the question of
traffic diversion impacting the segment of 27th Street between Hermosa Avenue and
Morningside Drive. The study also analyzed the potential for the proposed project to
induce significant traffic diversion under future conditions with the project and regional
background traffic considered.
The analysis examined trip distribution along primary and secondary routes for trips
travelling to or from Downtown and found that 27th Street experienced a 1% decrease in
distribution of downtown trips from 2019 (prior to lane reconfigurations) to 2021 (with
lane reconfigurations in place). Total vehicular activity on 27th Street decreased by
approximately 15% from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021. These observations lead the
traffic engineers to conclude that lane reductions are not contributing significant traffic
diversions onto secondary routes and 27th Street, and are not likely to do so as a result
of the proposed project. The full technical analysis is provided in Appendix A (Fehr &
Peers, January 2023).
E. Noise Impacts
A technical noise study was conducted to identify the potential for the project to result in
significant impacts from roadway noise (increased traffic) or from noises related to
outdoor dining. The study identified future noise levels on nine roadway segments, eight
of which were selected because they serve the downtown area where most of the areas
proposed to be eligible for outdoor dining are located. The study found that roadway
noise with the maximum allowable outdoor dining (worst case) and lane
reconfigurations in place, and with future background regional traffic conditions in place,
would increase 0.1 dBA CNEL or less, at a distance of 30 feet from the roadway
centerline, when compared to the baseline conditions of 2019 when outdoor dining and
lane reconfigurations were not in place. In the case of the ninth roadway segment, 27th
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Street west of Morningside Drive, the study found that roadway noise will decrease by
an estimated 0.0 to 0.1 dBA, compared to 2019 baseline conditions.
Potential noise sources associated with outdoor dining activities include noise
generated by outdoor restaurant patrons conversing, potentially at high volumes and/or
in large groups. The study identified the potential noise level under extreme worst case
conditions (40 persons dining together and all talking at once) and determined that the
City’s exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL would not be exceeded under those
conditions at a distance of 20 feet. City Staff has determined that no proposed dining
areas are within 20 feet of a residence or residential property line.
The proposed project explicitly prohibits amplified or live music from being audible
beyond outdoor dining areas. Televisions may be allowed, but only with audio turned
off. These restrictions ensure the project will not adversely impact the acoustic
environment.
The technical noise study (MD Acoustics, April 2023a) is provided in Appendix A.
F. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts
A technical assessment was performed to evaluate the project’s potential to result in
significant impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and energy
consumption. The study found that the project’s air quality emissions are well below the
AQMD’s significance thresholds (7% or less of threshold levels for criteria pollutants)
and that the project is well below screening thresholds for significant contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions. The project was found not to have impacts related to
excessive or wasteful energy consumption. The technical study (MD Acoustics, April
2023b) is provided in Appendix A.
G. Visual Resources
Neither the proposed lane reconfigurations nor the dining decks and their related
features (planters, umbrellas, heaters, podiums, tables and chairs, etc.) are large
enough in scale individually or cumulatively to substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views, or significantly obstruct scenic vistas from any of the
prominent public viewpoints identified in PLAN Hermosa. Overhead objects (poles,
posts, canopies, signs, etc.) are restricted in height to 8 feet above ground level.
H. Cumulative Impacts
For all categories of potential environmental effects considered by CEQA, the proposed
Outdoor Dining Project has no environmental effect or, in some cases, a very minimal
effect that is well below thresholds of a significant impact. Based on this environmental
assessment and the supporting technical studies prepared to evaluate the project’s
impacts, there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the statement that the project
would not trigger significance thresholds even if it were 2 to 3 times greater in
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
magnitude (square footage) than proposed. Its contribution to cumulative potential
cumulative effects on the environment is non-substantial and not significant.
I. Summary
In summary, the proposed Outdoor Dining Program does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
major periods of California history or prehistory. Nor will the project jeopardize long-term
environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals, being consistent with
the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the General Plan.
The project as proposed and with implementation of all standard conditions of approval
and compliance with proposed City ordinances, resolutions and guidelines will have no
significant impacts to humans, directly or indirectly. Nor does the project have impacts
which are cumulatively considerable.
* * *
In defining activities that are categorically exempt, CEQA does not assert that activities
conforming to the exemption categories of Section 15300 will have no impacts. Rather,
CEQA’s categorical exemption provision establishes as a matter of law that impacts of
categorically exempt projects are effectively de minimus and the Secretary for
Resources has found that they do not have a significant effect on the environment. As
such they require no further analysis, documentation or disclosure.
The supplemental analysis performed for this project is above and beyond the
requirements of CEQA, especially for a project of this scale and which causes no
substantial disturbance to the physical environment. It was conducted by Staff to
facilitate a clear and transparent understanding of the CEQA determination for the
project, and to address questions raised in public testimony related to potential effects
of the City’s temporary outdoor dining program and the CEQA process that would
accompany the proposed permanent outdoor dining project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
100 Oceangate | Suite 1425 | Long Beach, CA 90802 | (562) 294-5848 | www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: February 21, 2023
To: Douglas Krauss, Environmental Programs Manager– City of Hermosa Beach
Ed Almanza, Ed Almanza & Associates
From: Sean Reseigh, Senior Transportation Planner, and Michael Kennedy, Principal – Fehr & Peers
Subject: CEQA Transportation Assessment for City of Hermosa Beach Outdoor Dining Program
LB22-0029.02
Introduction
This memorandum documents Fehr & Peers’ evaluation of the potential for significant
transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) associated with the
City of Hermosa Beach’s proposed outdoor dining program in Downtown Hermosa Beach.
Project Description
The City of Hermosa Beach’s proposed outdoor dining program would allow for permanent
outdoor dining primarily along Pier and Hermosa Avenues (“proposed Project”). Temporary pilot
outdoor dining was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the proposed
permanent outdoor dining program, a cap of 9,500 square feet Citywide of outdoor dining use
would be implemented. These uses would be associated with existing restaurants and incidental
to their existing operations. The location of potential outdoor dining is expected to primarily
continue to be in Downtown Hermosa Beach, where 87% of the commercially zones parcels are
located. However, up to 13% of the total commercially zoned parcels are located outside of
Downtown Hermosa Beach, so a limited amount of outdoor dining could be located in other parts
of the City. Due to the concentration of outdoor dining expected in Downtown relative to other
parts of the City, this impact analysis is focused on the evaluation of travel to/from Downtown, as
it constitutes the highest potential for significant transportation impacts associated with outdoor
dining. Outside of Downtown, any outdoor dining is expected to be very limited in nature, and
therefore, unlikely to have any significant transportation impacts under CEQA. Outdoor dining is
expected to primarily continue to occur in converted on-street parking spaces.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 2 of 8
CEQA Transportation Evaluation
Impact Criteria
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, impacts to transportation would be considered
significant if the proposed Project were found to:
1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy (PPOP) addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) includes the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects, as follows: Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an
applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact Analysis
The following details the qualitative evaluation of the proposed Project under these impact
criteria.
Criterion 1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
The proposed Project is not expected to conflict with any local or regional programs, plans,
ordinances or policies when adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach.
Criterion 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
The ultimate level of vehicle miles travelled generated by the proposed Project will depend on the
types of restaurant uses that apply for and are granted approval for outdoor dining, as well as
whether or not they are locally or regionally serving uses, which would affect mode choice (how
many drive, take transit, bike or walk to a use), as well as the average vehicle trip length.
Guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA1 provides recommended screening thresholds to
determine whether VMT analysis would be required, based on project characteristics, including:
• Locally serving retail
• Small project
• Transit Priority Area (TPA)
1 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed 1.6.2023.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 3 of 8
• Low VMT Area
The proposed Project is expected to qualify for the locally serving retail screening criteria as
discussed below. It is not expected to qualify for small project or TPA screening, and low VMT
area screening applies only to office and residential uses.
As recommended by OPR, 50,000 square feet of retail uses can be considered locally serving.
Locally serving retail may include specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy,
financial services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and café. According to OPR’s
Guidance, the proposed Project is considered locally serving and presumed to have a less than
significant impact related to VMT, and no further quantitative VMT analysis is required.
Criterion 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
The proposed Project will not alter street design, it will simply allow for the continuation of the
temporary outdoor dining program on a permanent basis. Consistent with the temporary outdoor
dining program, this will occur primarily within on-street parking stalls, which will be protected by
jersey barriers, or other traffic safety devices subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic Engineer
to ensure safe separation between outdoor diners and vehicles on City roadways. Outdoor dining
areas will not impede on sight distance for motorists and pedestrians, as protective jersey barriers
are lower than the height of drivers and pedestrian lines of sight. Therefore, the proposed
Project’s impact under this criterion will be less than significant.
Criterion 4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed project will not alter street design or parcel access that could affect emergency
access. It will solely modify existing on-street parking stalls to allow for outdoor dining, which will
have no effect on access. Additionally, the proposed Project will add negligible traffic volumes to
roadways in the City as further detailed below. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impact under
this criterion will be less than significant.
Proposed Project Trip Generation
While a quantitative VMT impact analysis is not needed because the proposed Project can be
screened as locally serving, to support CEQA impact analyses associated with air quality and noise
impact areas, Fehr & Peers prepared trip generation estimates for the proposed Project. The
ultimate trip generation will vary based on the types of restaurant uses that apply for and are
approved for permanent outdoor dining under this program. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to estimate daily and AM and PM
peak hour trips reflecting the different restaurant uses that are present in Downtown Hermosa
Beach. They include:
• Fast Casual Restaurant (example: Chipotle on Pacific Coast Highway)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 4 of 8
• Fine Dining Restaurant (example: Zane’s on Pier Avenue)
• High Turnover- Sit Down Restaurant (example: Fritto Misto on Pier Avenue
• Drinking Place (example: Hennessey’s Tavern on Pier Plaza)
Table 1 presents the daily and AM and PM peak hour estimates for the proposed Project.
Scenario 1 presents the worst-case trip generation estimates for the proposed Project, assuming
that 100% of the 9,500 square feet of outdoor dining are associated with the High-Turnover Sit
Down Restaurant trip rate, which has the highest daily trip rate compared with the other
restaurant categories. Daily trip generation estimates for this scenario are 1,072 trips, with 96 trips
in the AM peak hour, and 91 trips in the PM peak hour. In addition to using the highest trip rate,
this analysis likely also overestimates the number of trips because it does not account for
potential walk/bike access to Downtown Hermosa Beach, or for visitors to the coastal zone also
choosing to patronize a local restaurant, which would both result in reduced trip generation
compared with standard ITE rates. Additionally, because outdoor dining uses will be incidental to
existing indoor restaurants, they are unlikely to generate vehicle trips at the level of trip
generation accounted for in ITE rates. However, the numbers are presented here for a potential
worst-case trip generation estimate.
Scenario 2 presents a more realistic scenario with the variety of restaurant use types in Hermosa
Beach. For this scenario, the spit is assumed to be equal across the four categories. As with
Scenario 1, it is still expected to be an overestimation of potential vehicle trips, as it does not
account for walk/bike access and internalization of trips from visitors to the coastal zone. Daily
trip generation for this scenario is 749 trips, with 30 AM peak hour and 102 PM peak hour trips.
Table 1: Proposed Project Daily AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates
[a] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 11th Edition, analysis by Fehr &
Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.
Proposed Project Trip Assignment
In order to estimate the worst-case trip generation estimates on roadways used to access
Downtown Hermosa Beach, Fehr & Peers used StreetLight Data, a cell phone based origin
destination data set to evaluate the share of total travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach on
various roadways. Due to changes in transportation conditions over the COVID-19 pandemic, data
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 5 of 8
for Summer 2019, 2020 and 2021 were analyzed to determine if there were varying travel patterns
across those years. Table 2 presents the percentage share of total travel to/from Downtown
Hermosa Beach at nine study locations on 27th Street, 8th Street, Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan
Avenue, Monterey Boulevard, and Pier Avenue. While the table presents the minor variations in
the StreetLight Data share of travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach over the three years
analyzed, Summer 2021 is considered the most typical, as most businesses had reopened from
the temporary closures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Summer 2021
distribution was used to estimate trips on the study locations.
Table 3 details the worst-case daily proposed Project-only trips expected at each of these study
locations. They were estimated by applying the 2021 StreetLight Data trip distribution percentage
to daily trip generation for Scenarios 1 and 2. Pier and Hermosa Avenues are expected to carry
the vast majority of trips to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach associated with outdoor dining. The
other corridors will experience negligible increases in trips per day. To be conservative 100% of
the outdoor dining is assumed to occur in Downtown Hermosa Beach in order to estimate the
worst-case traffic volume increases that could occur on roadway segments in the City.
Table 2: StreetLight Data Daily Distribution of Travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location Summer 2019
Daily % of Total Travel
Summer 2020
Daily % of Total Travel
Summer 2021
Daily % of Total Travel
1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 7.0% 5.9% 6.2%
2. 8th Street (west of Valley 7.4% 7.2% 6.0%
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 17.2% 16.9% 17.1%
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 21.7% 22.7% 22.6%
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2.9% 1.6% 2.0%
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2.5% 2.0% 2.1%
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 2.2% 2.0% 1.6%
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 3.0% 2.3% 2.5%
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 36.1% 39.4% 39.9%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Table 3: Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location Scenario 1 Daily Project Only Trips Scenario 2 Daily Project Only Trips
1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 64 44
2. 8th Street (west of Valley 61 42
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 174 122
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 230 161
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 21 15
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 22 15
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 16 11
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 25 18
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 405 283
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
Baseline + Project ADT Volumes
In order to estimate pre-project (2019) pre-pandemic baseline conditions, StreetLight Data were
used to estimate average daily traffic (ADT) for 2019, as no in-field collected traffic counts were
available for pre-pandemic conditions.
StreetLight Data applies proprietary machine-learning algorithms to measure travel patterns and
makes them available on-demand via StreetLight InSight®, the world’s first SaaS platform for
mobility. StreetLight provides powerful analyses for a wide variety of transportation studies
including volume, counts, Origin-Destination (O-D) and more. StreetLight algorithmically
transforms trillions of location data points into contextualized, aggregated, and normalized travel
pattern data to deliver unique insights into how vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and bus and rail
passengers move on virtually every road and Census Block. StreetLight Data collects all its
transportation data as Location Based Services (LBS) data which are services based on the location
of a mobile device. They obtain “low fidelity” cell phone data scrubbed of all Personally
Identifiable Information (PII), and pair it with data with “high fidelity” data from GPS devices.
StreetLight Data were used to estimate ADT for summer (July & August) weekend days in 2019.
ADT on the study segments are presented in Table 4, which also includes proposed Project trips,
and the expected percent change in daily traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project. As
shown in the table, under Scenario 1, the maximum change in daily segment traffic volumes
change is expected to be approximately 2.3%. Under Scenario 2, the maximum change is
approximately 1.6%.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 7 of 8
Cumulative Conditions
In order to assess the potential for increased traffic volumes under cumulative conditions, Fehr &
Peers reviewed the traffic analysis conducted for the PLAN Hermosa environmental impact report.
Based on analysis from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasting model, as well as the modelling conducting for PLAN
Hermosa, regional traffic volumes are not expected to increase, as land use patterns change to
focus more on urban infill housing, as the regional transportation network is developed, and as
transportation demand management (TDM) measures become more commonplace. As noted in
the PLAN Hermosa Drafty EIR, “PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse
projects in the city in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within Hermosa
Beach… Regional population and employment growth will not result in increased vehicular travel
demand.”2 Therefore, the Baseline plus Project traffic volumes contained in this memorandum
represent the expected worst-case scenario.
While the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR noted that vehicular travel demand is expected to reduce
Citywide, due to some localized travel pattern changes, the PLAN Hermosa EIR projected an
increase in peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street.
However, PLAN Hermosa would reduce traffic volumes at that location compared to the Future
without PLAN Hermosa scenario. Appendix G to the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR includes peak hour
traffic volume changes at study intersections. The primary change to traffic volumes forecast in
the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR were on the eastbound left movement, so most of the increased
volumes would not travel on 27th Street, and instead would continue northbound on Manhattan
Avenue. Therefore, even under Cumulative conditions, traffic volumes on 27th Street west of
Morningside Drive are not expected to substantially increase.
While not needed for CEQA transportation impact analysis, the volumes provided in this
memorandum serve as input data for the air quality and noise impact analysis of the proposed
Project.
2 PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Hermosa Beach, 2016. Page 4.14-45. Accessed 2/20/23 from https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8538/637001018228830000
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza February 21, 2023 Page 8 of 8
Table 4: Baseline plus Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location Baseline (2019)
ADT
Scenario 1 Project Only ADT
Scenario 2 Project Only ADT
Baseline + Scenario 1 ADT
Baseline + Scenario 2 ADT
Scenario 1 Delta (%) Scenario 2 Delta (%)
1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 8,081 64 44 8,145 8,125 0.8% 0.5%
2. 8th Street (west of Valley) 6,256 61 42 6,317 6,298 1.0% 0.7%
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 14,466 174 122 14,640 14,588 1.2% 0.8%
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 15,003 230 161 15,233 15,164 1.5% 1.1%
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2,334 21 15 2,355 2,349 0.9% 0.6%
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2,121 22 15 2,143 2,136 1.0% 0.7%
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 3,839 16 11 3,855 3,850 0.4% 0.3%
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 4,014 25 18 4,039 4,032 0.6% 0.4%
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 17,563 405 283 17,968 17,846 2.3% 1.6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256
Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 0AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
April 3, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project –Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
and Energy Impact Evaluation, City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Evaluation for the proposed Hermosa Beach Downtown Post-Pilot Installation Vehicular Changes Project
located in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. The purpose of this focused study is to evaluate the air
quality and greenhouse gas operational emissions as well as energy consumption of the proposed project,
and to compare projected emissions and energy consumption to the relevant thresholds of significance. A
list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.
1.0 Project Description
The project proposes that certain commercial establishments may provide outdoor dining in public right-
of-way areas (including on-street parking areas and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach.
The project would reconfigure travel lanes to accommodate areas where outdoor dining would be
allowed and to provide lanes for bicycles and other zero-emission modes of transportation.
2.0 AQ/GHG Thresholds of Significance
2.1 AQ Significance Thresholds
Project emissions were compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for
operational emissions1,2.
2.2 GHG Significance Thresholds
The project emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses3.
3.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology
MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1) to calculate the operational emissions from the
project site4. The project was modeled to be operational in 2023. Regional emissions were based on an
increase of 1,018 trips per day, based on the maximum scenario generated by the traffic analysis from
Fehr & Peers, with a ten-mile trip length for a conservative estimate, and localized emissions were based
on a two-mile trip length to approximately cover the project area twice. As stated by Fehr & Peers, the
project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates used in this analysis are a worst-
case scenario. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in
Appendix C.
1 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf
2 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
3 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2
4 https://www.caleemod.com/
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
4.0 Local Ambient Conditions
The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source
Receptor Area (SRA) 35. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Los Angeles-
Westchester Parkway Monitoring Station. Historical air quality data for the vicinity can be found both at
CARB and SCAQMD’s websites6,7. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)8.
5.0 Findings
The following outlines the emissions for the project:
5.1 Regional Operational Emissions
The operating emissions were based on year 2023, which is the anticipated opening year for the project.
The number of trips was based on the transportation assessment from Fehr & Peers9 and a trip length of
10 miles.
The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were
calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 1. The data in
Table 1 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional
significance thresholds.
Table 1: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 4.00 3.47 38.60 0.08 2.89 0.56
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
2 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
5.2 Localized Operational Emissions
Table 2 indicates that the local operational emission would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest
sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. This was based on trip lengths of two miles and
localized significance thresholds for a 25-meter distance to the nearest sensitive receptor and a one-acre
project size, which is a highly conservative comparison as the project is spread over more than 100 acres
across Hermosa Beach. Therefore, the project will not result in significant Localized Operational emissions.
5 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6
6 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year
7 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
8 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html
9 Fehr & Peers. CEQA Transportation Assessment for City of Hermosa Beach Outdoor Dining Program. February 21, 2023.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Table 2: Localized Significance –Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 0.69 7.72 0.58 0.11
SCAQMD Threshold2 91 664 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one-acre, to be conservative, in Southwest Coastal Los Angeles
Source Receptor Area (SRA 3).
2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses located along the multiple routes being studied; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was
utilized.
5.3 GHG Emissions
Table 3 outlines the construction and operational GHG emissions for the project. The project’s emissions
are below (1,386 MTCO2e) the SCAQMD’s draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and;
therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Table 3: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.07 0.06 1,386.00
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
5.4 CO Hotspot Analysis
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality
impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal
CO standards which can be found from the CARB website.10
To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a
sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of
intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots”
potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.
Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the
air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO
attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at
intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels
10 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot”
potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.
The traffic impact analysis showed that the project would generate a maximum total of 1,018 trips per
day, and the maximum daily trips in a single corridor would be 17,968 along Pier Avenue (west of Valley).
The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection
which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO
standard. The volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the
necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot”
modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality
with the on-going use of the proposed project.
5.5 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which
travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would
extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger
area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.
The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and
operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the
South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the
incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and
industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of
these projects. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the
SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the
overall cumulative impact. Therefore, as the project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance,
the project is considered less than significant. Additionally, per the project traffic analysis from Fehr &
Peers (and the PLAN Hermosa EIR), cumulative traffic volumes are expected to decrease regionally, in
addition to a long-term decease in local traffic volumes as a result of implementation of the City’s General
Plan.
5.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans
Consistency with AB32 Scoping Plan
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines
the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California,
improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy,
create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in
the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
This Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas
emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020,
or about 10 percent from today’s levels. In May 2014, the CARB released its First Update to the Climate
Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update identifies the next steps for California’s leadership on
climate change. In November 2017, the CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan
incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies
and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific
actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful
framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new,
technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction
targets.
As the project was found to not increase traffic regionally by Fehr & Peers in the project traffic
assessment, the project is consistent with the Scoping Plan.
Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represent the region’s
Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential
to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile for consistency with
those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the
provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as
SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans
and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.
Table 4 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 4, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related
actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.0
Table 4: Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and displacement,
by increasing housing supply at a variety of
affordability levels.
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants and
will not impact housing.
Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing near transit facilities.
Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
growth on the Livable Corridors network.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing along the 2,980 miles of Livable
Corridors in the region.
Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Communities. proposed project is also consistent with the
Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed-use districts in growth areas.
Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable communities. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking and
would be consistent with those policy objectives.
Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
conservation strategies.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion to
outdoor dining for local restaurants that would
help reduce demand for growth in urbanizing
areas that threaten green fields and open
spaces.
Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not
interfere with such policymaking.
Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Management strategies.
County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is an expansion
to outdoor dining for local restaurants that will
minimize congestion impacts on the region
because of its proximity to public transit and
general density of population and jobs.
Promote safety and security in the transportation
system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and
protect users from security threats. The
proposed project would not interfere with such
policymaking.
Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation
Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project includes lane
reconfigurations which would provide new lanes
for bikes and other zero-emissions
transportation modes.
Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not applicable. The proposed project would not
interfere with the goal of promoting
neighborhood electric vehicles.
Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS; September 3, 2020.
6.0 Energy
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would consist of transportation energy
demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site). Additional
energy that would be consumed by the construction or operation of the additional outdoor dining is
assumed to be negligible as no additional buildings are to be built.
This energy analysis is based upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines which states that any project
that results in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy
resources would have a significant impact.
6.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is located
in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, it is assumed that
an average trip for all vehicles were assumed to be 10 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, it was
assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 5 shows the worst-case estimated annual
fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks. Table 5 shows that an
estimated 155,002 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.
Table 5: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles1
Average
Trip
(miles)2
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 518 10 5,184 31.82 162.92 59,467
Light Truck Automobile 56 10 559 27.16 20.56 7,506
Light Truck Automobile 183 10 1,832 25.6 71.56 26,121
Medium Truck Automobile 174 10 1,737 20.81 83.47 30,468
Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 37 10 369 13.81 26.73 9,755
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 9 10 92 14.18 6.52 2,380
Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 11 10 114 9.58 11.87 4,331
Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 29 10 293 7.14 41.03 14,975
Total 1,018 -- 10,180 -- 424.66 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 155,002
Notes:
1 Per the trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 1,018 total net new trips in the maximum scenario. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized.
2Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.
Trip generation of the proposed project is consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale
and configuration as reflected in the traffic analysis from Fehr & Peers. That is, the proposed project does
not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Additionally, as stated by Fehr & Peers, the
project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates shown in this analysis are a
worst-case scenario. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
7.0 Conclusions
Operational project emissions were evaluated and compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s
thresholds of significance. In addition, project GHG emissions were evaluated and compared to SCAQMD’s
draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Project emissions are anticipated to be below
SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance with no mitigation and project energy usage was found not to be
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
MD is pleased to provide this focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation. If you
have any questions regarding this analysis, please don’t hesitate to call us at (805) 426-4477.
Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix B
Project Map
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix C
CalEEMod Output
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256
Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
April 11, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining – Noise Assessment – City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) is pleased to provide this noise assessment for the Hermosa Beach Downtown
Outdoor Dining Project in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The project proposes that certain commercial
establishments may provide outdoor dining in public right-of-way areas (including on-street parking areas
and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach. The project identifies areas where outdoor dining
would be allowed. This assessment analyzes the baseline and baseline plus project traffic noise conditions
for nine (9) street segments that were identified by the technical traffic consultants as the key routes for
vehicular access to and from the project area. It provides a quantitative analysis of outdoor dining noise and
compares projected roadway and outdoor dining noise levels to the City’s applicable noise standards. For
your reference, Appendix A contains a glossary of acoustical terms.
1.0 Assessment Overview
This assessment evaluates the baseline noise conditions and the baseline + project noise conditions
experienced along the following streets:
1. 27th Street (west of Morningside)
2. 8th Street (west of Valley)
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th Street)
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th Street)
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier)
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier)
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier)
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier)
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley)
The nine analyzed roadways will be the most affected by the project and represent the worst-case scenario.
Baseline traffic conditions for each roadway were provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023 in Appendix B
of this report). The traffic noise level has been compared to the City’s noise standards. All modeling
assumptions follow FHWA traffic noise modeling protocols. The study also assesses the stationary noise
impact on adjacent land uses due to outdoor dining. Exhibit A identifies the roadway segments that were
assessed. The eligible outdoor dining areas are shown in Exhibit B.
2.0 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Public Safety Element
from the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code. Table 6.3 in the City’s Public Safety
Element outlines the interior and exterior noise standards (Table 1 of this report).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Exhibit A
Roadway Segments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. 27th Street
(west of Morningside)
2. 8th Street
(west of Valley)
3. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 16th Street)
4. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 8th Street)
5. Manhattan Avenue
(north of Pier)
6. Manhattan Avenue
(south of Pier)
7. Monterey Boulevard
(north of Pier)
8. Monterey Boulevard
(south of Pier)
9. Pier Avenue
(west of Valley)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Exhibit B
Project Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 1: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards1
Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Exterior Interior
Residential 65 dB 45 dB
Hotels/Motels 65 dB 45 dB
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 dB 45 dB
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 65 dB 45 dB
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports 65 dB N/A
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 dB N/A
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 dB N/A
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 70 dB 50 dB
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dB 65 dB
Notes:
1. Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family residences; private patios of multi-family residences that are accessed by a means
of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.
2. Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. Noise level requirement is with windows closed. Mechanical
ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
3. See Table 6.3 Public Safety, PLAN Hermosa1
3.0 Study Method and Procedure
Traffic Noise Level Prediction Modeling
Traffic noise from the vehicular traffic was projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The software utilizes FHWA protocol and is similar to the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5)
algorithms to calculate noise level projections and are typically accurate within ± 3 dBA. The FHWA model
arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission
Level (REMEL).
Roadway volumes and project trip generation were obtained from Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers estimated
pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2020-2021) conditions using StreetLight Data. The estimates
show that traffic volumes decreased significantly from 2019 to 2020 and began to increase in 2021,
indicating that activity is returning to pre-pandemic conditions. Traffic volumes were analyzed during
summer weekends to represent the loudest conditions. Temporary roadway diversions were put in place
after 2019, and the project proposes to make the lane reconfigurations permanent. The baseline condition
represents the worst-case noise before roadway diversions were put in place and without project-
generated traffic. The baseline plus project condition represents the worst-case noise with project-
generated traffic and with the roadway diversions in place.
27th Street traffic volumes and vehicle distribution were monitored by Fehr & Peers on 12/15/2022, after
roadway diversions were put in place. For this study, MD evaluated 27th Street separate from the other
roadways to compare baseline conditions, existing conditions, and baseline plus project conditions. Baseline
conditions represent pre-pandemic (2019) traffic volumes prior to lane reconfiguration. Existing conditions
represent the current post-pandemic traffic volumes with roadway diversions put in place. Baseline plus
project conditions represent 2019 traffic volumes, including the roadway diversions and project-generated
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
traffic. Fehr & Peers found that the lane reductions caused a 1% decrease in distribution on 27th Street,
making it highly unlikely that the lane reductions diverted 27th Street traffic.
Fehr & Peers provided two trip generation scenarios. Scenario 1 provides the worst-case trip generation
estimates and Scenario 2 provides more realistic estimates by accounting for the variety of restaurant uses.
For this analysis, MD utilized the trip generation estimates from Scenario 1 in order to calculate the absolute
worst-case scenario.
The following outlines the key adjustments made to the REMEL for the roadway inputs:
Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, a major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc),
Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of
the roadway)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks
and heavy trucks
Roadway grade and angle of view
Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard)
Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period
Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source)
Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and
receptor).
Traffic noise source spectra
Topography
The Model doesn’t include the noise reduction effects of the single family residencies
Roadway modeling assumptions utilized for the technical study are provided in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Limits Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Project
Only ADT1
Baseline +
Project
ADT1
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)2
Speed
(MPH)
8th Street West of Valley Dr 6,256 61 6,317 25 25
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 14,466 174 14,640 48 30
Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 15,003 230 15,233 50 25
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 2,334 21 2,355 23 25
Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 2,121 22 2,143 25 25
Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 3,839 16 3,855 23 25
Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 4,014 25 4,039 25 25
Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 17,563 405 17,968 50 25
Notes:
1. Provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023).
2. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 3: Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)1
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.42
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 1.84
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.74
Notes:
1 Typical Southern California Traffic Mix
Roadway modeling assumptions for 27th Street are provided in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 4: 27th Street Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Existing
(2022) ADT2
Baseline +
Project ADT2
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)3
Speed
(MPH)
27th Street West of Morningside 6,036 8,081 8,145 16 30
Notes:
1 Baseline ADT volumes provided by Fehr & Peers, February 2023.
2. Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.
3. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline.
Table 5: 27th Street Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.6
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 2.2
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.2
Notes:
1 Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.
Stationary Noise Prediction Modeling
MD utilized the inverse square law to calculate noise level projections due to outdoor dining noise. MD
assumed that the maximum number of outdoor guests at any given restaurant would be 40 people. A typical
voice would be 65 dBA at 3 feet away when speaking normally. As a worst-case scenario, the calculation
assumes that all 40 guests are speaking simultaneously. MD analyzed the minimum allowable distance
between an outdoor dining area and a sensitive receptor in order to meet the City’s code.
4.0 Findings
Traffic Noise
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project
were calculated at the nearest residential location for each affected road segment. The noise levels both
with and without project-generated vehicle traffic were compared and the increase was calculated. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix C).
Noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions (excluding 27th Street):
Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to
temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 6.
Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition
(with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 6.
Table 6: Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic
Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
Without
Project
Baseline
With Project
Change in
Noise Level
Increase of 3
dB or more2
8th Street West of Valley Dr 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 66.4 66.4 0.0 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 59.1 59.1 0.0 No
Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 58.1 58.2 0.1 No
Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 61.2 61.2 0.0 No
Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Notes:
1 FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C.
2 Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB
As shown in Table 6, the baseline plus project noise will meet the residential noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL for
every roadway segment except for Hermosa Avenue north of 16th Street. However, the noise due to the
project will not increase the baseline noise and would not be significant. The baseline and baseline plus
project conditions analyzed in this study represent the loudest conditions.
27th Street noise levels for existing, baseline, and baseline plus project traffic conditions were compared and
the increase was calculated. The distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also
provided for reference (Appendix C). Noise contours for 27th Street were calculated for the following
scenarios and conditions:
Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to
temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the current traffic noise condition (2022, with roadway
diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition
(with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
Table 7: 27th Street Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic
Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
(2019)
Without
Project
Existing
(2022)
Without
Project
Baseline
With
Project
Change in
Noise
Level3
Increase
of 3 dB
or
more2
27th Street West of Morningside 67.3 66.0 67.3 0.0 No
Notes:
1 FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C.
2 Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB.
3. Change in noise level between baseline noise conditions and baseline + project noise conditions.
As shown in Table 7, project-generated traffic noise will not increase the baseline traffic noise. Thus, the
temporary roadway diversions do not have an impact on the existing or baseline traffic noise conditions.
Existing traffic noise along 27th Street has decreased by 1.3 dBA CNEL since 2019 due to a decrease in activity
caused by the pandemic. The existing traffic noise will increase by a maximum of 1.3 dBA CNEL as traffic
volumes increase to pre-pandemic conditions and will not be a noticeable change in loudness. Thus, the
impact is less than significant.
Stationary Noise
Stationary noise at sensitive receptors cannot exceed the City’s noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL for residential
properties, per City standards. As a worst-case scenario, stationary noise was calculated assuming that 40
guests are speaking simultaneously. The average speaking voice is 65 dBA from 3 feet away. 40 people
speaking from 20 feet away would be 64 dBA. Thus, the impact due to stationary noise will not be significant
if residential locations are located 20 feet or further from future outdoor dining areas.
Music (live or otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend
past the dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code.
5.0 CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis as
presented below:
(a) Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise Code, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Transportation Noise Impacts
Traffic noise would be significant if levels are increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in
areas with sensitive uses. Baseline traffic represents the worst-case future traffic when activity returns to
pre-pandemic conditions. The worst-case baseline plus project traffic noise levels will meet the residential
noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL at seven of the nine roadway segments. Baseline plus project traffic volumes are
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 9
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
expected to be up to 0.1 dBA CNEL louder respectively than baseline traffic noise levels at existing land uses
and will not result in a significant noise increase.
MD also compared baseline (2019) conditions, existing (2022) conditions, and baseline plus project noise
conditions for one of the roadway segments. The project will not increase the baseline traffic noise and will
not have an impact. Thus, the project will not have an impact on existing noise conditions and is not
significant. However, the baseline plus project noise will increase the existing noise by a maximum of 1.3
dBA CNEL due to traffic volumes returning to pre-pandemic conditions. It takes a change of 3 dBA to
perceive a change in loudness, thus, the impact is less than significant.
Stationary Noise Impacts
Stationary noise will be significant if it exceeds the levels outlined in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as
outlined in Section 2.0. Assuming an outdoor dining area consists of 40 people speaking simultaneously, the
noise level due to outdoor dining will meet the City’s standard of 65 dBA CNEL when sensitive receptors
(residential locations) are at a minimum of 20 feet away from an outdoor dining area. Music (live or
otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend past the
dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code. The
impact will not be significant.
5.0 Conclusions
MD is pleased to provide this noise assessment for the Outdoor Dining Project in the City of Hermosa Beach,
CA. The worst-case traffic noise due to the project will increase the baseline conditions by 0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL
and will not be significant. A typical outdoor dining area will meet the City’s standard of 65 dBA CNEL. If you
have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477.
Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE Rachel Edelman
Principal Acoustic Consultant
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
Glossary of Acoustical Terms
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Glossary of Terms
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A
numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the
ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
location.
C-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the C-weighted filter network. The C-weighting filter greatly de-emphasizes very high
frequency components of the sound and slightly de-emphasizes the very low frequency
components. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during
a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00
to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and
after 10:00 PM.
Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20
micro-pascals.
dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).
dB(C): C-weighted sound level (see definition above).
dB(Z): Z-weighted sound level (see definition of dB above).
Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given
sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The
energy average noise level during the sample period.
Maximum Sound Level (LMAX): This is the highest sound level measured during a single noise
event. Lmax does not consider the number and duration of these events, and cannot be totaled
into a one-hour or 24-hour cumulative measure of impact.
Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other
applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes,
excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar
spaces.
Human Sensitivity to Sound: In general, the healthy human ear can hear between 20 Hz to 20,000
Hz. Frequencies below 125 Hz are typically associated with low frequencies or bass. Frequencies
between 125 Hz and 5,000 Hz are typically associated with mid-range tones. Finally, frequencies
between 5,000 and 20,000Hz are typically associated with higher range tones.
The human ear is sensitive to changes in noise levels, depending on the frequency. Generally
speaking, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (A-
weighted scale) and perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a
higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. At lower and higher frequencies, the ear can
become less sensitive depending on a number of factors. Figure 1 provides a brief summary of how
humans perceive changes in noise levels.
Figure 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA Changes in Apparent Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm
L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For
example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90 and
L99, etc.
Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and
hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control
Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".
Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).
Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level
meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. Figure 2
provides the sound level associated with common noise sources.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Figure 2: Common Sound Levels
Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and
frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would
produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix B
Fehr & Peers Traffic Counts
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Calculations
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM
Supplemental Environmental Analysis
In addition to identifyi City Staff and
consultants
effects, guided by the topics of the Initial Study checklist derived from Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study checklist is used by the City to determine the
potential for environmental effects and the possible need for an Environmental Impact
Report or other forms of CEQA documentation.
A. Direct physical Impacts
Impacts of proposed projects are of two types construction related impacts and
operational (post-construction) impacts. Most construction-related impacts are avoided
if the project results in no, or minimal, subsurface disturbance of soils, grading or
excavation, as is the case with the proposed Outdoor Dining Program. Because the
project will not result in substantial subsurface disturbance, it will not significantly affect
any of the following natural or cultural resources considered under CEQA:
Geology & Soils
Biological Resources
Hydrology & Water Quality
Wildlife
Agriculture & Forestry
Cultural Resources (including Historical & Paleontological Resources)
Tribal Resources
Mineral Resources
None of these resources will be impacted by the project as a result of either
construction-related or operational impacts.
B. Impacts to Services, Facilities, Utilities and Housing
A small group of potential impacts addressed under CEQA relate to adverse effects on
public services (police and fire), utilities (water, waste water, storm drain), public
facilities (parks, schools, libraries) and housing. Impacts to these resources result when
a project introduces a substantial number of new residents into the local population, or a
substantial number of additional employees, or otherwise creates an increased demand
for these services. Although the outdoor dining project has the potential to result in a
minor increase in seating capacity at local restaurants, a potential incremental increase
in patronage will not substantially increase the demand for services, or in the capacity of
public utilities or facilities, or result in a substantial increase in housing demand. Nor will
the project directly impact public facilities or utilities physically, either during construction
or as an effect of their long-term operation. Avoidance of any physical impact is assured
through the the use does not obstruct access to public utilities
Exhibit B
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
and infrastructure for emergency or maintenance purposes (See Project
Characteristics).
C. Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
Impact a
use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental
effect. The proposed project poses no such conflict and thus avoids this category of
potential impact.
D. Transportation and Traffic
The evaluation of potential impacts related to transportation (including traffic) under
CEQA is limited to four topics:
(1)Will the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The lane configuration component of the project proposes to modify lanes in specific
road segments. Rather than conflict with programs, plans, ordinances or policies
addressing the circulation system, the project implements policies of Goal 3 of PLAN
-of-ways, Policy
3.6 Complete bicycle network, Policy 3.8 Encourage shared streets, and Policy 3.10
Require ADA standards. Consistent with its goal to improve safety for multimodal traffic,
the project will result in the addition of approximately 7,000 linear feet of new Class II
bike lanes available for electric and conventional bicycles and other wheeled devices,
and new on-street ADA accessible parking spaces with associated signage and
pavement markings.
(2)Will the project result in a significant increase in vehicle miles travelled?
nning and
Research1, a project that consists of less than 50,000 square feet of retail use (including
retail restaurants) will not have a significant impact related to vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) and is too small to warrant a technical analysis of VMT impacts. The proposed
project has a maximum square footage of 9,500 square feet, well below the
recommended screening threshold.
(3)Will the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature?
The proposed lane reconfigurations are identical to those that have been put in place
engineer to avoid the creation of any hazardous conditions.
1 18, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts
in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
(4) Will the project result in inadequate emergency access?
their reduction in vehicular travel lanes will not result in inadequate emergency access
at any of the proposed locations, or along any designated emergency route.
Traffic Issues Raised by the Public
In addition to the questions posed by CEQA, the supplemental environmental analysis
addressed comments received from the public. In correspondence received by City
Staff in June 2022, a Hermosa Beach resident, speaking of the temporary outdoor
dining program, the Pier Avenue Lane Reduction Project has shifted
more and more commercial and commuter traffic into residential neighborhoods and
turned 27th street into a defacto truck-route serving the plaza area businesses To
respond to this concern, City Staff and consultants performed a technical analysis
focused on the question of traffic diverting from downtown as a result of the temporary
lane reductions and impacting other areas in the city. The study investigated potential
diversion effects throughout the city, but also specifically investigated the question of
traffic diversion impacting the segment of 27th Street between Hermosa Avenue and
Morningside Drive. The study also analyzed the potential for the proposed project to
induce significant traffic diversion under future conditions with the project and regional
background traffic considered.
The analysis examined trip distribution along primary and secondary routes for trips
travelling to or from Downtown and found that 27th Street experienced a 1% decrease in
distribution of downtown trips from 2019 (prior to lane reconfigurations) to 2021 (with
lane reconfigurations in place). Total vehicular activity on 27th Street decreased by
approximately 15% from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021. These observations lead the
traffic engineers to conclude that lane reductions are not contributing significant traffic
diversions onto secondary routes and 27th Street, and are not likely to do so as a result
of the proposed project. The full technical analysis is provided in Appendix A (Fehr &
Peers, January 2023).
E. Noise Impacts
A technical noise study was conducted to identify the potential for the project to result in
significant impacts from roadway noise (increased traffic) or from noises related to
outdoor dining. The study identified future noise levels on nine roadway segments, eight
of which were selected because they serve the downtown area where most of the areas
proposed to be eligible for outdoor dining are located. The study found that roadway
noise with the maximum allowable outdoor dining (worst case) and lane
reconfigurations in place, and with future background regional traffic conditions in place,
would increase 0.1 dBA CNEL or less, at a distance of 30 feet from the roadway
centerline, when compared to the baseline conditions of 2019 when outdoor dining and
lane reconfigurations were not in place. In the case of the ninth roadway segment, 27th
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Street west of Morningside Drive, the study found that roadway noise will decrease by
an estimated 0.0 to 0.1 dBA, compared to 2019 baseline conditions.
Potential noise sources associated with outdoor dining activities include noise
generated by outdoor restaurant patrons conversing, potentially at high volumes and/or
in large groups. The study identified the potential noise level under extreme worst case
conditions (40 persons dining together and all talking at once) and determined that the
under those
conditions at a distance of 20 feet. City Staff has determined that no proposed dining
areas are within 20 feet of a residence or residential property line.
The proposed project explicitly prohibits amplified or live music from being audible
beyond outdoor dining areas. Televisions may be allowed, but only with audio turned
off. These restrictions ensure the project will not adversely impact the acoustic
environment.
The technical noise study (MD Acoustics, April 2023a) is provided in Appendix A.
F. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts
significant impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and energy
and that the project is well below screening thresholds for significant contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions. The project was found not to have impacts related to
excessive or wasteful energy consumption. The technical study (MD Acoustics, April
2023b) is provided in Appendix A.
G. Visual Resources
Neither the proposed lane reconfigurations nor the dining decks and their related
features (planters, umbrellas, heaters, podiums, tables and chairs, etc.) are large
enough in scale individually or cumulatively to substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views, or significantly obstruct scenic vistas from any of the
prominent public viewpoints identified in PLAN Hermosa. Overhead objects (poles,
posts, canopies, signs, etc.) are restricted in height to 8 feet above ground level.
H. Cumulative Impacts
For all categories of potential environmental effects considered by CEQA, the proposed
Outdoor Dining Project has no environmental effect or, in some cases, a very minimal
effect that is well below thresholds of a significant impact. Based on this environmental
impacts, there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the statement that the project
would not trigger significance thresholds even if it were 2 to 3 times greater in
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
magnitude (square footage) than proposed. Its contribution to cumulative potential
cumulative effects on the environment is non-substantial and not significant.
I. Summary
In summary, the proposed Outdoor Dining Program does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
major periods of California history or prehistory. Nor will the project jeopardize long-term
environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals, being consistent with
the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the General Plan.
The project as proposed and with implementation of all standard conditions of approval
and compliance with proposed City ordinances, resolutions and guidelines will have no
significant impacts to humans, directly or indirectly. Nor does the project have impacts
which are cumulatively considerable.
* * *
In defining activities that are categorically exempt, CEQA does not assert that activities
conforming to the exemption categories of Section 15300 will have no impacts. Rather,
acts of
categorically exempt projects are effectively de minimus and the Secretary for
Resources has found that they do not have a significant effect on the environment. As
such they require no further analysis, documentation or disclosure.
The supplemental analysis performed for this project is above and beyond the
requirements of CEQA, especially for a project of this scale and which causes no
substantial disturbance to the physical environment. It was conducted by Staff to
facilitate a clear and transparent understanding of the CEQA determination for the
project, and to address questions raised in public testimony related to potential effects
accompany the proposed permanent outdoor dining project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
100 Oceangate | Suite 1425 | Long Beach, CA 90802 | (562) 294-5848 | www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: February 21, 2023
To: Douglas Krauss, Environmental Programs Manager– City of Hermosa Beach
Ed Almanza, Ed Almanza & Associates
From: Sean Reseigh, Senior Transportation Planner, and Michael Kennedy, Principal – Fehr
& Peers
Subject: CEQA Transportation Assessment for City of Hermosa Beach Outdoor Dining
Program
LB22-0029.02
Introduction
This memorandum documents Fehr & Peers’ evaluation of the potential for significant
transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) associated with the
City of Hermosa Beach’s proposed outdoor dining program in Downtown Hermosa Beach.
Project Description
The City of Hermosa Beach’s proposed outdoor dining program would allow for permanent
outdoor dining primarily along Pier and Hermosa Avenues (“proposed Project”). Temporary pilot
outdoor dining was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the proposed
permanent outdoor dining program, a cap of 9,500 square feet Citywide of outdoor dining use
would be implemented. These uses would be associated with existing restaurants and incidental
to their existing operations. The location of potential outdoor dining is expected to primarily
continue to be in Downtown Hermosa Beach, where 87% of the commercially zones parcels are
located. However, up to 13% of the total commercially zoned parcels are located outside of
Downtown Hermosa Beach, so a limited amount of outdoor dining could be located in other parts
of the City. Due to the concentration of outdoor dining expected in Downtown relative to other
parts of the City, this impact analysis is focused on the evaluation of travel to/from Downtown, as
it constitutes the highest potential for significant transportation impacts associated with outdoor
dining. Outside of Downtown, any outdoor dining is expected to be very limited in nature, and
therefore, unlikely to have any significant transportation impacts under CEQA. Outdoor dining is
expected to primarily continue to occur in converted on-street parking spaces.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 2 of 8
CEQA Transportation Evaluation
Impact Criteria
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, impacts to transportation would be considered
significant if the proposed Project were found to:
1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy (PPOP) addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) includes the criteria for analyzing transportation
impacts for land use projects, as follows: Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an
applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact Analysis
The following details the qualitative evaluation of the proposed Project under these impact
criteria.
Criterion 1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
The proposed Project is not expected to conflict with any local or regional programs, plans,
ordinances or policies when adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach.
Criterion 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
The ultimate level of vehicle miles travelled generated by the proposed Project will depend on the
types of restaurant uses that apply for and are granted approval for outdoor dining, as well as
whether or not they are locally or regionally serving uses, which would affect mode choice (how
many drive, take transit, bike or walk to a use), as well as the average vehicle trip length.
Guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA1 provides recommended screening thresholds to
determine whether VMT analysis would be required, based on project characteristics, including:
Locally serving retail
Small project
Transit Priority Area (TPA)
1 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed 1.6.2023.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 3 of 8
Low VMT Area
The proposed Project is expected to qualify for the locally serving retail screening criteria as
discussed below. It is not expected to qualify for small project or TPA screening, and low VMT
area screening applies only to office and residential uses.
As recommended by OPR, 50,000 square feet of retail uses can be considered locally serving.
Locally serving retail may include specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy,
financial services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and café. According to OPR’s
Guidance, the proposed Project is considered locally serving and presumed to have a less than
significant impact related to VMT, and no further quantitative VMT analysis is required.
Criterion 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
The proposed Project will not alter street design, it will simply allow for the continuation of the
temporary outdoor dining program on a permanent basis. Consistent with the temporary outdoor
dining program, this will occur primarily within on-street parking stalls, which will be protected by
jersey barriers, or other traffic safety devices subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic Engineer
to ensure safe separation between outdoor diners and vehicles on City roadways. Outdoor dining
areas will not impede on sight distance for motorists and pedestrians, as protective jersey barriers
are lower than the height of drivers and pedestrian lines of sight. Therefore, the proposed
Project’s impact under this criterion will be less than significant.
Criterion 4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed project will not alter street design or parcel access that could affect emergency
access. It will solely modify existing on-street parking stalls to allow for outdoor dining, which will
have no effect on access. Additionally, the proposed Project will add negligible traffic volumes to
roadways in the City as further detailed below. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impact under
this criterion will be less than significant.
Proposed Project Trip Generation
While a quantitative VMT impact analysis is not needed because the proposed Project can be
screened as locally serving, to support CEQA impact analyses associated with air quality and noise
impact areas, Fehr & Peers prepared trip generation estimates for the proposed Project. The
ultimate trip generation will vary based on the types of restaurant uses that apply for and are
approved for permanent outdoor dining under this program. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to estimate daily and AM and PM
peak hour trips reflecting the different restaurant uses that are present in Downtown Hermosa
Beach. They include:
Fast Casual Restaurant (example: Chipotle on Pacific Coast Highway)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 4 of 8
Fine Dining Restaurant (example: Zane’s on Pier Avenue)
High Turnover- Sit Down Restaurant (example: Fritto Misto on Pier Avenue
Drinking Place (example: Hennessey’s Tavern on Pier Plaza)
Table 1 presents the daily and AM and PM peak hour estimates for the proposed Project.
Scenario 1 presents the worst-case trip generation estimates for the proposed Project, assuming
that 100% of the 9,500 square feet of outdoor dining are associated with the High-Turnover Sit
Down Restaurant trip rate, which has the highest daily trip rate compared with the other
restaurant categories. Daily trip generation estimates for this scenario are 1,072 trips, with 96 trips
in the AM peak hour, and 91 trips in the PM peak hour. In addition to using the highest trip rate,
this analysis likely also overestimates the number of trips because it does not account for
potential walk/bike access to Downtown Hermosa Beach, or for visitors to the coastal zone also
choosing to patronize a local restaurant, which would both result in reduced trip generation
compared with standard ITE rates. Additionally, because outdoor dining uses will be incidental to
existing indoor restaurants, they are unlikely to generate vehicle trips at the level of trip
generation accounted for in ITE rates. However, the numbers are presented here for a potential
worst-case trip generation estimate.
Scenario 2 presents a more realistic scenario with the variety of restaurant use types in Hermosa
Beach. For this scenario, the spit is assumed to be equal across the four categories. As with
Scenario 1, it is still expected to be an overestimation of potential vehicle trips, as it does not
account for walk/bike access and internalization of trips from visitors to the coastal zone. Daily
trip generation for this scenario is 749 trips, with 30 AM peak hour and 102 PM peak hour trips.
Table 1: Proposed Project Daily AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates
[a] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 11th Edition, analysis by Fehr &
Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.
Proposed Project Trip Assignment
In order to estimate the worst-case trip generation estimates on roadways used to access
Downtown Hermosa Beach, Fehr & Peers used StreetLight Data, a cell phone based origin
destination data set to evaluate the share of total travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach on
various roadways. Due to changes in transportation conditions over the COVID-19 pandemic, data
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 5 of 8
for Summer 2019, 2020 and 2021 were analyzed to determine if there were varying travel patterns
across those years. Table 2 presents the percentage share of total travel to/from Downtown
Hermosa Beach at nine study locations on 27
th Street, 8th Street, Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan
Avenue, Monterey Boulevard, and Pier Avenue. While the table presents the minor variations in
the StreetLight Data share of travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach over the three years
analyzed, Summer 2021 is considered the most typical, as most businesses had reopened from
the temporary closures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Summer 2021
distribution was used to estimate trips on the study locations.
Table 3 details the worst-case daily proposed Project-only trips expected at each of these study
locations. They were estimated by applying the 2021 StreetLight Data trip distribution percentage
to daily trip generation for Scenarios 1 and 2. Pier and Hermosa Avenues are expected to carry
the vast majority of trips to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach associated with outdoor dining. The
other corridors will experience negligible increases in trips per day. To be conservative 100% of
the outdoor dining is assumed to occur in Downtown Hermosa Beach in order to estimate the
worst-case traffic volume increases that could occur on roadway segments in the City.
Table 2: StreetLight Data Daily Distribution of Travel to/from Downtown Hermosa
Beach
Study Corridor Location
Summer 2019
Daily % of Total
Travel
Summer 2020
Daily % of Total
Travel
Summer 2021
Daily % of Total
Travel
1. 27
th Street (west of Morningside) 7.0% 5.9% 6.2%
2. 8
th Street (west of Valley 7.4% 7.2% 6.0%
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16
th) 17.2% 16.9% 17.1%
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8
th) 21.7% 22.7% 22.6%
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2.9% 1.6% 2.0%
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2.5% 2.0% 2.1%
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 2.2% 2.0% 1.6%
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 3.0% 2.3% 2.5%
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 36.1% 39.4% 39.9%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 6 of 8
Table 3: Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa
Beach
Study Corridor Location Scenario 1 Daily
Project Only Trips
Scenario 2 Daily
Project Only Trips
1. 27
th Street (west of Morningside) 64 44
2. 8
th Street (west of Valley 61 42
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16
th) 174 122
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8
th) 230 161
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 21 15
6.Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier)22 15
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 16 11
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 25 18
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 405 283
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
Baseline + Project ADT Volumes
In order to estimate pre-project (2019) pre-pandemic baseline conditions, StreetLight Data were
used to estimate average daily traffic (ADT) for 2019, as no in-field collected traffic counts were
available for pre-pandemic conditions.
StreetLight Data applies proprietary machine-learning algorithms to measure travel patterns and
makes them available on-demand via StreetLight InSight®, the world’s first SaaS platform for
mobility. StreetLight provides powerful analyses for a wide variety of transportation studies
including volume, counts, Origin-Destination (O-D) and more. StreetLight algorithmically
transforms trillions of location data points into contextualized, aggregated, and normalized travel
pattern data to deliver unique insights into how vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and bus and rail
passengers move on virtually every road and Census Block. StreetLight Data collects all its
transportation data as Location Based Services (LBS) data which are services based on the location
of a mobile device. They obtain “low fidelity” cell phone data scrubbed of all Personally
Identifiable Information (PII), and pair it with data with “high fidelity” data from GPS devices.
StreetLight Data were used to estimate ADT for summer (July & August) weekend days in 2019.
ADT on the study segments are presented in Table 4, which also includes proposed Project trips,
and the expected percent change in daily traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project. As
shown in the table, under Scenario 1, the maximum change in daily segment traffic volumes
change is expected to be approximately 2.3%. Under Scenario 2, the maximum change is
approximately 1.6%.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 7 of 8
Cumulative Conditions
In order to assess the potential for increased traffic volumes under cumulative conditions, Fehr &
Peers reviewed the traffic analysis conducted for the PLAN Hermosa environmental impact report.
Based on analysis from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasting model, as well as the modelling conducting for PLAN
Hermosa, regional traffic volumes are not expected to increase, as land use patterns change to
focus more on urban infill housing, as the regional transportation network is developed, and as
transportation demand management (TDM) measures become more commonplace. As noted in
the PLAN Hermosa Drafty EIR, “PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse
projects in the city in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within Hermosa
Beach… Regional population and employment growth will not result in increased vehicular travel
demand.”2 Therefore, the Baseline plus Project traffic volumes contained in this memorandum
represent the expected worst-case scenario.
While the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR noted that vehicular travel demand is expected to reduce
Citywide, due to some localized travel pattern changes, the PLAN Hermosa EIR projected an
increase in peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street.
However, PLAN Hermosa would reduce traffic volumes at that location compared to the Future
without PLAN Hermosa scenario. Appendix G to the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR includes peak hour
traffic volume changes at study intersections. The primary change to traffic volumes forecast in
the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR were on the eastbound left movement, so most of the increased
volumes would not travel on 27th Street, and instead would continue northbound on Manhattan
Avenue. Therefore, even under Cumulative conditions, traffic volumes on 27th Street west of
Morningside Drive are not expected to substantially increase.
While not needed for CEQA transportation impact analysis, the volumes provided in this
memorandum serve as input data for the air quality and noise impact analysis of the proposed
Project.
2 PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Hermosa Beach, 2016. Page 4.14-45. Accessed
2/20/23 from https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8538/637001018228830000
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023
Page 8 of 8
Table 4: Baseline plus Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location
Baseline
(2019)
ADT
Scenario 1
Project Only
ADT
Scenario 2
Project Only
ADT
Baseline +
Scenario 1
ADT
Baseline +
Scenario 2
ADT
Scenario 1
Delta (%)
Scenario 2
Delta (%)
1. 27
th Street (west of Morningside) 8,081 64 44 8,145 8,125 0.8% 0.5%
2. 8
th Street (west of Valley) 6,256 61 42 6,317 6,298 1.0% 0.7%
3.Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th)14,466 174 122 14,640 14,588 1.2%0.8%
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8
th) 15,003 230 161 15,233 15,164 1.5% 1.1%
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2,334 21 15 2,355 2,349 0.9% 0.6%
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2,121 22 15 2,143 2,136 1.0% 0.7%
7.Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier)3,839 16 11 3,855 3,850 0.4%0.3%
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 4,014 25 18 4,039 4,032 0.6% 0.4%
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 17,563 405 283 17,968 17,846 2.3% 1.6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256
Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 0AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
April 3, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
and Energy Impact Evaluation, City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Evaluation for the proposed Hermosa Beach Downtown Post-Pilot Installation Vehicular Changes Project
located in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. The purpose of this focused study is to evaluate the air
quality and greenhouse gas operational emissions as well as energy consumption of the proposed project,
and to compare projected emissions and energy consumption to the relevant thresholds of significance. A
list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.
1.0 Project Description
The project proposes that certain commercial establishments may provide outdoor dining in public right-
of-way areas (including on-street parking areas and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach.
The project would reconfigure travel lanes to accommodate areas where outdoor dining would be
allowed and to provide lanes for bicycles and other zero-emission modes of transportation.
2.0 AQ/GHG Thresholds of Significance
2.1 AQ Significance Thresholds
operational emissions1,2.
2.2 GHG Significance Thresholds
3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses3.
3.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology
MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1) to calculate the operational emissions from the
project site4. The project was modeled to be operational in 2023. Regional emissions were based on an
increase of 1,018 trips per day, based on the maximum scenario generated by the traffic analysis from
Fehr & Peers, with a ten-mile trip length for a conservative estimate, and localized emissions were based
on a two-mile trip length to approximately cover the project area twice. As stated by Fehr & Peers, the
project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates used in this analysis are a worst-
case scenario. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in
Appendix C.
1 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf
2 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
3 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2
4 https://www.caleemod.com/
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
4.0 Local Ambient Conditions
The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source
Receptor Area (SRA) 35. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Los Angeles-
Westchester Parkway Monitoring Station. Historical air quality data for the vicinity can be found both at
s6,7. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)8.
5.0 Findings
The following outlines the emissions for the project:
5.1 Regional Operational Emissions
The operating emissions were based on year 2023, which is the anticipated opening year for the project.
The number of trips was based on the transportation assessment from Fehr & Peers9 and a trip length of
10 miles.
The summer and winter emissions -term operations were
calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 1. The data in
Table 1 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed
significance thresholds.
Table 1: Regional Significance Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 4.00 3.47 38.60 0.08 2.89 0.56
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
2 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
5.2 Localized Operational Emissions
Table 2 indicates that the local operational emission would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest
sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. This was based on trip lengths of two miles and
localized significance thresholds for a 25-meter distance to the nearest sensitive receptor and a one-acre
project size, which is a highly conservative comparison as the project is spread over more than 100 acres
across Hermosa Beach. Therefore, the project will not result in significant Localized Operational emissions.
5 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6
6 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year
7 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
8 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html
9 Fehr & Peers. CEQA Transportation Assessment for City of Hermosa Beach Outdoor Dining Program. February 21, 2023.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Table 2: Localized Significance Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 0.69 7.72 0.58 0.11
SCAQMD Threshold2 91 664 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: -up Tables for one-acre, to be conservative, in Southwest Coastal Los Angeles
Source Receptor Area (SRA 3).
2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses located along the multiple routes being studied; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was
utilized.
5.3 GHG Emissions
Table 3 outlines the construction and operational
are below (1,386 MTCO2e) draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and;
therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Table 3: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.07 0.06 1,386.00
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
5.4 CO Hotspot Analysis
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality
impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal
CO standards which can be found from the CARB website.10
To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a
potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.
Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the
air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO
attai
intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels
10https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case in
potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.
The traffic impact analysis showed that the project would generate a maximum total of 1,018 trips per
day, and the maximum daily trips in a single corridor would be 17,968 along Pier Avenue (west of Valley).
The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection
which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO
standard. The volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the
necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore,
modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality
with the on-going use of the proposed project.
5.5 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which
travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would
extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger
The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and
operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the
South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the
incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and
industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of
these projects. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the
SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the
overall cumulative impact. Therefore, as the project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance,
the project is considered less than significant. Additionally, per the project traffic analysis from Fehr &
Peers (and the PLAN Hermosa EIR), cumulative traffic volumes are expected to decrease regionally, in
addition to a long-term decease in local traffic volumes as a result of implementation
Plan.
5.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans
Consistency with AB32 Scoping Plan
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California,
improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy,
The measures in
the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020,
First Update to the Climate
Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update
climate change. In November 2017, the CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan
incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies
fic
framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new,
technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction
targets.
As the project was found to not increase traffic regionally by Fehr & Peers in the project traffic
assessment, the project is consistent with the Scoping Plan.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045
to conflict with the RTP/SCS,
those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the
provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as
and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.
Table 4 Strategies set forth in the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 4, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related
actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.0
Table 4: Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and displacement,
by increasing housing supply at a variety of
affordability levels.
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants and
will not impact housing.
Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing near transit facilities.
Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
growth on the Livable Corridors network.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing along the 2,980 miles of Livable
Corridors in the region.
Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Communities. proposed project is also consistent with the
Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed-use districts in growth areas.
Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable communities. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking and
would be consistent with those policy objectives.
Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
conservation strategies.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion to
outdoor dining for local restaurants that would
help reduce demand for growth in urbanizing
areas that threaten green fields and open
spaces.
Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not
interfere with such policymaking.
Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Management strategies.
County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is an expansion
to outdoor dining for local restaurants that will
minimize congestion impacts on the region
because of its proximity to public transit and
general density of population and jobs.
Promote safety and security in the transportation
system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and
protect users from security threats. The
proposed project would not interfere with such
policymaking.
Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation
Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project includes lane
reconfigurations which would provide new lanes
for bikes and other zero-emissions
transportation modes.
Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not applicable. The proposed project would not
interfere with the goal of promoting
neighborhood electric vehicles.
Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020 2045 RTP/SCS; September 3, 2020.
6.0 Energy
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would consist of transportation energy
demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site). Additional
energy that would be consumed by the construction or operation of the additional outdoor dining is
assumed to be negligible as no additional buildings are to be built.
This energy analysis is based upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines which states that any project
that results in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy
resources would have a significant impact.
6.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is located
in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, it is assumed that
an average trip for all vehicles were assumed to be 10 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, it was
assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 5 shows the worst-case estimated annual
fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks. Table 5 shows that an
estimated 155,002 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.
Table 5: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles1
Average
Trip
(miles)2
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 518 10 5,184 31.82 162.92 59,467
Light Truck Automobile 56 10 559 27.16 20.56 7,506
Light Truck Automobile 183 10 1,832 25.6 71.56 26,121
Medium Truck Automobile 174 10 1,737 20.81 83.47 30,468
Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 37 10 369 13.81 26.73 9,755
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 9 10 92 14.18 6.52 2,380
Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 11 10 114 9.58 11.87 4,331
Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 29 10 293 7.14 41.03 14,975
Total 1,018 -- 10,180 -- 424.66 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 155,002
Notes:
1 Per the trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 1,018 total net new trips in the maximum scenario. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized.
2Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.
Trip generation of the proposed project is consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale
and configuration as reflected in the traffic analysis from Fehr & Peers. That is, the proposed project does
not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Additionally, as stated by Fehr & Peers, the
project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates shown in this analysis are a
worst-case scenario. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
7.0 Conclusions
Operational project emissions were evaluated and
thresholds of significance.
draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Project emissions are anticipated to be below
and project energy usage was found not to be
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
MD is pleased to provide this focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation. If you
805) 426-4477.
Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix B
Project Map
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix C
CalEEMod Output
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue,Ste C-256
Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
April 11, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Noise Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) is pleased to provide this noise assessment for the Hermosa Beach Downtown
Outdoor Dining Project in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The project proposes that certain commercial
establishments may provide outdoor dining in public right-of-way areas (including on-street parking areas
and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach. The project identifies areas where outdoor dining
would be allowed. This assessment analyzes the baseline and baseline plus project traffic noise conditions
for nine (9) street segments that were identified by the technical traffic consultants as the key routes for
vehicular access to and from the project area. It provides a quantitative analysis of outdoor dining noise and
. For
your reference, Appendix A contains a glossary of acoustical terms.
1.0 Assessment Overview
This assessment evaluates the baseline noise conditions and the baseline + project noise conditions
experienced along the following streets:
1. 27th Street (west of Morningside)
2. 8th Street (west of Valley)
3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th Street)
4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th Street)
5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier)
6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier)
7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier)
8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier)
9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley)
The nine analyzed roadways will be the most affected by the project and represent the worst-case scenario.
Baseline traffic conditions for each roadway were provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023 in Appendix B
of this report).
assumptions follow FHWA traffic noise modeling protocols. The study also assesses the stationary noise
impact on adjacent land uses due to outdoor dining. Exhibit A identifies the roadway segments that were
assessed. The eligible outdoor dining areas are shown in Exhibit B.
2.0 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Public Safety Element
from the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code.
Element outlines the interior and exterior noise standards (Table 1 of this report).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: Noise_LetterReport4.11.23 final
Exhibit A
Roadway Segments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. 27
th Street
(west of Morningside)
2. 8
th Street
(west of Valley)
3. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 16th Street)
4. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 8th Street)
5. Manhattan Avenue
(north of Pier)
6. Manhattan Avenue
(south of Pier)
7. Monterey Boulevard
(north of Pier)
8. Monterey Boulevard
(south of Pier)
9. Pier Avenue
(west of Valley)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Exhibit B
Project Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 1: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards1
Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Exterior Interior
Residential 65 dB 45 dB
Hotels/Motels 65 dB 45 dB
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 dB 45 dB
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 65 dB 45 dB
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports 65 dB N/A
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 dB N/A
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 dB N/A
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 70 dB 50 dB
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dB 65 dB
Notes:
1. Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family residences; private patios of multi-family residences that are accessed by a means
of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.
2. Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. Noise level requirement is with windows closed. Mechanical
ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
3. See Table 6.3 Public Safety, PLAN Hermosa1
3.0 Study Method and Procedure
Traffic Noise Level Prediction Modeling
Traffic noise from the vehicular traffic was projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The software utilizes FHWA protocol and is similar to the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5)
algorithms to calculate noise level projections and are typically accurate within ± 3 dBA. The FHWA model
arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission
Level (REMEL).
Roadway volumes and project trip generation were obtained from Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers estimated
pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2020-2021) conditions using StreetLight Data. The estimates
show that traffic volumes decreased significantly from 2019 to 2020 and began to increase in 2021,
indicating that activity is returning to pre-pandemic conditions. Traffic volumes were analyzed during
summer weekends to represent the loudest conditions. Temporary roadway diversions were put in place
after 2019, and the project proposes to make the lane reconfigurations permanent. The baseline condition
represents the worst-case noise before roadway diversions were put in place and without project-
generated traffic. The baseline plus project condition represents the worst-case noise with project-
generated traffic and with the roadway diversions in place.
27th Street traffic volumes and vehicle distribution were monitored by Fehr & Peers on 12/15/2022, after
roadway diversions were put in place. For this study, MD evaluated 27th Street separate from the other
roadways to compare baseline conditions, existing conditions, and baseline plus project conditions. Baseline
conditions represent pre-pandemic (2019) traffic volumes prior to lane reconfiguration. Existing conditions
represent the current post-pandemic traffic volumes with roadway diversions put in place. Baseline plus
project conditions represent 2019 traffic volumes, including the roadway diversions and project-generated
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
traffic. Fehr & Peers found that the lane reductions caused a 1% decrease in distribution on 27th Street,
making it highly unlikely that the lane reductions diverted 27th Street traffic.
Fehr & Peers provided two trip generation scenarios. Scenario 1 provides the worst-case trip generation
estimates and Scenario 2 provides more realistic estimates by accounting for the variety of restaurant uses.
For this analysis, MD utilized the trip generation estimates from Scenario 1 in order to calculate the absolute
worst-case scenario.
The following outlines the key adjustments made to the REMEL for the roadway inputs:
Roadway classification (e.g. freeway, a major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc),
Roadway Active Width (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of
the roadway)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks
and heavy trucks
Roadway grade and angle of view
Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard)
Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period
Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source)
Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and
receptor).
Traffic noise source spectra
Topography
le family residencies
Roadway modeling assumptions utilized for the technical study are provided in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Limits Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Project
Only ADT1
Baseline +
Project
ADT1
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)2
Speed
(MPH)
8th Street West of Valley Dr 6,256 61 6,317 25 25
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 14,466 174 14,640 48 30
Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 15,003 230 15,233 50 25
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 2,334 21 2,355 23 25
Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 2,121 22 2,143 25 25
Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 3,839 16 3,855 23 25
Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 4,014 25 4,039 25 25
Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 17,563 405 17,968 50 25
Notes:
1. Provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023).
2. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 3: Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)1
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.42
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 1.84
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.74
Notes:
1 Typical Southern California Traffic Mix
Roadway modeling assumptions for 27th Street are provided in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 4: 27th Street Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Existing
(2022) ADT2
Baseline +
Project ADT2
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)3
Speed
(MPH)
27th Street West of Morningside 6,036 8,081 8,145 16 30
Notes:
1Baseline ADT volumes provided by Fehr & Peers, February 2023.
2.Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.
3. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline.
Table 5: 27th Street Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.6
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 2.2
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.2
Notes:
1 Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.
Stationary Noise Prediction Modeling
MD utilized the inverse square law to calculate noise level projections due to outdoor dining noise. MD
assumed that the maximum number of outdoor guests at any given restaurant would be 40 people. A typical
voice would be 65 dBA at 3 feet away when speaking normally. As a worst-case scenario, the calculation
assumes that all 40 guests are speaking simultaneously. MD analyzed the minimum allowable distance
4.0 Findings
Traffic Noise
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project
were calculated at the nearest residential location for each affected road segment. The noise levels both
with and without project-generated vehicle traffic were compared and the increase was calculated. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix C).
Noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions (excluding 27th Street):
Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to
temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 6.
Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition
(with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 6.
Table 6: Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic
Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
Without
Project
Baseline
With Project
Change in
Noise Level
Increase of 3
dB or more2
8th Street West of Valley Dr 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 66.4 66.4 0.0 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 59.1 59.1 0.0 No
Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 58.1 58.2 0.1 No
Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 61.2 61.2 0.0 No
Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Notes:
1FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C.
2Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB
As shown in Table 6, the baseline plus project noise will meet the residential noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL for
every roadway segment except for Hermosa Avenue north of 16th Street. However, the noise due to the
project will not increase the baseline noise and would not be significant. The baseline and baseline plus
project conditions analyzed in this study represent the loudest conditions.
27th Street noise levels for existing, baseline, and baseline plus project traffic conditions were compared and
the increase was calculated. The distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also
provided for reference (Appendix C). Noise contours for 27th Street were calculated for the following
scenarios and conditions:
Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to
temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the current traffic noise condition (2022, with roadway
diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition
(with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
Table 7: 27th Street Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic
Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
(2019)
Without
Project
Existing
(2022)
Without
Project
Baseline
With
Project
Change in
Noise
Level3
Increase
of 3 dB
or
more2
27th Street West of Morningside 67.3 66.0 67.3 0.0 No
Notes:
1 FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C.
2 Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB.
3. Change in noise level between baseline noise conditions and baseline + project noise conditions.
As shown in Table 7, project-generated traffic noise will not increase the baseline traffic noise. Thus, the
temporary roadway diversions do not have an impact on the existing or baseline traffic noise conditions.
Existing traffic noise along 27th Street has decreased by 1.3 dBA CNEL since 2019 due to a decrease in activity
caused by the pandemic. The existing traffic noise will increase by a maximum of 1.3 dBA CNEL as traffic
volumes increase to pre-pandemic conditions and will not be a noticeable change in loudness. Thus, the
impact is less than significant.
Stationary Noise
Stationary CNEL for residential
properties, per City standards. As a worst-case scenario, stationary noise was calculated assuming that 40
guests are speaking simultaneously. The average speaking voice is 65 dBA from 3 feet away. 40 people
speaking from 20 feet away would be 64 dBA. Thus, the impact due to stationary noise will not be significant
if residential locations are located 20 feet or further from future outdoor dining areas.
Music (live or otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend
past the dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code.
5.0 CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis as
presented below:
(a) Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise Code, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Transportation Noise Impacts
Traffic noise would be significant if levels are increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in
areas with sensitive uses. Baseline traffic represents the worst-case future traffic when activity returns to
pre-pandemic conditions. The worst-case baseline plus project traffic noise levels will meet the residential
noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL at seven of the nine roadway segments. Baseline plus project traffic volumes are
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 9
JN: Noise_LetterReport4.11.23 final
expected to be up to 0.1dBA CNEL louder respectively than baselinetrafficnoise levels at existing land uses
and will not result in a significant noise increase.
MD also compared baseline (2019) conditions, existing (2022) conditions, and baseline plus project noise
conditionsfor one of the roadway segments. The project will not increase the baseline traffic noise and will
not have an impact. Thus, the project will not have an impact on existing noise conditions and is not
significant. However, the baseline plus project noise will increase the existing noise by a maximum of 1.3
dBA CNEL due to traffic volumes returning to pre-pandemic conditions. It takes a change of 3 dBA to
perceive a change in loudness, thus, the impact is less than significant.
Stationary Noise Impacts
Stationary noise will be significant if it exceeds the levels outlined in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as
outlined in Section 2.0. Assuming an outdoor dining area consists of 40 people speaking simultaneously, the
noise level due to outdoor dining will standard of 65 dBA CNEL when sensitive receptors
(residential locations) are at a minimum of 20 feet away from an outdoor dining area. Music (live or
otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend past the
dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code. The
impact will not be significant.
5.0 Conclusions
MD is pleased to provide this noise assessmentfor the Outdoor Dining Projectin the City of Hermosa Beach,
CA. The worst-case trafficnoisedue to the project will increase the baseline conditionsby 0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL
and will not be significant.standardof 65 dBA CNEL.If you
have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477.
Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE Rachel Edelman
Principal Acoustic Consultant
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix A
Glossary of Acoustical Terms
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Glossary of Terms
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A
numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the
ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
location.
C-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the C-weighted filter network. The C-weighting filter greatly de-emphasizes very high
frequency components of the sound and slightly de-emphasizes the very low frequency
components. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during
a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00
to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and
after 10:00 PM.
Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20
micro-pascals.
dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).
dB(C): C-weighted sound level (see definition above).
dB(Z): Z-weighted sound level (see definition of dB above).
Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given
sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The
energy average noise level during the sample period.
Maximum Sound Level (LMAX): This is the highest sound level measured during a single noise
event. Lmax does not consider the number and duration of these events, and cannot be totaled
into a one-hour or 24-hour cumulative measure of impact.
Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other
applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes,
excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar
spaces.
Human Sensitivity to Sound: In general, the healthy human ear can hear between 20 Hz to 20,000
Hz. Frequencies below 125 Hz are typically associated with low frequencies or bass. Frequencies
between 125 Hz and 5,000 Hz are typically associated with mid-range tones. Finally, frequencies
between 5,000 and 20,000Hz are typically associated with higher range tones.
The human ear is sensitive to changes in noise levels, depending on the frequency. Generally
speaking, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (A-
weighted scale) and perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a
higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. At lower and higher frequencies, the ear can
become less sensitive depending on a number of factors. Figure 1 provides a brief summary of how
humans perceive changes in noise levels.
Figure 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA Changes in Apparent Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm
L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For
example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90 and
L99, etc.
Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and
hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control
Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".
Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).
Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level
meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. Figure 2
provides the sound level associated with common noise sources.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Figure 2: Common Sound Levels
Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and
frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would
produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix B
Fehr & Peers Traffic Counts
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Calculations
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Hermosa Beach )
May 1, 2023
Certification of Council Action
RESOLUTION NO. 23-7363
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ESTABLISHING PERMANENT LANE RECONFIGURATIONS AND BIKE LANES
ON HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE, CLOSING A PORTION OF
PUBLIC STREET CONNECTING GREENWICH VILLAGE TO HERMOSA AVENUE,
AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
I, Myra Maravilla, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution No. 23-7363 was duly approved and adopted by
the City Council of said City at its regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of
April 2023 and passed by the following vote:
AYES: MAYOR JACKSON, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MASSEY, COUNCILMEMBERS
FRANCOIS, SAEMANN, and DETOY
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
________________________________
Myra Maravilla, MPA, CMC
City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C8A5D-A231-42F2-A7A6-C3D5A03EDD66