Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-28 - PC - Special Meeting CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda Monday, July 28, 2025 6:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COMMISSIONERS Kate Hirsh, Chairperson Stephen Izant, Vice Chairperson Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Alison Becker, Community Development Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2I6TzBpTDIjc2x6bGFwdz09 • Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860• eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time.• Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of all, of the Commission after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at the Community Development Department located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 during regular business hours. • Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 • Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda • Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs• If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Page 2 of 764 Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.ROLL CALL 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA This is the time for Planning Commission to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items. 5.PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any items within the Commission's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken. The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to two minutes per speaker and shall only be taken from those present in the Council Chambers. No remote public comment will be taken during this time unless required by the Brown Act. A total of thirty minutes will be allocated to this initial public participation item. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Chair. No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Planning Commission may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the Community Development Director or City Manager's Office. 6.CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission members may orally register a negative vote on any consent calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration prior to the vote on the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission member removes an item from the Consent Calendar prior to the vote on the consent calendar item. Items removed will be considered under a latter agenda item, with only in-person public comment permitted at that time in the Chambers. The title is deemed to be read and further reading waived of any resolution or ordinance listed on the consent calendar for introduction or adoption. Recommendation: To approve the consent calendar. 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2025 - 25-CDD-095 6 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of May 20, 2025. Page 3 of 764 7.PUBLIC HEARING 7.a REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-01) TO ALLOW A 3-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE UNDER MPA 24- 001 - 25-CDD-104 12 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Motion: Motion: To adopt amended resolution 25-09 approving Master Planning Application (MPA 24-001) for the construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of a commercial unit, single-family dwelling unit, and accessory dwelling unit located at 54 Hermosa Avenue, subject to conditions of approval including a condition that Staff will review trash enclosure plans prior to approval, and after adding language to state, "Neither the condominium nor the ADU may be used as a Short Term Rental unless permitted by the Hermosa Municipal Code;" and to determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 7.b REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 83011) AT 911 1ST STREET TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT, A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUMS - 25-CDD-108 209 AND DEVELOP FOUR NEW BUILDINGS FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA-7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Motion: To adopt amended resolution 25-10 approving Precise Development Plan 24-09, Conditional Use Permit 24-09, and recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 83011, adding language to specify that applicant shall file a traffic plan as a traffic control measure; to consolidate three existing lots into a single ground lot and a subdivision of 13 condominiums for a new mixed-use development consisting of twelve residential units and a single commercial unit at 911 1st Street, subject to conditions of approval; and to determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 153322, Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines (Urban Infill). Page 4 of 764 8.STAFF ITEMS 8.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT 9.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission members may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification, or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. 10.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken. 10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 25-CDD- 097 763 Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the August 19, 2025 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. 11.PUBLIC COMMENT This time is set aside for the public to address the Commission on any item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission that could not be heard under Item 4 during the first public participation item because there were too many prior public speakers and the thirty-minute maximum time limit was exhausted. 12.ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 28, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-095 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2025 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of May 20, 2025. Attachment: Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of May 20, 2025 Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Reviewed by: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 6 of 764 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 20, 2025 Open Session 7:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hirsh called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Flaherty. 3. ROLL CALL Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado announced a quorum. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission held discussion at this time. Motion: To move agenda item 7.d to the top of the Public Hearing items. Moved by: Chairperson Kate Hirsh Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty A voice vote was taken on this item. Members Present: Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Greg McNally Page 7 of 764 2 Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment was provided by:  Diana Bradshaw (in-person) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: To approve the consent calendar. 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 15, 2025 - 25-CDD-075 Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of April 15, 2025. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Motion Carried 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.a CONTINUANCE REQUEST FOR 3415 PALM DRIVE - 25-CDD-085 Public comments were provided by:  Chris Miller (in-person)  Nancy Schwappach (in-person) The Planning Commission held discussions at this time. Motion: To postpone the public hearing for 3415 Palm Drive until the Planning Commission regular meeting of June 17, 2025, per the applicant’s request. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Page 8 of 764 3 7.b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-SALE CONSUMPTION OF BEER ONLY AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE 180 IN THE SPA-8 ZONE. - 25-CDD-066 Assistant Planner Johnny Case provided a presentation. Public comments were provided by:  Will Ingram (in-person)  Laura Pena (virtual) The Planning Commission held discussion and deliberation at this time. Motion: To adopt an amended resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit (CUP25-02) to allow on-sale consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer only) at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 180, subject to conditions, including adding language to specify that beer will only be sold to patrons of the business during business hours; and to determine that the project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Guidelines. Moved by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Seconded by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 7.c REQUEST FOR CUP AMENDMENT (APE24-003) TO EXPAND ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ALLOWED TO BEER, WINE, AND DISTILLED SPIRITS; AND AMEND PRIOR CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 844 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE (C-2) ZONE - 25-CDD-084 Assistant Planner Johnny Case provided a presentation. Public comments were provided by:  Dana Ireland (in-person)  Laura Pena (virtual) The Planning Commission held discussion and deliberation at this time. Motion: To adopt an amended resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment (APE24-003) to allow the applicant to expand the on-sale alcoholic beverages allowed to beer, wine, and distilled spirits; and to allow ten televisions on-site at 844 Hermosa Avenue, along with condition forty requiring that a bike rack must be provided on the street so long as there is an outdoor dining deck; and to determine that the project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Guidelines. Page 9 of 764 4 Moved by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Seconded by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 7.d REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN - 25-CDD-081 This agenda item was moved to the top of the Public Hearing agenda items per Planning Commission’s motion. Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided a presentation on behalf of Public Works Director and Interim City Manager Joe SanClemente. The Planning Commission held discussion and deliberation at this time. Motion: To find by minute order, based on substantial evidence in the record of proceedings, that the City of Hermosa Beach Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is in conformance with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa), and find the action exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 8. STAFF ITEMS 8.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Community Development Director Alison Becker thanked the Planning Commission for their warm welcome. Director Becker provided an update that at the City Council meeting on May 27th, Council will be considering the appointment of an Interim City Manager. On the evening of the 28th, City Council will review and discuss the fiscal year 2026 budget. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Michael Flaherty inquired about the status of a case considered at a previous public hearing. Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided an update. The Commissioners and staff expressed appreciation for the new Director and also for the new Interim City Attorney. Page 10 of 764 5 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 25- CDD-076 Motion: To receive and file the June 17, 2025 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn until the next regular meeting of June 17, 2025. Moved by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Seconded by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 P.M. Page 11 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 12 Meeting Date: July 28, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-104 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP24-01) TO ALLOW A 3-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE UNDER MPA24-001 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 25-09 approving Master Planning Application (MPA24-001) for the construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of a commercial unit, single-family dwelling unit, and accessory dwelling unit located at 54 Hermosa Avenue, subject to conditions of approval. Executive Summary: This is a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Precise Development Plan (PDP), under Master Planning Application (MPA24-001), to allow the demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of one commercial unit, one single-family dwelling unit, with an attached two-car garage and roof deck, and one attached accessory dwelling unit located at 54 Hermosa Avenue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project, subject to conditions of approval, and determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: Page 12 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 12 The project site is an existing 2,340-square-foot interior through lot located in the southwestern portion of the City, east of Hermosa Avenue between First Street and Lyndon Street. The site has a zoning of Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. Vehicles can access the site from the alleyway on Palm Drive. The site was developed in 1950 with a 1,200-square- foot commercial building and three at-grade surface parking stalls at the rear. The site currently has no landscaping. Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Lot Size 2,340 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: C-1 East: R-3 South: C-1 West: R-3 Surrounding Uses North: Mixed-Use East: Residential South: Residential West: Residential Other Site Information/History: The project also includes a new 813-square-foot one-bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Pursuant to California Government Code section 65852.2, ADUs require ministerial approval and are not subject to the Planning Commission’s review authority of the Precise Development Plan. State law mandates that ADUs do not count toward the maximum allowed density in the zone. Additionally, the property is located within the Coastal Zone. If the project is approved, it would need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit or an exemption from said permit from the California Coastal Commission. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new three-story mixed-use building consisting of a 952-square-foot ground floor retail unit, one 1,829-square-foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage and roof deck, and one 813-square-foot one-bedroom ADU with roof deck. Page 13 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 12 The proposed commercial unit is located at ground level and is intended for retail use. The unit has an average depth of 30 feet and includes one storage room, and an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant bathroom. The commercial unit is separate from the residential units, with no internal access between them. The residential units are two-story units located on the second and third floor of the building. The units are accessible through a separate staircase and elevator from the ground floor lobby. The second floor of the development would consist of bedrooms, full bathrooms, and two balconies (one front and one rear) for each residential unit. The single-family residence includes three bedrooms and three full baths. The one-bedroom ADU includes one full bath. The third floor of the development offers living and dining rooms, kitchens, half baths, and balconies for both the single-family residence and the ADU. This floor would also have a great room designated for the single-family residence. The proposed project is designed with a flat roof and includes roof decks for both units. The proposed development features a contemporary architectural style, incorporating stucco s to create visual interest. Additionally, all roof top mechanical equipment would be screened from public view. Each residential unit would provide three trash bins, and one bin would serve the commercial space. All proposed trash bins would be screened with wood fencing. Although not required, the project provides 1,500 square feet of open space via balconies and rooftop decks combined for both residential units. The single-family residence offers 900 square feet total of open space. Additionally, all roof top mechanical equipment would be screened from public view. The proposed project does not include new landscaping currently. However, permeable pavers are proposed in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and to reduce urban runoff, subject to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”) section 8.44.095(F)(1). Any proposed onsite landscaping is subject to HBMC Chapter 8.60, Water Efficient Landscaping. Discussion: The proposed project would demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new three-story mixed-use building consisting of 952-square-foot ground floor retail unit, one two-story 1,829-square-foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage and roof deck, and one two-story 813-square-foot one-bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit with roof deck in the neighborhood commercial (C-1) zone. Mixed-use projects are required to comply with HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which is intended to ensure compatibility with existing or permitted uses in the vicinity. The project, as proposed, complies with HBMC section 17.40.180. Page 14 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 12 Development Standards Yards Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, the commercial portion of the mixed-use development shall comply with the requirements of the commercial zone. Pursuant to Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS MINIMUM LOT AREA: 1,320 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. HEIGHT: 30 ft 30 ft YARDS: Front Commercial: not required Residential: not required Commercial: 5 feet Residential: 20 feet Side Commercial: 0 ft Residential: 3 ft Commercial: 0 ft- 6 in Residential: 3 ft Rear Commercial: 0 ft Residential: where a rear yard abuts a street or alley, 3 feet on the ground floor level, and 1 foot on upper stories Commercial: 0 ft Residential: 3 feet (ground floor), 1 foot (upper levels) PARKING: Total Parking Spaces Minimum Commercial:0 Residential: 3 Commercial:0 Residential: 3 Garage Spaces Minimum 2 2 Guest Space Minimum 1 1 OPEN SPACE: Not required 1,500 sq. ft. DESIGN ELEMENTS: Commercial unit 30 feet average depth 30-foot average Solid Waste Area Commercial: 1 three-cubic yard bin Residential: 3 bins Total: 4 Commercial: 1 three- cubic yard bin Residential: 3 (SFR) 3 (ADU) Total:7 Page 15 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 12 HBMC section 17.26.050, a minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five feet shall be provided, except where public rights-of-way 20 feet or greater in width separate the commercial zone from the residential zone. The nearest property that is zoned residential is to the east across Palm Drive, a 20-foot-wide alleyway. Therefore, the commercial unit does not require a rear or side yard setback. Parking Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.015, in the C-1 Zone, no on-site parking is required for the first 5,000 square feet of ground floor non-residential, non-office, and non-late-night alcohol establishment. The project proposes a 952-square-foot commercial unit to be used for retail. Therefore, no parking is required for the commercial unit. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.020, a single-family dwelling requires two off-street parking spaces, plus one guest space. The proposed project includes an attached two- car garage, and one 9’ X 22’ guest space parallel to the alley, which is compliant with HMBC section 17.44.100 which allows guest parking spaces situated parallel to alleys and located behind garage doors with a nine-foot setback and a minimum length of twenty-two feet. Design The project complies with the Zoning Code building design guidelines outlined at HBMC section 17.42.260. The project proposes a building with a modern aesthetic incorporating stucco and non-reflective glass. The commercial building façade facing Hermosa Avenue does not run in a continuous plane of more than ten feet without incorporating a window or building entrance, thus avoiding monolithic appearance and creating visual interest. Moreover, the building’s design will be cohesive with the development pattern in the neighborhood. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, mixed-use developments are subject to a Precise Development Plan, in accordance with Chapter 17.58, and Planning Commission approval. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.58.010, the purpose of a Precise Development Plan is to ensure that new development supports the goals and objectives of the General Plan and other adopted plans and guidelines. HBMC section 17.58.040 requires that the review authority make all findings under the section to approve or conditionally approve a Precise Development Plan application. The inability to make one or more of the required findings is grounds for denial of an application. Permit Standards for Mixed-Use Developments HBMC Chapter 17.40 requires that mixed-use developments obtain a conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit standards for mixed-use developments are defined at HBMC section 17.40.180. General criteria and required findings for any use requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the HBMC are defined at HBMC Chapter 17.56. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.56.020, the purpose of a conditional use permit to assure that the Page 16 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 12 proposed use is compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located and to recognize and compensate for variations and degree of technological processes and equipment as related to the factors of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors and hazards and is subject to the approval of the Planning Commission for certain uses. Findings: HBMC Chapter 17.40 requires that mixed-use developments obtain a conditional use permit. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.56.050, all projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit must make the following findings to approve the CUP. The inability to make one or more of the following findings is grounds for denial of an application: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The Zoning Code permits mixed-use developments in the C-1 Zone, Neighborhood Commercial. Additionally, the project adheres to all development standards, specifically the following: Height: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” building height shall be regulated by underlying zoning district the site is located. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050, any building may have a maximum height of 30 feet in the C-1 Zone. The applicant proposes a mixed-use building with a maximum height of 30 feet. Front yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(F), no lot need provide a front yard except as may be required by a precise plan. The applicant proposes no front yard setback. Side yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” subsection B (Residential Development Standards), rear and side yard setbacks shall be subject to HBMC Chapter 17.16. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.16.040, interior lots shall have a side yard on each side of the lot of ten percent of the width of the lot, provided such side yard shall be not less than three feet in width and need not exceed five feet in width. The subject property has a lot width of 30 feet and therefore requires a minimum side yard setback of three feet. The project proposes a three-foot setback for the residential portion of the structure. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(C), commercial development standards shall comply with the requirements of the commercial zone. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(H)(2), a minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five feet shall be provided, except where a public right-of-way 20 feet or greater in width separates the commercial zone from the residential zone. A 20-foot alleyway Page 17 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 12 separates the nearest residentially zoned property from the subject site along the rear property line of the site. Therefore, a side yard setback is not required for the commercial portion of the structure. The project proposes no setback for the commercial portion of the structure. Rear yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” subsection B (Residential Development Standards), rear and side yard setbacks shall be subject to HBMC Chapter 17.16. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.16.050, any buildings used for human habitation shall not be located closer to the rear property line than a distance of five feet. However, where a rear yard abuts a street or alley, the building may be located three feet on the ground floor, and one foot on upper stories, from the rear property line. The rear yard of the property site abuts a 20-foot alleyway. The applicant proposes the residential portion of the structure be set back 12 feet from the rear property line on the ground level and one foot on upper levels. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(C), commercial development standards shall comply with the requirements of the commercial zone. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(H)(2), a minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five feet shall be provided, except where public right-of-way 20 feet or greater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone. A 20-foot alleyway separates the nearest residentially zoned property from the subject site along the rear property line of the site. Therefore, a rear yard setback is not required for the commercial portion of the structure. The project proposes 33 ½ -foot setback for the commercial portion of the structure. Parking: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.015, in the C-1 Zone, no on-site parking is required for the first 5,000 square feet of ground floor non-residential, non-office, and non-late-night alcohol establishment. The project proposes a 952-square-foot commercial unit to be used for retail. Therefore, no parking is required for the commercial unit. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.020, a single-family dwelling requires two off- street parking spaces, plus one guest space. The project proposes an attached two-car garage, and one 9’ X 22’ horizontal guest space which is complaint to HMBC section 17.44.100 which allows guest parking spaces situated parallel to alleys and located behind garage doors with a nine-foot setback and a minimum length of twenty-two feet. Furthermore, the proposed use is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles in the municipal code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The purpose of this designation is to create Page 18 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 12 neighborhood activity centers that are easily accessible from many directions. Neighborhood commercial uses located near the beach also serve to enhance the beachgoer’s experience. Additionally, the subject property is in the Sand Section Neighborhood. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, the intent of this neighborhood is to accommodate a range of residential development types with neighborhood commercial services. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The proposed mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial use with two residential units above would be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project includes adequate trash facilities (one 3- cubic yard bin for the commercial unit, and three cans for the single-family residence) and would manage on-site drainage through a low impact development plan, which was reviewed by the City’s Public Works department for compliance with local and state regulations. The applicant proposes a retail use for the commercial unit and the business would not include the storage of any hazardous materials; as such, the proposed mixed-use development project would not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding community. 4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity. The applicant proposes a mixed-use development consisting of a ground level commercial retail unit, and two residential units above. The property immediately north of the subject property, 60 Hermosa Avenue, is also a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial unit and residential unit on the upper levels. Additionally, the subject property is in close proximity to commercial and residential uses. The aesthetic of the building would be cohesive to the neighborhood as it features stucco and non-reflective glass, materials seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(G), the operating hours for the commercial unit would be limited to 8:00am to 10:00pm and the project would be conditioned as such. Therefore, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses in the vicinity. 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The project site is suitable for the proposed use, commercial and residential. Additionally, the proposed project was reviewed by the City’s Public Works department for compliance with the Zoning Code, Building Code, and other requirements in the HBMC and applicable state law, and the project was cleared for public hearing. Page 19 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 12 Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, mixed-use developments shall be subject to a Precise Development Plan. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.58.040, the Planning Commission must make all the following findings for projects requiring a Precise Development Plan to approve or conditionally approve the Plan: A. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The proposed project would demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new three-story mixed-use building consisting of a 952-square-foot ground floor retail unit, one 1,829-square-foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage and roof deck. The project has been reviewed for compliance and would comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as detailed in the table above showing the Development Standards for the project. B. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan or design guidelines. The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The purpose of the land use designation is to create neighborhood activity centers that are easily accessible from many directions. Neighborhood commercial uses located near the beach also serve to enhance the beachgoer’s experience. Additionally, the subject property is in the Sand Section Neighborhood. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, the intent of this neighborhood is to accommodate a range of residential development types with neighborhood commercial services. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. C. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with any design or development standards applicable to the zone, unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Title. The proposed project includes a commercial ground unit with an average depth of 30 feet, and the building façade facing a public right- of-way does not run in a continuous plane of more than ten feet without incorporating a window or building entrance, thus avoiding a monolithic appearance. The project complies with all design development standards. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant policies are listed below: Page 20 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 12 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Housing Element Issue Area 2- New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2: The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3: The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.6 The City will encourage the addition of ADU and JADU units as a strategy to provide new housing units for low- and moderate-income households. The proposed project consists of a mixed- use project that includes one primary residential unit along with a single Accessory Dwelling Unit. Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services. Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of The proposed project site is located within walking distance to the beach and several commercial businesses. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Additionally, the proposed project would contribute to the diversity of building types, by demolishing a commercial building and constructing a mixed-use development, adding a residential component to the C-1 zoned property. Page 21 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 12 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of a) one- single-family residence and b) a store, office, or similar use not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the City’s General Plan. Figure 7.2 in appendix C of the EIR lists potential historical resources—that is a property which had an influence in the development history of the City of Hermosa Beach, was representative of any historic architectural style, or associated with historic persons or events in the City. The subject property was not listed on this figure and therefore is not considered a historic resource. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of different materials (i.e., non-reflective glass and stucco) to break up the massing of the building. Parks & Open Space Element Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced Policy 5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. Nighttime views would be protected by a condition of approval requiring all exterior lighting to be downcast to minimize light pollution. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low- intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low- impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. Page 22 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 12 effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Public Notification: For the July 28, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 494 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, and occupants and property owners of properties within a 500-foot radius on July 9, 2025. A legal ad was published on July 17, 2025, in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC 17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 3. As of the writing of the report, staff has received no public comments. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 25-09 2. Project Plans 3. Public Notification Package 4. Email from Claudia Berman 7/7/25 Respectfully Submitted by: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Todd Leishman, Interim City Attorney Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director Page 23 of 764 P a g e 1 of 16 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 25-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP24-01) TO ALLOW A 3-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE UNDER MASTER PLANNING APPLICATION (MPA24-001), AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: WHEREAS, an application was filed on January 30, 2024, by the applicant, Wesley Belak-Berger, requesting Planning Commission approval of a Master Planning Application (MPA24-001), Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-02), and Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-01) to allow the construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of commercial unit, single-family dwelling, and accessory dwelling unit located at 54 Hermosa Avenue, subject to conditions of approval (the “project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of July 28, 2025 conducted a public hearing, and considered all testimony and evidence, both oral and written, that was presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, as the project consists of a)single- family residence and b) a store, office, or similar use not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the exemption and these exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that override or negate the City’s ability to use a categorical exemption. Specifically, these exceptions to the exemptions are:  The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical Page 24 of 764 P a g e 2 of 16 concern;  The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;  The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;  The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;  The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or  The project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; and WHEREAS, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions, as defined under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, apply to the project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby finds, determines, and declares the following, pertaining to the application for Conditional Use Permit CUP24-02 pursuant to Section 17.56.050 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”): 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The Zoning code permits mixed-use developments in the C-1 “Neighborhood commercial” Zone. Additionally, the project adheres to all development standards, specifically the following: Height: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” building height shall be regulated by underlying zoning district the site is located. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050 any building may have a maximum height of 30 feet in the C-1 Zone. The applicant proposes a mixed-use building with a maximum height of 30 feet. Front yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(F), no lot need provide a front yard except as may be required by a precise plan. The applicant proposes no front yard setback. Side yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” subsection B (Residential Development Standards), rear and side yard setbacks shall be subject to HBMC Chapter 17.16. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.16.040, interior lots shall have a side yard on each side of the lot of ten percent of the width of the lot, provided such side Page 25 of 764 P a g e 3 of 16 yard shall be not less than three feet in width and need not exceed five feet in width. The subject property has a lot width of 30 feet and therefore requires a minimum side yard setback of three feet. The project proposes a three-foot setback for the residential portion of the structure. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(C), commercial development standards shall comply with the requirements of the commercial zone. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(H)(2), a minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five feet shall be provided, except where a public right-of-way 20 feet or greater in width, separates the commercial zone from the residential zone. A 20-foot alleyway separates the nearest residentially zoned property from the subject site along the rear property line of the site. Therefore, a side yard setback is not required for the commercial portion of the structure. The project proposes no setback for the commercial portion of the structure. Rear yard setback: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180, “Mixed-Use Development,” subsection B (Residential Development Standards), rear and side yard setbacks shall be subject to HBMC Chapter 17.16. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.16.050, any buildings used for human habitation shall not be located closer to the rear property line than a distance of five feet. However, where a rear yard abuts a street or alley, the building may be located three feet on the ground floor, and one foot on upper stories, from the rear property line. The rear yard of the property site abuts a 20-foot alleyway. The applicant proposes the residential portion of the structure be set back 12 feet from the rear property line on the ground level and one foot on upper levels. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(C), commercial development standards shall comply with the requirements of the commercial zone. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.26.050(H)(2), a minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five feet shall be provided, except where public right-of-way 20 feet or greater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone. A 20-foot alleyway separates the nearest residentially zoned property from the subject site along the rear property line of the site. Therefore, a rear yard setback is not required for the commercial portion of the structure. The project proposes 33 ½ -foot setback for the commercial portion of the structure. Parking: Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.015, in the C-1 Zone, no on-site parking is required for the first 5,000 square feet of ground floor non-residential, non-office, and non-late-night alcohol establishment. The project proposes a 952-square-foot commercial unit to be used for retail. Therefore, no parking is required for the commercial unit. Pursuant to HBMC section 17.44.020, a single-family dwelling requires two off-street parking Page 26 of 764 P a g e 4 of 16 spaces, plus one guest space. The project proposes an attached two-car garage, and one 9’ X 22’ horizontal guest space which is complaint to HMBC section 17.44.100 which allows guest parking spaces situated parallel to alleys and located behind garage doors with a nine- foot setback and a minimum length of twenty-two feet. Furthermore, the proposed use is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles in the municipal code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The purpose of this designation is to create neighborhood activity centers that are easily accessible from many directions. Neighborhood commercial uses located near the beach also serve to enhance the beachgoer’s experience. Additionally, the subject property is in the Sand Section Neighborhood. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, the intent of this neighborhood is to accommodate a range of residential development types with neighborhood commercial services. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The proposed mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial use with two residential units above would be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project includes adequate trash facilities (one 3-cubic yard bin for the commercial unit, and three carts for the single-family residence,) and would manage on-site drainage through a low impact development plan, which was reviewed by the City’s Public Works department for compliance with local and state regulations. The applicant proposes a retail use for the commercial unit and the business would not include the storage of any hazardous materials; as such, the proposed mixed-use development project would not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding community. 4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity. The applicant proposes a mixed-use development consisting of a ground level commercial retail unit, and two residential units above. The property immediately north of the subject property, 60 Hermosa Avenue, is also a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial unit and residential unit on the upper levels. Additionally, the subject property is in close proximity to commercial and residential uses. The aesthetic of the building would be cohesive to the neighborhood as it features stucco and non-reflective glass, materials seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, pursuant to HBMC section 17.40.180(G), the operating hours for the commercial unit would be limited to 8:00am to 10:00pm and the project would be conditioned as such. Therefore, Page 27 of 764 P a g e 5 of 16 the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses in the vicinity. 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The project site is suitable for the proposed use, commercial and residential. Additionally, the proposed project was reviewed by the City’s Public Works department for compliance with the Zoning Code, Building Code, and other requirements in the HBMC and applicable state law, and the project was cleared for public hearing. SECTION 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following, pertaining to the application for Precise Development Plan pursuant to Section 17.58.040 of the HBMC: 1. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The proposed project would demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new three-story mixed-use building consisting of a 952-square-foot ground floor retail unit, one 1,829-square-foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage and roof deck. The project has been reviewed for compliance and would comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as detailed in the table below: Development Standards Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS MINIMUM LOT AREA: 1,320 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. HEIGHT: 30 ft 30 ft YARDS: Front Commercial: not required Residential: not required Commercial: 5 feet Residential: 20 feet Side Commercial: 0 ft Residential: 3 ft Commercial: 0 ft- 6 in Residential: 3 ft Rear Commercial: 0 ft Commercial: 0 ft Page 28 of 764 P a g e 6 of 16 2. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan or design guidelines. The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The purpose of the land use designation is to create neighborhood activity centers that are easily accessible from many directions. Neighborhood commercial uses located near the beach also serve to enhance the beachgoer’s experience. Additionally, the subject property is in the Sand Section Neighborhood. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, the intent of this neighborhood is to accommodate a range of residential development types with neighborhood commercial services. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with any design or development standards applicable to the zone, unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Title. The proposed project includes a commercial ground unit with an average depth of 30 feet, and the building façade facing a public right-of-way does Residential: where a rear yard abuts a street or alley, 3 feet on the ground floor level, and 1 foot on upper stories Residential: 3 feet (ground floor), 1 foot (upper levels) PARKING: Total Parking Spaces Minimum Commercial:0 Residential: 3 Commercial:0 Residential: 3 Garage Spaces Minimum 2 2 Guest Space Minimum 1 1 OPEN SPACE: Not required 1,500 sq. ft. DESIGN ELEMENTS: Commercial unit 30 feet average depth 30 foot average Solid Waste Area Commercial: 1 three-cubic yard bin Residential: 3 bins Total: 4 Commercial: 1 three-cubic yard bin Residential: 3 (SFR) 3 (ADU) Total:7 Page 29 of 764 P a g e 7 of 16 not run in a continuous plane of more than ten feet without incorporating a window or building entrance, thus avoiding a monolithic appearance. The project complies with all design development standards. SECTION 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, based on the evaluation of the following General Plan Goals and Policies: General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Housing Element Issue Area 2- New Affordable Housing Development The proposed commercial unit is located at ground level and is intended for retail use. The unit has an average depth of 30 feet and includes one storage room, and an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant bathroom. The commercial unit is separate from the residential units with no internal access between them The proposed project consists of a mixed-use project that includes one primary residential unit along with a single Accessory Dwelling Unit. Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services. Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing. The proposed project site is located within walking distance to the beach and several commercial businesses. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Additionally, the proposed project will contribute to the diversity of building types, by demolishing a commercial building and constructing a mixed-use development, and therefore adding a residential component to Page 30 of 764 P a g e 8 of 16 SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Master Planning Application (MPA 24-001), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24-02), and Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-01) to allow the construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of commercial unit, single-family dwelling, and accessory dwelling unit as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 25-09, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: General Conditions 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 28, 2025 meeting, in accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications to these conditions that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC or requirements of this approval. 2. The project shall fully comply with all requirements of the C-1 Zone as applicable of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”), including but not limited to: a. Height including required all roof-mounted equipment, shall fully comply with the 30-foot height limit. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. the C-1 zoned property. The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of different materials (i.e. non-reflective glass and stucco) to break the massing of building. Parks & Open Space Element Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced Policy 5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. Nighttime views would be protected by a condition of approval requiring all exterior lighting to be downcast to minimize light pollution. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. Page 31 of 764 P a g e 9 of 16 of building plan review, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. b. Architectural treatments and accessory facilities shall be as shown on building elevations, site, and floor plans. 3. The project shall comply with all requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach Building Division, Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the HBMC. 4. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until applicant Wesley Belak-Berger (the “permittee”) and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department signed affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby have commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration shall be provided. 6. The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this permit and any law, statute, ordinance, or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. 8. To the extent permitted by law, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by any party against the indemnified parties to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 9. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Page 32 of 764 P a g e 10 of 16 Planning 10. All conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for review to the Community Development Department. These conditions shall be indexed on the cover sheet and referenced on the site plan. 11. Any proposed onsite landscaping shall comply with HBMC Chapter 8.60, Water Efficient Landscaping and HBMC section 8.44.095(F)(1) and must be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. 12. The property is located in the Coastal Zone. As such, California Coastal Commission project approval is required prior to submittal of building plan check. A verbatim copy of the California Coastal Commission’s project approval along with any conditions of approval shall be incorporated into the plan check set of plans. 13. Noise: Residential uses shall be separate from commercial uses by sound proofed floors and walls with minimum sound transmission rating as required for condominiums as set forth in Chapter 17.22. Commercial uses hours of operations shall be limited where appropriate so that residents are not disturbed by offensive noise or activity. 14. Security: Entrances for residences shall be separate from non-residential uses and be independently accessible to pedestrian and parking areas. 15. Lighting: Outdoor lighting and lighting for signs associated with commercial uses designed so as not to adversely impact residences. No flashing, blinking or high intensity lighting. Adequate lighting to illuminate parking areas and corridors to access parking and public sidewalk. Lighting for signs may only be illuminated during business hours. 16. Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images 9 shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties. 17. Signs: Signs shall be limited to the commercial space frontage pursuant to the requirements of HBMC Chapter 17.50, Signs. 18. Hours: Limitations on hours of operation: The hours of operation for any commercial use shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Page 33 of 764 P a g e 11 of 16 19. Window Treatments. Reflective window tints shall be prohibited on all windows. The ground floor street-facing windows shall provide a minimum visible light transparency transmittance level of 50 percent. 20. Disclosures: Owner shall disclose separately and in writing upon sale or rental of the subject property that it is a mixed-use development and permits commercial and residential uses. 21. Construction: The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures of the General Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 201581009) as adopted by the City Council and incorporated as conditions of approval, including: a) Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: i. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 10 percent. ii. The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. iii. All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv. All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. v. All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. vi. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. vii. Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off (MM 4.2-2A). b) In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location (MM 4.2-2b). c) Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Page 34 of 764 P a g e 12 of 16 Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings (MM 4.2-2c). For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits (depths between 15 and 35 feet), a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities (MM 4.4- 3). d) If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before 11 construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered (MM 4.4-3). e) For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards pursuant to Table 4.11-10 of the General Plan Program EIR, included below, the applicant at the time of plan check submittal shall submit a report prepared by a qualified structural engineer demonstrating the following: i. Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards. ii. Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded. iii. A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post‐ construction and post‐ demolition surveys of existing structures that would be impacted. Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include but are not limited to: 1. Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment. 2. Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment. 3. Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete. 4. Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources. 5. Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision- Page 35 of 764 P a g e 13 of 16 making for subsequent activities (MM 4.11-2). General Plan Program EIR TABLE 4.11-10 Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Vibration Velocity Level at 25 feet, in/sec Distance from Equipment within which Standard is exceeded Pile driver (impact) 0.158 158 feet Pile driver (sonic) 0.045 68 feet Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.050 74 feet Hydro mill (slurry wall) 0.002-0.006 9-17 feet Vibratory roller 0.050 74 feet Hoe ram 0.022 43 feet Large bulldozer 0.022 43 feet Caisson drilling 0.022 43 feet Loaded trucks 0.020 40 feet Jackhammer 0.009 24 feet Small bulldozer 0.001 5 feet Building At the time of building and safety plan check submittal, plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following: 22. Compliance with 2022 Codes: Ensure all plans follow the currently adopted 2022 codes. 23. Accessibility (ADA): Plans must meet current ADA requirements, including accessible routes, parking spaces, path of travel, access, egress, restrooms, etc. Refer to the 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 11B. 24. Plan Submittals and Permits: Submit all required plans and acquire necessary permits before starting any work. 25. Environmental Clearances: Obtain all required environmental clearances for the site. 26. Business License: Acquire a business license before opening for business. Page 36 of 764 P a g e 14 of 16 27. Water Efficiency and Conservation: Meet current requirements for water efficiency and conservation, including landscape, irrigation, and drainage. Refer to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green) Section 5.3 and Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 8. 28. EV Chargers: Meet current requirements for EV chargers. Refer to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green) Section 5.106.5.3. 29. Fire Sprinkler Systems: A change in occupancy classification may require fire sprinkler systems. Refer to the 2020 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, Section 1103.5. 30. Utility Equipment Planning: Confirm with utility providers for proper planning and placement of required utility equipment. 31. Trash Enclosure: Coordinate with the adjacent property owner regarding the relocation of their trash enclosure. Public Works 32. Applicant must maintain the two metered parking spaces across from the project site. 33. Street pavement on Hermosa Avenue between the edge of pavement and edge of median must be repaved between property line to property line. On Palm Drive, concrete pavement between the edge of pavement and center line of alley between property line to property line must be removed and replaced. All striping of such parking tees, bike sharrows, and fire lane must be replaced. 34. No new walls or foundation footing will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public right-of-way. 35. A Residential Encroachment permit is required for non-confirming structures located over or within the public right-of-way. 36. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with HBMC sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way without written approval from the Public Works Department including, if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit. 37. If any owner, lessee or agent or any other person or persons constructing or arranging for construction of: (1) any commercial or industrial building or residential dwelling structure, or addition thereto, exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, or (b) any accessory building greater than fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the existing main building, shall provide for the construction of Portland cement concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, street pavement between the gutter and centerline of the street fronting the property, and pavement between the edge of pavement and center line of any alley Page 37 of 764 P a g e 15 of 16 adjoining the property, in accordance with the standard specifications of the City Engineer. 38. If Public Works Improvements are required, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a civil engineering plan(s) prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by Public Works, addressing grading undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the HBMC and Public Works specifications, shall be filed with the Community Development Department. 39. If Public Works Improvements are required, the civil engineering plan(s) required by Condition 34 shall include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on the street. 40. If Public Works Improvements are required, sewer manhole rim/lid elevations must be submitted to Public Works prior to grading and plan check. 41. If Public Works Improvements are required, sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the permittee plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 42. If Public Works Improvements are required, the project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Ch. 8.44). The project must implement the required Low Impact Development Standards, provide calculations and documents (i.e. Appendix D and E of the Storm Water LID Guidelines), and submit such documents at the time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan. 43. All utilities shall be identified. Utilities shall not encroach into the public right-of- way. 44. The installation of grease traps would be required for any future restaurant use. Page 38 of 764 P a g e 16 of 16 SECTION 5. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after exhaustion of any available administrative remedies, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. The Hermosa Beach City Council may, on its own initiative, review all actions of the Planning Commission. If the City Council does not initiate review of this decision as set forth in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.52.040, this decision will become final. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on the 28th of July, 2025. ______________________________________________________________________________________ VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution PC 25-09 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of July 28, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chair Alison Becker, Secretary Date Page 39 of 764 YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254C ($67(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,2113.93 PC13 . 5 8 P C P.L.30' MAX. HT. LINE 13.70 PC13.75 PC30' MAX. HT. LINE P.L.CP#143 . 6 0 P R O P .43.65 MAX.1ST FLRF. F . E . 1 3 . 1 02ND FLRF.F.E. 22.101S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 02ND FLRF.F.E. 22.103R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C KF.F.E. 40.10 3R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 PROPOSED 5'-0" MAX. P.T. PROPERTY WALL LINE WOOD SIDE-YARD ENTRY GATE 48" HIGH MIN. STAINED P.T. WOOD SCREENED TRASH FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL BIN. SFD - 2.5 TON, 14SEER SELF-CONTAINEDPACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT ADU - 2.5 TON, 14SEER SELF-CONTAINEDPACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT ($67(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21 Page 40 of 764 1 3 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC1 3 . 7 0 P C L=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(C.L.C.L.(E) SIDEWALKPROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (E) MIXED USE (E) APARTMENT YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254A1 6,7(3/$1 6&$/(   N STAIRS (DN) STAIRS (DN) 1 3 . 5 8 P CL=30.04'ADU - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF- CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT SFD - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF- CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT GLAZING NOTE: REFLECTIVE GLASS MAY NOT BE UTILIZED FOR DECK RAILINGS, WINDOWS OR DOORS. BIRD-STRIKE NOTE: DECK RAILING SYSTEMS, FENCES, SCREEN WALLS, GATES, WINDOWS AND THE LIKE THAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT SHALL USE MATERIALS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE BIRD-STRIKES WITH THE DECK RAILING, WALL, FENCE, GATE, WINDOW, OR SIMILAR FEATURE. THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS SHALL BE USED IN ORDER TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENT: DECK RAILING SYSTEM - SHALL BE PARTIALLY FROSTED. CLEAR GLASS OR PLEXIGLAS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED. GLAZING - SHALL BE PARTIALLY FROSTED. CLEAR GLASS OR PLEXIGLAS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED. FENCES & GATES - SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD. PROPERTY LINE WALLS - SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE BLOCK. ALL MATERIALS AND APPLIQUEÉS SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS AT ADDRESSING BIRD STRIKES AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, '(02/,7,213/$1 6&$/(   N Page 41 of 764 Page 42 of 764 YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254L 1 3 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC1 3 . 7 0 P C L=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (E) MIXED USE (E) APARTMENT /$1'6&$3(3/$1 6&$/(   N 1 3 . 5 8 P C 2340.0 S.F. 1802.0 S.F. 538.00 S.F. 0.0 S.F. 0.0 S.F. N/A Page 43 of 764 A2YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA902541 3 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC1 3 . 7 0 P C L=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(*$5$*(),567)/225 6&$/(   N 14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 4' WIDE PATH ADA PATH OF TRAVEL 5(7$,/6) Page 44 of 764 A3YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA902541 3 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC1 3 . 7 0 P C L=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 6(&21')/225 6&$/(   N 6)'6)$'86)23(163$&(6) 127( ,17(5,2567$,56086787,/,=(“23(167$,5:$<” '(6,*10($1,1*$67$,5:$<:+,&++$6$0,1,0802)21(:$//:+,&+,6127025(7+$1)257<7:2  ,1&+(6+,*+23(1,1*,172$7/($6721(  5220)520:+,&+7+(67$,5:$<&211(&76($&+)/225 OPEN TO ABOVE OPEN TO ABOVE 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE Page 45 of 764 A4YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA902547+,5')/225 6&$/(   N 6)'6)$'86)23(163$&( 6)' 6) 1 3 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC13 . 7 0 P C L=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(OPEN SPACE: 200.0 S.F. (UNCOVERED AREA 100.0 S.F. 100/200=50.0% UNCOVERED. 14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE OPEN TO BELOW 14-STAIRS (UP) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE OPEN TO BELOW 127( ,17(5,2567$,56086787,/,=(“23(167$,5:$<” '(6,*10($1,1*$67$,5:$<:+,&++$6$0,1,0802)21(:$//:+,&+,6127025(7+$1)257<7:2  ,1&+(6+,*+23(1,1*,172$7/($6721(  5220)520:+,&+7+(67$,5:$<&211(&76($&+)/225 Page 46 of 764 A5YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254522)3/$1 6&$/(   N 522)'(&. 13 . 5 8 P C13.93 PC13.75 PC13.70 PCL=77.82' L=77.81'L=30.04'L=30.04'3$/0'5+(5026$$9(OPEN SPACE: 100.00 S.F.CP#143.60 PROP.4 3 . 6 5 M A X . 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE 14-STAIRS (DN) 10.5" TYP. TREAD RUN 7.715" TYP. TREAD RISE ADU - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF-CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT SFD - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF-CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT AREA RESERVED FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANELS Page 47 of 764 A6 6&$/(   ($67(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,2113.93 PC1 3 . 5 8 P C P.L.30' MAX. HT. LINE 1 3 . 7 0 P C 13.75 PC30' MAX. HT. LINE P.L.C P # 143.60 PROP.4 3 . 6 5 M A X . 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C K F. F . E . 4 0 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254PROPOSED 5'-0" MAX. P.T. PROPERTY WALL LINE WOOD SIDE-YARD ENTRY GATE 48" HIGH MIN. STAINED P.T. WOOD SCREENED TRASH FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL BIN. 6&$/(   SFD - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF-CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT ADU - 2.5 TON, 14 SEER SELF-CONTAINED PACKAGED (A/C/HEAT) UNIT GLAZING NOTE: DECK/BALCONY RAILINGS, WINDOWS AND DOORS MAY NOT BE CONSTRUCTED OF REFLECTIVE GLASS. Page 48 of 764 A7 1257+(/(9$7,21P.L.P.L.13.75 PC13.58 PC30' MAX. HT. LINE YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254C P # 1 4 3 . 6 0 P R O P .43.65 MAX.1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C K F. F . E . 4 0 . 1 0 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 6287+(/(9$7,21 P.L.P.L.6287+(/(9$7,21 1 3 . 7 5 P C 1 3 . 5 8 P C 30' MAX. HT. LINE CP#143.60 PROP.4 3 . 6 5 M A X . 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C K F. F . E . 4 0 . 1 0 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 PROPOSED 5'-0" P.T. PROPERTY WALL FENCE 6&$/(   6&$/(   GLAZING NOTE: DECK/BALCONY RAILINGS, WINDOWS AND DOORS MAY NOT BE CONSTRUCTED OF REFLECTIVE GLASS. 48" HIGH MIN. STAINED P.T. WOOD SCREENED TRASH FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL BIN. Page 49 of 764 A7 1257+(/(9$7,21P.L.P.L.13.75 PC13.58 PC30' MAX. HT. LINE YVONNE BERNARD & ARLYNN WHITTAKER54 HERMOSA AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA90254C P # 1 4 3 . 6 0 P R O P .43.65 MAX.1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C K F. F . E . 4 0 . 1 0 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 6287+(/(9$7,21 P.L.P.L.6287+(/(9$7,21 1 3 . 7 5 P C 1 3 . 5 8 P C 30' MAX. HT. LINE CP#143.60 PROP.4 3 . 6 5 M A X . 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 R O O F D E C K F. F . E . 4 0 . 1 0 1 S T F L R F. F . E . 1 3 . 1 0 2 N D F L R F. F . E . 2 2 . 1 0 3 R D F L R F. F . E . 3 1 . 1 0 PROPOSED 5'-0" P.T. PROPERTY WALL FENCE 6&$/(   6&$/(   GLAZING NOTE: DECK/BALCONY RAILINGS, WINDOWS AND DOORS MAY NOT BE CONSTRUCTED OF REFLECTIVE GLASS. 48" HIGH MIN. STAINED P.T. WOOD SCREENED TRASH FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL BIN. Page 50 of 764 11Page 51 of 764 /  /  /  /  &/ &/ ( 6,'(:$/. ( 0,;('86( ( $3$570(17352326('0,;('86('(9(/230(173/3/3/3/3/3/ 3/3/1Page 52 of 764 13.58 PC13 . 9 3 P C 13.75 PC 13.70 PCL=77.82'L=77.81'L=30.04' L=30.04' C.L. C.L.(E) SIDEWALK PROPOSED MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT(E) MIXED USE(E) APARTMENT0HERMOSA BEACH L.I.D. REQMT.NOTES BY SYMBOLLEGENDPLAN NOTESNOTICE TO CONTRACTORUNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERTDSF-0001 DSF-0001BTHIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL NOT BEUSED IN ANY WAY INJURIOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF SAID COMPANY. COPYRIGHT © 2010 OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)OR*DUG<'RZQVSRXW)LOWHU‘ ‘6L]HV7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite 200 | Littleton, CO | 80120 | Ph: 800.579.8819 | oldcastlestormwater.comStormwater Solutions<InletFiltration02'(/%2'<2' ,QFKHV 6ROLGV6WRUDJH&DSDFLW\ &X)W )LOWHUHG)ORZ *30 %\SDVV&DSDFLW\ *30 )*'6$[[)*'6$[[,1/(7,' ‘,QFKHV NOTES:1.FloGard< Downspout Filter is available tofit most industry standard downspouts(See Tabulation).2.Filter Inserts shall have adequate bypasscapacity to allow downspout to flowunimpeded at all times.3.Filter assembly shall be constructed fromstainless steel (type 304).4.Filter medium shall be installed &maintained in accordance withmanufacturer recommendations.PL PLPLPL PLPLPLPLPage 53 of 764 Page 54 of 764 Public Notification Package - 54 Hermosa Avenue Page 55 of 764 Public Notification Package - 54 Hermosa Avenue Page 56 of 764 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a special public hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 83011) TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR, THREE-STORY, BUILDINGS (29’ IN HEIGHT), WITH A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUM UNITS (CONSISTING OF 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT OF 245 SQUARE FEET FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE) LOCATED AT 911 1ST STREET IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPA 7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65585.5) THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE RP ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15332 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. 2. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-01) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-STORY (30’) MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF A 952-SQUARE-FOOT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNIT WITH A RESIDENTIAL UNIT LOCATED ABOVE AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ONLY THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at ( 310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/July 17, 2025/HD25-027 City ofHermosa Beach Page 57 of 764 30 32 37 43 52 56 62 66 9995716372 78 4 8 12 16 100 136 113 139 133 204 212 222 230 236 182434361925238 227 224 217 216 220 228 208 207 201219218205 104 110 145140 155 149 132 115 107 150 128 127 130 137 156 103 141 153 165170 118120 176 174 157 151 135 131 125 101 159160 158 166 134 154 184 123 48 60 12213814316416817218016116717918611723344331712 22 121124152226 114 126 142 144 148 112162 301 B each Dr H e r o n d o S tCulper Ct 1st St 3rd St Her mosaAveMont ereyBl vd1st St Palm DrLyndon S t Ly n d on S t 3rd Ct Manhatt anAv e 2nd St 1st CtBayview DrThe S t rand 54 500' RADIUS MAP ADDRESS: 54 Hermosa Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r Page 58 of 764 Community Development Department Planning Division – Kaneca Pompey City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 54 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4188-014-039 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Special Public Hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-01) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-STORY (30’) MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF A 952-SQUARE-FOOT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNIT WITH A RESIDENTIAL UNIT LOCATED ABOVE AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ONLY THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community Development at communitydevelopment@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. In order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 59 of 764 Page 60 of 764 He r on d o S t B e a ch D r Cul perCt1st S t 3rd S t Lyndon St 1st St Pal m DrHerm osa Ave 2nd S t Lyndon S t 3rd C t 4th C t Monterey B lvdBayview DrManhattan Ave 1st C tThe S t rand Project Zoning MapPlanning Commission July 28, 2025 Description 54 Hermosa Avenue APN: 4188-014-039 Zone: C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Precise Development Plan - Mixed Use Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) 500' Notification Radius Page 61 of 764 From: Claudia Berman <its_42@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2025 2:23 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov>; Alison Becker <abecker@hermosabeach.gov>; Steve Napolitano <snapolitano@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: My Comments on Upcoming LVR Item, Zoning Dear Planning Commission, I noticed that on the future agenda items for the planning commission is the LVR topic and 54 Hermosa Ave. I've been getting my thoughts together for a while on the LVR discussion coming back. Since this topic touches so many parts of zoning, I decided to write up a comprehensive list of comments/recommendations. See Attached PDF. I may update once the staff report is out, but I'm sending out early since it's so long. I realize that not all my comments are under the purview of the planning commission, so I'm also ccing council. I'm not addressing 54 Hermosa Ave. specifically, but my Appendix A on page 6 has some history that could be helpful. As always, thanks for listening. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. Best, Claudia Berman Page 62 of 764 Page 1 of 8 Land Value Recap (LVR) & Zoning Comments - C. Berman A bit about me for context on my comments: You may know me as a volunteer docent at the Hermosa Beach Museum, Community Police Advisory Board member, or PLAN Hermosa participant. What you may not know is my professional background: As an Oracle Applications sales engineer I sold into the Store Lifecycle Development (lifecycle of a brick-and-mortar store – site identification, analysis go/no go, construction, opening, remodeling/reformatting, closure) space to major retailers like Starbucks, GAP, and Jack in the Box. Less than a year after Housing Element approval, a handful of Upper Pier property owners continue lobbying against Land Value Recapture (LVR) fees for smaller lots. (Note: I recall that small lots represent a significant percentage. I think 40+%, but that number should be verified.) These owners received free up-zoning from Commercial to Residential, an incredible windfall at zero cost, yet claim the LVR fee makes residential development financially unviable. They also claim their projects will boost economic development. Yet, they have not presented any data to support their claims. See APPENDIX A: Hermosa Ave Mixed Used Development – A Cautionary Tale for an example of a mixed-use luxury residential property mixed with a ground floor vacation rental. My comments with recommendations fall into the following three areas: 1. LVR IS NOT AN IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT, PER KOSMONT 2. TIME, EFFORT & RISK 3. DROPPING LVR ON SMALL SITES, NOT A GUARANTEE OF ECON. DEV. LVR IS NOT AN IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT, PER KOSMONT Council asked Kosmont to analyze the LVR fees and determine whether the fees would obstruct development. Kosmont determined the fees would not deter development. (12/23). Page 63 of 764 Page 2 of 8 RECOMMENDATION 1: Property Owner/Developer Provides High Level Plan and Financial Projection Each downtown commercial property owner/developer who says that paying into LVR or building one below market unit is an impediment to their development, should show why Kosmont is not correct. It’s possible that their project scope/design is the impediment, not the lot size. It’s also possible they may not have investigated the incentives available for building below market housing. For each property targeted for development, the developer should provide the city and the public the following: • The address/addresses of the development project. • Estimated start date. • High level build plan with number of housing units, very rough floor plan, and square footage estimates, and target market (e.g., moderate, premium, luxury). • Whether this is a renovation or tear down/new construction. • Will there be any lot consolidation? • Will they be building condos for sale, or will they be building rentals? Or a combination? • What type of commercial is targeted for the ground floor? • Show us the numbers. Show a financial projection with assumptions, why building one small affordable unit or paying into LVR is not financially feasible on the lot. RECOMMENDATION 2: Give the property owners one year to submit their plans (above) to the city and post on the city’s website. This will provide the city with data necessary to understand what the appetite is for housing development on upper Pier and to match those plans to housing element site list. It will be interesting to see if the development plans do the minimum number of units per the site list, or if they plan to maximize what could be developed on the lot. HCD requires community input, which is why it’s important to post publicly. Page 64 of 764 Page 3 of 8 TIME, EFFORT & RISK TIME & EFFORT: All upper management staff who participated in the housing element are no longer with the city: City Manager, Deputy City Manager, City Attorney, and Community Services Director. We have a new a new Community Development director who likely needs to focus on her team and learning about processes, projects, and ordinances unique to Hermosa. Adding an off-cycle housing element update, could negatively impact Community Development’s current workload. RECOMMENDATION 3: Community Development should focus on the Zoning Code Update The modernization of the zoning code impacts all businesses and residents; therefore, the Zoning Code Update should be completed before adding non- critical, new projects to Community Development workload. RISK: 1. Reduction of LVR fund will negatively impact the ability to subsidize developers who are open to building below-market units. How will the state react to this? 2. Some small lots are tagged in the site list with a required below-market unit. If that developer chooses to not build a below-market unit, the city not only loses needed LVR funds, but it also must find another site to put on the list in its place. Housing Element Map: https://hermosabeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c8928e777d71462da500de9e5188d0da 3. These changes could trigger a whole new review cycle with public hearings. That seems likely since the site list and LVR process was so integral to the approval. Could HCD then reevaluate other parts of the Housing Element for scrutiny? RECOMMENDATION 4: After the high-level development plans are submitted and the zoning code update is complete, then perform a risk assessment on an off-cycle housing element update. Page 65 of 764 Page 4 of 8 DROPPING LVR ON SMALL SITES, NOT A GUARANTEE OF ECON. DEV. Assuming average density in Hermosa Beach, there are approximately 600 residences within a 5–10 minute walk (4 block radius of upper Pier). Per the housing element map, multifamily zoning surrounds this area, so the 600 count would be higher. For example, the Commodore & Hermosa Surf Condominiums combined have 174 units. Many residences have more than one resident, so there is already a good number of people living within a short walk. Per the housing element map on upper Pier, if every property built to their minimum allotment in the sites inventory, that would add ~10% increase in residential units. However, just adding 2nd and 3rd story housing on upper Pier without addressing our downtown business mix and layout issues, will not ensure economic development growth. Over the past 30 years, our demographics have changed dramatically, and our downtown’s ground floor storefront mix has declined in variety. We have seen a proliferation of office space and personal services. We have more hospitality businesses than ever before (except during the time of the long-gone Biltmore Hotel), and yet downtown weekday, daytime foot traffic continues to be light. (Side Note: foot traffic doesn’t necessarily convert to increased revenue.) Ten years ago, the Roma report recommended limiting ground floor commercial to pedestrian uses to increase vibrancy. Six years ago, this sentiment was codified in PLAN Hermosa: “Uses on the ground floor are reserved for retail, restaurant, and other sales- tax revenue generating uses, while offices and personal service uses are encouraged on upper floors. Mixed use developments (including residential uses) may be allowed.” RECOMMENDATION 5: As part of the Zoning Code Update, the city should do an analysis of the approved Housing Element’s impact on our zoning code to understand the unintended consequences and formulate contingency plans. I’m quite concerned that without a strong zoning plan, that the adding of residences on Upper Pier will be so lucrative, that the ground floor commercial will slowly erode into more office space, more personal services, or short-term rentals, which will not address state housing requirements as intended nor contribute to economic development in a meaningful way. This is happening now Page 66 of 764 Page 5 of 8 at 60 Hermosa Ave in the C-1 Limited Business and Residential zone. See APPENDIX A: Hermosa Ave Mixed Used Development – A Cautionary Tale. RECOMMENDATION 6: City Council to create a subcommittee working with community development and a few local developers to come up with an “incentive plan” to ensure that we don’t continue to lose sales-tax revenue ground floor businesses, or even better, reverse this trend over time. This subcommittee should be given a due date, say no more than six months. Incentives should not have a monetary cost to taxpayers. This could be done in conjunction with the zoning code update. Four years ago, Marlin Equity demoed a building with pedestrian-oriented retail/restaurant and replaced with a 2-story office building. This would be a good use case to “test” incentive policies against. The million-dollar question being: What could have incentivized Marlin Equity to change their office space project and build out the ground floor for sales-tax generating uses and use the 2nd and 3rd floors for their employees? RECOMMENDATION 7: If no policies result from Recommendation 6, then I would like to see a ban on ground floor non-tax generating for new businesses that take over a space vacated by a sales tax generating business. I do think a ban would be wildly unpopular with property owners, but if there is no movement on incentives, I think this should be seriously explored. RECOMMENDATION 8: After the Zoning Code Update is done, explore waiving the LVR fee for upper Pier small with the obligation that they 1) lease the ground floor for sales tax generating uses 2) Do not allow the ground floor to remain vacant. Since economic development is not a driver of HCD requirements, I don’t know if it’s even possible to put restrictions on the ground floor commercial in exchange the waiving of LVR. Losing LVR could still be problematic in this scenario. Page 67 of 764 Page 6 of 8 Appendix A – Hermosa Ave Mixed Used Development – A Cautionary Tale July 15, 2014 a commercial property was approved by the planning commission to allow for mixed use at 60 Hermosa Ave. PC Meeting 7/15/2014 Item 9: https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/player/clip/3182?view_id=6&meta_id=154838&re direct=true Figure 1 shows the lot before the mixed-use development. Lot size 30’x80’= 2,400 SQF. Concerns by a neighboring property owner: • Long term viability of the commercial • Concerns about the façade, all concrete and glass • All 3 commercial sites south are empty, up for sale for months • Putting commercial in to justify 2,800 sqf residence • “Let’s not repeat mistakes” Fast forward to now. The residential unit is large with a very small commercial component. There is no activated ground floor commercial. I’m very concerned that this type of development will occur on Upper Pier if there is no zoning plan to prevent this. Figure 1 60 Hermosa Ave Pre-Development Figure 2 Post Development Hermosa Ave. Frontage Page 68 of 764 Page 7 of 8 As of 6/24/2025 when I took the screenshot below from the AirBNB link, the downstairs commercial is not even office space. It’s turned into a vacation rental at $16K+/mo. https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/34999162?check_in=2025-10-01&check_out=2025-10- 31&location=Hermosa%20Beach%2C%20CA&search_mode=regular_search&source_impression_id=p3_17440502 03_P3oVKAXZUWRwBYf8&previous_page_section_name=1001&federated_search_id=cc75785e-7d3 Figure 3 Post Development Back View Figure 4 Ground Floor Vacation Rental Page 69 of 764 Page 8 of 8 The residential unit is also furnished and is rented out part time when it is not occupied by the owner. Screenshot from Nestfully 6/24/2025. https://www.nestfully.com/rentals/60- Hermosa-Avenue-Hermosa-Beach-CA-90254-344554482 It would be heartbreaking to see this on Upper Pier. I also don’t think this is what HCD intended to address housing needs. Figure 5 Main Residence Page 70 of 764 From: Scott Hayes <sdhayes8800@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:06 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: RachelsAccount@hotmail.com <RachelsAccount@hotmail.com> Subject: Planning Commission Item 7a public comment I appear to have missed the deadline for written public comment, but I would like to send this along in case I am not able to attend the meeting this evening. We are Scott and Rachel Hayes and we live directly across Palm Drive from the proposed project at 54 Hermosa Avenue. We are writing to express several significant concerns regarding the impact that the proposed project will have on our neighborhood and the community. 1. ADU Designation – Part of this project is being designated as an ADU. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17.21.030 only allows ADUs under the following conditions: 1. Converted on Single-family Lot 2. Limited Detached on Single-family Lot 3. Converted on Multifamily Lot 4. Limited Detached on Multifamily Lot The code only allows for detached ADUs in new construction. It appears that the second unit is being labelled as an ADU to skirt parking requirements. This project should be considered a new construction duplex and it should be required to have 2 off street parking spaces for each unit plus one guest space per 17.44.020.B. 2. Parking – Parking in Hermosa Beach is already strained. Three parking spaces for two residential units plus a commercial unit is entirely inadequate. This new project will inevitably reduce the already scarce street parking available to neighborhood residents. The mixed use property at 60 Hermosa Ave, which only has one residential unit, was required to provide 5 parking spaces including one handicap space. The requirements of 54 Hermosa Ave should be the same, if not more. 3. Short Term Vacation Rental – The applicant is one of the worst offenders of Hermosa Beach’s Short Term Vacation Rental ordinance. The applicant manages the property at 30 The Strand which is currently listed on AirBnB for rental periods of less than 30 days (https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/557734?check_in=2025-10-20&check_out=2025-10-24&location=Hermosa%20Beach%2C%20CA&search_mode=regular_search&source_impression_id=p3_1753741290_P3upCt0m8IQ4qIUc&previous_page_section_name=1001&federated_search_id=b1e2a91b-db2a-4d08-acde-494dee00abaa). There have been at least 14 complaints and 3 citations issued for this property. We can frequently hear noise from 30 The Strand at our house which is over 300’ away. We are EXTREMELY concerned that one or both of the new units at 54 Hermosa Avenue will be used as short term vacation rentals. We request that you include a specific exclusion of short term vacation rentals in the conditions of approval for this project. 4. Commercial Use – In the draft resolution, Section 1, item 4, it states “The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity.” The existing use of the property is office space for Lookout Entertainment. It is likely that the commercial portion of the project will also be used for the same purpose. Even if this is not the case, it is reasonable to infer that the commercial portion of the property may be used as office space in the foreseeable future. As a result, the parking requirements for an office space should be applied to the project. The adjacent property at 60 Hermosa Ave was required to include parking for its commercial space. 5. Trash Storage – The project is required to provide a solid waste area to accommodate 1 three cubic yard bin and 6 bins for the single family residence and the ADU. The trash area shown is approximately 4.5’ x 2.5’. in order to accommodate a 3 cy bin, it would have to be over 7’ tall and that does not include the 6 trash bins for the residential use. Page 71 of 764 When we purchased our property, we knew that some of the properties around us were underutilized and would likely be redeveloped at some point. When the small beach cottage at 126 1st St was torn down and replaced by a huge 2 condominium project we did not complain. If we could be assured that this project at 54 Hermosa Ave had adequate parking and was going to be occupied full time by neighbors and not tourists, I would be happy to welcome them to the neighborhood. My concerns with this project are not about trying to prevent development for the sake of protecting the miniscule views that we currently have. I bring up these concerns in hopes to prevent our little neighborhood turning into a hotel zone. We urge the Planning Commission to thoroughly consider these serious concerns and to ensure that the proposed project adheres to all municipal codes, particularly regarding parking and the prevention of short-term vacation rentals, to protect the residential character of our neighborhood. Scott and Rachel Hayes 122 1st St/60 Palm Dr Hermosa Beach Page 72 of 764 From: jimnholtz@gmail.com <jimnholtz@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 6:00 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov>; Myra Maravilla <mmaravilla@hermosabeach.gov>; Kate Hirsh <khirsh@hermosabeach.gov>; Stephen Izant <sizant@hermosabeach.gov>; Michael Flaherty <MFlaherty@hermosabeach.gov>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@hermosabeach.gov>; Greg McNally <gmcnally@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Steve Napolitano <snapolitano@hermosabeach.gov>; Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; Mayor Rob Saemann <rsaemann@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Request to Include with Post-Agenda and Project File: July 28, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting: Project at 54 Hermosa Avenue (Item 7a) To: Hermosa Beach City Clerk, Planning Commission, and City Staff RE: July 28, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting: Project at 54 Hermosa Avenue Dear Honorable City Clerk, Commissioners, and Staff, Please include this letter in the official public record for the July 28, 2025 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meeting, item 7a, regarding the proposed project at 54 Hermosa Avenue. Also ensure it is attached to the project file and to any future ordinance drafts that may stem from this item. I am writing to express support for the comments raised regarding parking concerns and to strongly oppose the inclusion of short-term rental (STR) prohibitions in the proposed project approval. My letter outlines how STRs were first raised during public comment and only discussed by the Planning Commission afterward, during Commissioner comments following the close of public input. I review the flawed drafting and adoption process behind Hermosa Beach’s original 2016 STR ordinance, highlight repeated Coastal Commission warnings and legal precedents that have invalidated similar bans, and refute the unsubstantiated statements and assumptions about STR impacts made by current Planning Commission members. I also provide examples of responsible STR regulation adopted by other California cities, list the tangible benefits STRs offer to communities and visitors alike, and emphasize the legal and policy risks of enforcing restrictions under an ordinance that lacks required Coastal Development Permit (CDP) approval. 1. Opening & Parking Support I strongly support the comments by Scott & Rachel Hayes regarding parking. The block along Hermosa Avenue already suffers chronic congestion from two-hour street parking and frequent street cleanings. Any new development should incorporate stricter parking requirements, even if it means installing underground parking to accommodate residents and visitors safely. 2. Public Comment & Commission Response • STRs were first raised during public comment, when the Hayeses spoke about STRs and other issues related to the property development. • Only after their remarks did the Planning Commission deliberate STR policy, this issue was not introduced by staff or the project itself. 3. Timeline of STR Ordinance Development • February 2016 Planning Commission Meeting City Planner Kim Chafin noted in the February 2016 staff report that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), drafted in the 1950s, contains no language explicitly permitting or prohibiting short-term rentals. She stated, “The City views STRs as illegal in the City” based on the fact that they are not listed among permitted uses. However, using that same logic, long-term rentals, which were also not expressly listed at that time, would likewise be considered illegal. This inconsistency underscores the flawed logic behind the City’s interpretation. At that time, Peter Hoffman (then vice-chair) and Michael Flaherty, now current Commissioners, were serving. Rob Saemann, now mayor, was also on the Commission. • March 2016 Commission & Council Actions The Council adopted the STR ban shortly thereafter. Former Mayor Justin Massey, who voted for the ban, later stated that public comments were “evenly split” between those in favor and opposed, despite the fact that there are more neighbors of STRs than STR operators in the city. This demonstrates that there was no overwhelming public outcry justifying a ban. 4. Coastal Commission Involvement & Legal Requirements • In December 2016, CCC Chair Steve Kinsey issued a memo warning that local STR bans in the Coastal Zone must have Coastal Development Permit (CDP) approval. Additional compliance warnings were issued by CCC staff, including Jordan Page 73 of 764 Sanchez (arriving the day before the ordinance passed) and Steve Hudson. Yet Hermosa never submitted a CDP application, nor has one ever been approved. • A 2019 publication, Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California’s Coastal Cities, reaffirmed that cities without certified Local Coastal Programs (like Hermosa) require CDPs before restricting coastal STRs. Hermosa still has not submitted a CDP application. 5. Coastal City Precedents • Cities including Monterey, Del Mar, Santa Barbara, Pismo Beach, and Laguna Beach have implemented STR regulations only after obtaining CDPs or LCP amendments. Hermosa remains unique in ignoring this standard protocol. 6. Legal Precedents & Risks • Santa Barbara (Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, 2021) struck down its STR ban due to the lack of a CDP. • Manhattan Beach (Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 2022) similarly lost for failing to obtain Coastal Commission approval, despite already having a certified Local Coastal Program in place. • Legal counsel representing plaintiffs in both cases has warned that other cities like Hermosa risk liability by collecting fines under an unenforceable ordinance. • Commissioner Hoffman’s confident predictions that Hermosa will prevail ignore controlling appellate precedent and statutory requirements. • The current Acting City Manager, as former STR hearing officer, has repeatedly ruled the ordinance unenforceable due to Coastal Act inconsistencies. 7. Flawed STR Arguments & Common-Sense Counterpoints Planning Commission Claim Response STRs are mostly “party houses” Most STRs host responsible guests and families, not parties. Hermosa’s noise and nuisance ordinances adequately address risks from misuse. STRs produce more trash Flaherty made this assertion at the last meeting, but there is no evidence that legitimate family stays generate more waste than other households. He was likely referring to the February 2016 staff report, which mentioned excess trash in connection with party houses. There are no studies showing that a typical STR renter or family produces more trash than anyone else. Frequent maid cleanings disrupt neighbors Flaherty made this offhand remark back in 2016. His repeated comments such as this suggest a belief that all STRs are used as party houses, which is simply not supported by evidence. Once again, the claim was unsubstantiated. 8. Benefits of STRs (Short List) • Provide income for homeowners and support neighborhood hospitality. • Expand lodging options by offering more spacious, affordable, and family-friendly alternatives to traditional hotels. • Maintain community character when regulated properly through enforceable standards. Problems commonly associated with STRs are typically caused by unregulated rentals, not properly managed and permitted ones. • Help financially struggling homeowners remain in their homes by supplementing income in high-cost areas. • Support local economies by bringing tourist spending to restaurants, markets, and services within walking distance of residential zones. • Relieve pressure on hotels during peak travel seasons and major upcoming events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, especially in coastal cities with limited lodging capacity. • Expand city revenue through Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collection when STRs are properly permitted and reported. • Promote responsible tourism through enforceable “Good Neighbor” policies that address noise, trash, and occupancy. • • Cities such as San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Palm Springs have implemented common-sense STR regulations that include: o Strict noise ordinances with fines for violations o 24/7 local contact requirements for complaints or emergencies o Occupancy limits based on square footage or bedroom count o Mandatory trash pickup schedules o Prohibition of events or parties unless separately permitted Palm Springs’ “Good Neighbor Brochure” serves as a clear example of how cities can educate guests and minimize nuisance impacts without resorting to broad bans. Page 74 of 764 These tools are widely adopted and effective, showing that cities can prevent party houses while still allowing STRs to operate legally and peacefully. 9. Legal & Policy Conclusion Including STR restrictions in the approval of 54 Hermosa Avenue, or any project, premised on an ordinance that lacks Coastal Commission approval, is legally questionable and potentially invalid. Even disclaimers buried in project conditions, such as “subject to future ordinance changes,” cannot legitimize a policy that is currently unenforceable and noncompliant with Coastal Act requirements. I oppose the inclusion of STR language in the draft ordinance until Hermosa Beach obtains CDP approval and aligns its regulatory framework with Coastal Commission precedent and statutory requirements. Thank you, Jim Holtz Hermosa Beach Property Owner The Strand, between Herondo and 1st Street Page 75 of 764 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 52 Number 3 Developments in the Law Article 3 Winter 2-1-2019 Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act Lucy Humphreys Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Housing Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Lucy Humphreys, Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act, 52 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 309 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. Page 76 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 309 REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES: HARMONIZING LOCAL ORDINANCES WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT Lucy Humphreys* In the past several years, local governments throughout California have debated and implemented new ordinances in order to regulate short-term rentals, such as those listed on peer-to-peer vacation rental platforms like Airbnb. California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges when trying to regulate short-term rentals due to the popularity of short-term rentals in their jurisdictions, rising housing prices along the coast, and California Coastal Act requirements. One of the primary goals of the California Coastal Act is to maximize public access to the coast. This Article explores the interplay between state policy embodied by the Coastal Act and the ordinances passed by local governments in order to provide recommendations as to how coastal cities can create regulations that best balance the varying interests surrounding short-term rentals. * J.D. Candidate, May 2019, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. I would like to thank Professor Todd Elliott and Professor Katherine Trisolini for their advice and support throughout the writing process. Thank you, also, to the editors and staff of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review for their help in reviewing and editing this Article. Finally, a special thanks to Steve, who provided me with much needed moral support as I worked on this Article, and to my parents Aimee and Michael, for their constant love and guidance. Page 77 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 310 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 311 II. SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE SHARING ECONOMY .................. 313 A. What is the Sharing Economy? ...................................... 313 B. Airbnb and the Rising Popularity of Short-Term Rentals ....................................................................................... 314 C. Cities’ Existing Authority to Regulate Short-Term Rentals: Zoning and Land Use ..................................................... 316 III. THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND TODAY’S COASTAL ACCESS ISSUES ................................................................................... 318 A. Background on the Coastal Act ...................................... 318 B. Development Under the Coastal Act .............................. 319 C. Coastal Access Issues in California Today ..................... 320 IV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES SHOULD CONSTITUTE “DEVELOPMENT” UNDER THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT ... 322 A. A Look at the Legal Arguments ..................................... 323 B. A Look at the Practical Arguments ................................. 327 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES ............................................ 328 A. Coastal Cities Should Avoid Complete Bans on Short- Term Rentals .................................................................. 329 B. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity Through Caps .. 333 C. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity via the Creation of a “Vacation Rental Overlay District” ............................ 335 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 337 Page 78 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 311 I. INTRODUCTION In the past several years, municipalities throughout California have debated and implemented new ordinances in order to regulate short-term rentals, or “STRs,” such as those listed on peer-to-peer vacation rental platforms like Airbnb, HomeAway, and FlipKey.1 Yet, the passage of such regulations has not been without controversy. STRs and the platforms that promote them have developed a mixed reputation, with advocates lauding the potential financial benefits STRs afford both hosts and city coffers via taxation, and opponents warning of the deteriorative effect STRs have on neighborhood character and the available housing stock. While all local governments developing guidelines must grapple with these competing perspectives, California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges due to the sheer number of STRs in their jurisdictions, housing prices, and California Coastal Act requirements. As a practical matter, because coastal cities offer distinctive recreational activities, which make them particularly desirable travel destinations for many tourists, the number of STRs are often greater in these targeted areas.2 Additionally, housing and rental prices are higher in coastal areas compared to the rest of the state,3 so concerns about the potential negative impact STRs have on the availability of adequate affordable housing options are amplified.4 Furthermore, local governments located in the “coastal zone,”5 as defined by the 1. Ashley M. Peterson, Sharing Space, L.A. LAW., Jan. 2017, at 28. 2. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, three major cities along California’s coast, have the most Airbnb listings in California and accounted for almost half of the total rental revenue in the state in 2016. California Airbnb Data and Pricing Analytics, AIRDNA, https://www.airdna.co/region/us/california (last visited Oct. 19, 2018) (AirDNA reports that Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego are the most popular cities for Airbnb in California); Lori Weisberg, Airbnb Details Sharp Growth in California Last Year, L.A. TIMES (Mar. 2, 2017, 12:40 PM), https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-hosts-20170302-story.html. 3. CAL. DEP’T OF HOUS. & CMTY. DEV., CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FINAL STATEWIDE HOUSING ASSESSMENT 2025, 23 (2018), http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/SHA_Final_Combined.pdf [hereinafter California’s Housing Future]. 4. See, e.g., Dayne Lee, How Airbnb Short-Term Rentals Exacerbate Los Angeles’s Affordable Housing Crisis: Analysis and Policy Recommendations, 10 HARV. L. & POL’Y REV. 229, 234–39 (2016). 5. The coastal zone encompasses an area stretching three miles out to sea and inland anywhere from 1,000 yards to several miles. Robert García & Erica Flores Baltodano, Free the Beach! Public Access, Equal Justice, and the California Coast, 2 STAN. J. C.R. & C.L. 143, 180 (2005). Page 79 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 312 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 California Coastal Act of 1976,6 may also need to consider the policies and procedures set forth by the Coastal Act when crafting new STR restrictions.7 This latter consideration is the chief focus of this Article. California places high value on the public’s right to access the coast. The Coastal Act codified this principal and created the California Coastal Commission, tasking it with regulating “development”8 in the coastal zone and maximizing public access to the coast.9 The Commission views STRs as an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, and thus regulations that seek to ban STRs entirely or greatly reduce their numbers in coastal cities are deemed to be contrary to its mandate.10 Some local governments within the coastal zone, however, have proceeded to pass regulations that either largely limit or outlaw STRs in their jurisdictions. Plaintiffs have thus challenged these rules on the grounds that they overly restrict public access and fail to follow certification procedures required by the Coastal Act.11 As of writing, there has yet to be a decisive court ruling as to whether STR regulations constitute “development” under the Coastal Act to which the Act must apply.12 This Article explores the interplay between state policy embodied by the Coastal Act and local governance in order to provide recommendations as to how coastal cities can create provisions that best balance the varying interests surrounding STRs. Part II provides background on the sharing economy and the rise of housing platforms and explains how these platforms have boosted the scale and intensity of STR activity. Expounding on the California Coastal Act, Part III provides background on the Act, focusing on its definition of “development.” Additionally, this Part addresses some of the coastal 6. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30103 (2018). 7. See infra Part V. 8. “Development” is defined broadly under the California Coastal Act. See infra Part III.B. 9. Lee A. Kaplan, Whose Coast Is It Anyway? Climate Change, Shoreline Armoring, and the Public’s Right to Access the California Coast, 46 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10971, 10974 (2016); see CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 30001.5, 30330 (2009). 10. Letter from Steve Kinsey, Coastal Commission Chair, to Coastal Planning/Community Development Directors (Dec. 6, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/ Short_Term_Vacation_Rental_to_Coastal_Planning_&_Devt_Directors_120616.pdf [hereinafter Coastal Commission Letter]. 11. See infra Part V. 12. Id. Page 80 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 313 access issues present in California today and how STRs may present a more cost-effective lodging option for guests compared to traditional hotels. Lastly, this Part discusses cities’ existing authority to regulate STRs as part of their police powers. Part IV argues that courts should interpret STR ordinances as constituting “development” within the Act, and thus cities should work with the Coastal Commission when developing STR regulations and follow Coastal Act procedures, such as amending an existing Local Coastal Program (LCP) or applying for a coastal development permit (CDP), to ensure the implementation of valid regulations. Finally, Part V provides recommendations for coastal cities, advising against all-out prohibitions of STRs, even in residential areas, and advocates for the creation of narrowly tailored regulations that curb the specific kind of STR activity that is deemed harmful to the community while still allowing for other STR activity that benefits homeowners and protects lower-cost visitor accommodation choices. The Article explores how both caps and “vacation rental overlay districts” can be used to achieve thoughtful regulations that maximize STR activity along the coast while still considering overall community character and welfare. II. SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE SHARING ECONOMY A. What is the Sharing Economy? The on-demand economy. The platform economy. The sharing economy.13 While the model may go by different names, each moniker describes the same fundamental story. Over the past few years, disruptive innovators have revolutionized the way consumers and suppliers transact with one another to such an extent that new labels evolved to describe the phenomenon.14 These pioneering peer-to-peer platforms have had a transformative effect on traditional businesses, as evidenced by the significant impact companies like Uber and 13. Additional names include the gig economy and the peer economy. Nathan Heller, Is the Gig Economy Working?, NEW YORKER (May 8, 2017), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/ 2017/05/15/is-the-gig-economy-working. 14. See U.S. FED. TRADE COMM’N, THE “SHARING” ECONOMY: ISSUES FACING PLATFORMS, PARTICIPANTS & REGULATORS 10 (2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/ sharing-economy-issues-facing-platforms-participants-regulators-federal-trade-commission- staff/p151200_ftc_staff_report_on_the_sharing_economy.pdf [hereinafter FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy]. Page 81 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 314 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Airbnb have had on the for-hire transportation and short-term lodging sectors, respectively.15 Despite infiltrating a variety of different industries,16 these new enterprises share certain characteristics. A sharing economy marketplace involves three chief participants: the platform, which provides the marketplace, the consumer (which, in the STR space, is often referred to as a “renter” or “guest”) and the supplier or “host.”17 Additionally, the platforms typically employ a rating system whereby the consumer and the supplier can both review one another, consumers can pay for their services using in-app payment systems, and the platforms give suppliers the flexibility to earn money based on their own schedules.18 At the center of this Article are the home-sharing or vacation rental platforms that have transformed the practice of renting out part or all of one’s residence. B. Airbnb and the Rising Popularity of Short-Term Rentals Home-sharing is not a new practice. Historically, renting out a room in one’s home to a short-term boarder was perhaps even commonplace, particularly in urban areas where affordable housing was especially scarce.19 Nevertheless, the inception of online booking platforms has fundamentally altered the scale of this activity, leading to increased attention and debate.20 Airbnb is arguably the most recognizable of these platforms. Founded in 2008 and based in San Francisco, Airbnb describes itself as a “trusted community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world.”21 It is an online marketplace by which hosts can rent all or part of their personal residence to a guest as short-term housing accommodation.22 The 15. See id. at 1. 16. Examples include Postmates for food delivery, TaskRabbit for everyday chores and services, Handy for housecleaning, and Dogvacay for pet-sitting. Heller, supra note 13. 17. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 3. 18. Heller, supra note 13. 19. Jamila Jefferson-Jones, Airbnb and the Housing Segment of the Modern “Sharing Economy”: Are Short-Term Rental Restrictions an Unconstitutional Taking?, 42 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 557, 561–63 (2015) (“Historians estimate that one in five to one in three nineteenth century American households took in boarders.”). 20. See id. at 561. 21. About Us, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/about/about-us (last visited Feb. 10, 2018). 22. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 19. Page 82 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 315 platform boasts more than three million listings worldwide in more than sixty-five thousand cities and 191 countries.23 Airbnb and the like have shaken up the old, long-established tourism model. While traditionally the average traveler would book accommodation through formal businesses such as hotels, the sharing economy allows ordinary people to rent out their apartments, homes, or spare bedrooms to the general public.24 The average person is now able to effortlessly enter the tourism accommodation sector and compete for tourists.25 As a result, commentators have observed how STRs in the sharing economy have blurred the line between personal and commercial activity, leading to new regulatory challenges.26 For many homeowners, Airbnb provides an easy way to earn extra income by utilizing an already purchased personal asset, namely their residence, to help offset the cost of maintaining a home.27 STRs are generally defined as transient occupancy for less than 30 days.28 Some hosts may rent out a portion of their home to a guest and remain in the unit during their stay, while others rent out their entire residence. For purposes of this Article, the former will be referred to as “home- sharing,” and the latter will be referred to as a “vacation rental,” though both practices are understood to fall under the STR umbrella. These hosts rent out their spaces for short periods of times to supplement their livelihood, but are not in the “business” of short-term renting per se. Distinct from the above-mentioned activity, Airbnb may also facilitate more commercial pursuits as well, or what some critics have referred to as the “hotelization” of entire buildings.29 This refers to a practice where landlords convert their property into pseudo-hotels and rent every unit to short-term lodgers rather than leasing to long-term tenants.30 Some argue that hosting platforms like Airbnb may actually 23. About Us, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/about/about-us (last visited Feb. 10, 2018). 24. Daniel Guttentag, Airbnb: Disruptive Innovation and the Rise of an Informal Tourism Accommodation Sector, 18 CURRENT ISSUES TOURISM 1192, 1194–95 (2015). 25. Id. at 1195. 26. Jefferson-Jones, supra note 19, at 561. 27. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 16. 28. See Peterson, supra note 1, at 30 (discussing how “a short-term rental guest who rents a single room in an owner-occupied dwelling for less than 30 days would likely be considered a lodger”). 29. Lee, supra note 4, at 238. 30. Id. Page 83 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 316 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 incentivize this kind of use because of the ease by which property owners can advertise a room on the platform and earn a substantial profit over the rent that would ordinarily be paid by a long-term tenant.31 Ultimately, local governments that wish to regulate STRs must recognize the different ways property owners are utilizing platforms like Airbnb and avoid making broad generalizations as to the character and nature of all STR activity. This will help ensure that regulations effectively and accurately consider the competing interests surrounding STRs, from private property owners’ rights to the preservation of a community’s character and welfare.32 Additionally, this Article argues that coastal cities in California must also consider the policies within the California Coastal Act in their calculus when implementing and enforcing STR regulations. C. Cities’ Existing Authority to Regulate Short-Term Rentals: Zoning and Land Use In contrast to state lawmakers’ early response to address other activity brought about by the so-called sharing economy, like the rise of the ride-sharing industry made popular by companies such as Lyft and Uber, California does not regulate STRs at the state level.33 State- wide legislation has failed due, in part, to cities’ reluctance to have the state involved in local tax collection and Airbnb’s success in rallying hosts to oppose legislation.34 Thus, the decision to regulate STRs has been left up to local governments. There is clear legal precedent in California endowing cities with the ability to regulate STRs as a land use matter.35 A local 31. Id. at 230. 32. Emily M. Speier, Embracing Airbnb: How Cities Can Champion Private Property Rights Without Compromising the Health and Welfare of the Community, 44 PEPP. L. REV. 387, 398–99 (2017). 33. Liam Dillon, California Lawmakers Can’t Figure Out What to Do with Airbnb. Here’s Why, L.A. TIMES (Feb. 3, 2017, 12:05 AM), http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-airbnb- laws-california-legislature-20170203-story.html; Tomio Geron, California Becomes First State to Regulate Ridesharing Services Lyft, Sidecar, UberX, FORBES (Sept. 19, 2013, 3:40 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/09/19/california-becomes-first-state-to-regulate- ridesharing-services-lyft-sidecar-uberx/#3412033e1804. 34. Dillon, supra note 33. 35. Andrea S. Visveshwara & Kevin R. Heneghan, Emerging Issues in the Enforcement of Short-Term Rental Regulations, LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGULATION ISSUES (May 4, 2017), https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/ Page 84 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 317 government’s authority to impose restrictions on STRs derives from its right to implement zoning regulations,36 which is a well-established, legitimate exercise of its police power.37 Police power broadly describes the right of governments to implement laws that further public safety, public health, peace and quiet, and law and order.38 Thus, local ordinances that are enacted in order to maintain the character of a residential neighborhood are a proper use of a city’s zoning power.39 Even before the rise of the sharing economy, the issue of whether local governments could regulate STRs had been raised.40 In 1991, owners of a single-family home challenged an ordinance adopted by the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea that prohibited transient occupancy for remuneration41 in residentially zoned areas on the grounds that it violated various constitutional rights, including their right of privacy and association.42 A Coastal Act claim was not raised. The Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal upheld the defendant city’s ordinance, holding that the ordinance was rationally related to the legislative intent behind the ordinance, which was to preserve the residential character of the city’s neighborhoods.43 The Court opined that “[i]t stands to reason that the ‘residential character’ of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes . . . are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29 days” because “[s]hort- term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league . . . [or engage] in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.”44 Remarkably, the Court upheld the ordinance despite Plaintiffs’ compelling argument that the ordinance was overly vague and, thus, Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2017/Spring-Conf-2017/Heneghan- ResidentialRentalRegulationIssues. 36. Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 286 Cal. Rptr. 382, 385 (Ct. App. 1991). 37. Id. (citing Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 386 (1926)). 38. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 (1954). 39. Ewing, 286 Cal. Rptr. at 388. 40. Id. at 386. 41. The ordinance defined remuneration as “compensation, money, rent, or other bargained for consideration given in return for occupancy, possession or use of real property.” Id. at 384. 42. Id. 43. Id. at 387–88. 44. Id. at 388. Page 85 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 318 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 could be applied too broadly. Plaintiffs criticized, and the city attorney admitted, that the ordinance’s definition of “remuneration” was worded in such a way that it could be read to include a prohibition on house-sitting, pet-sitting, or even allowing a homeowner to have a guest stay in exchange for dinner or yard work.45 The Court opined that while it was uncertain exactly how the City would interpret the ordinance, and acknowledged a broad reading of “remuneration” could lead to absurd applications, the purpose of the ordinance was clearly to prohibit transient commercial use of residential property.46 Yet, at what point does housing a guest at one’s home for compensation amount to the kind of forbidden “commercial” uses that conceivably do have a deteriorative effect on neighborhood character? Is hosting a paying guest on days that a homeowner is out of town, for example, really so disruptive to a community’s integrity that banning it is justified given the ordinance’s purported intent? As discussed more in Part V, this Article recommends that cities acknowledge and thoroughly evaluate how varying kinds of STR activity realistically impact their jurisdictions in order to avoid drafting regulations that needlessly restrict homeowners and limit coastal accommodation options for visitors. III. THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND TODAY’S COASTAL ACCESS ISSUES A. Background on the Coastal Act In 1976, the California Coastal Act was enacted in order to combat degradation in the quality and availability of recreational land along the coast.47 One of the primary goals of the Act is to maximize public access to the coast, in addition to protecting natural resources, encouraging public participation in decisions affecting coastal planning, and balancing conservation efforts with development and private property rights.48 The Coastal Act requires local governments, 45. Id. at 391. 46. Id. The Court noted, “The word ‘commercial’ appears repeatedly at every critical juncture in the Ordinance.” It continued, “we view Carmel’s repeated use of the word as strong evidence that Carmel intends only to prevent homeowners in the R-1 District from operating like a ‘bed and breakfast, hostel, hotel, inn, lodging, motel, resort or other transient lodging . . . .’” Id. 47. García & Baltodano, supra note 5, at 181. 48. Id.; CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30001.5 (2009) (“[T]he basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to . . . [m]aximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public Page 86 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 319 businesses, and private individuals found in the designated coastal zone to comply with its policies.49 To implement its policies, the Act established the California Coastal Commission as a permanent public entity, and its primary responsibility is the regulation of “development” in the coastal zone.50 B. Development Under the Coastal Act “Development” is defined broadly under the Coastal Act.51 As relevant to this Article, the Coastal Act defines development as any “change in the density or intensity of use of land.”52 The Supreme Court of California opined that “[a]n expansive interpretation of ‘development’ is consistent with the mandate that the Coastal Act is to be ‘liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.’”53 Furthermore, the Court added, “the Coastal Act’s definition of ‘development’ goes beyond ‘what is commonly regarded as a development of real property.’”54 The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of development under the Coastal Act is pertinent to understanding how ordinances that impede STR activity may constitute development and thus fall under the auspices of the Act and the Coastal Commission, discussed infra. Under the Act, the Coastal Commission is responsible for permitting development within the coastal zone, but this power is delegated to local agencies upon preparation and certification of a Local Coastal Program.55 There is no single design for an LCP except that each is comprised of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and an recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”). 49. JORDAN DIAMOND ET AL., THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL ACT 5 (2017), https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Coastal-Act-Issue- Brief.pdf. 50. Kaplan, supra note 9, at 10974. 51. J. David Breemer, What Property Rights: The California Coastal Commission’s History of Abusing Land Rights and Some Thoughts on the Underlying Causes, 22 UCLA J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 247, 252 (2004). 52. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30106 (2018). 53. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 288 P.3d 717, 722 (Cal. 2012). 54. Id. 55. Kaplan, supra note 9, at 10974. Page 87 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 320 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Implementation Plan (IP).56 An LUP contains policies that are consistent with the Coastal Act and tailored to the geographic area it covers, while an IP contains ordinances or regulations that implement the policies outlined in the LUP.57 LCPs must be certified by the Coastal Commission to ensure that they accurately reflect the fundamental objectives of the Coastal Act.58 Additionally, certified LCPs can be subject to review by the Coastal Commission and amendments can and should be made as needed.59 While the Coastal Act incentivizes local governments to develop LCPs in order to gain coastal development permitting authority, there are still a number of jurisdictions that have not developed LCPs,60 and about two-thirds of existing LCPs are out of date.61 If a jurisdiction in the coastal zone does not have a certified LCP, the Coastal Commission retains its authority to issue coastal development permits. C. Coastal Access Issues in California Today As discussed above, one of the primary goals of the Coastal Act is to maximize public access to and along the coast. Yet, in spite of this legal protection that has been in place for over forty years, California residents have not had equal access to the coastline.62 In general, economically disadvantaged and minority residents live further from coastal access points compared to wealthy, white residents.63 Furthermore, as California’s population continues to grow, disparities in coastal access may be stretched even further.64 California’s coastal cities are among the most popular tourist destinations in the state. In 2016, around five million visitors booked 56. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30108.6 (2018). For an example of an LCP, see CITY OF SEASIDE, EXHIBIT C: PROPOSED LUP AND IP WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS (2012), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/12/Th15a-12-2012-a1.pdf. 57. See CITY OF SEASIDE, supra note 56. 58. Joel Jacobs, A Bug in The Programs: The Need to Create Greater Incentives for Local Coastal Program Updates, 36 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 3, 5 (2016). 59. Id. 60. In fiscal year 2016–2017, 33 segments were reported as having no certified LCP, though some of the jurisdictions had received grants from the Coastal Commission to assist in developing one. CAL. COASTAL COMM’N, SUMMARY OF LCP PROGRAM ACTIVITY IN FY 16–17, 1–2 (2017), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/rflg/FY16_17_LCPStatusSummaryChart.pdf. 61. DIAMOND ET AL., supra note 49, at 8. 62. Dan R. Reineman et al., Coastal Access Equity and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act, 36 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 89, 99 (2016). 63. Id. at 102. 64. Id. at 99. Page 88 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 321 temporary lodging through Airbnb in California.65 Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, all situated on California’s stunning coastline, accounted for nearly half of the state’s total rental revenue.66 And the popularity of short-term rentals just continues to grow. In just a year, the number of Californians sharing their homes on the platform rose 51%.67 The Coastal Act specifically requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities to be protected and encouraged in order to ensure maximum public access.68 In a memo written by the California Coastal Commission, the agency criticized outright bans as well as regulations that significantly limit the availability of STRs.69 According to the memo, overnight accommodations are vital to enabling those who live far away from the coastline to visit and enjoy the recreational opportunities available at the beach and ocean.70 Over the years, nightly room rates have increased significantly.71 As a result, the Commission seeks to promote more affordable options to ensure coastal access, and STRs present a unique solution. San Diego’s popular Comic-Con weekend provides an example that illustrates how STRs may present a more affordable accommodation option for coastal visitors compared to traditional hotels.72 Airbnb hosts reportedly accommodated 14,000 guests during Comic-Con in 2016, and 19,000 guests were projected to stay at Airbnb listings for the 2017 convention weekend.73 While Airbnb’s average nightly rates do tend to go up at this peak time, the average Airbnb short-term rental still undercuts San Diego hotels’ $261 65. Weisberg, supra note 2. 66. Id. Also, note that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, not the California Coastal Commission, has regulatory authority over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh. S.F. BAY CONSERVATION & DEV. COMM’N, http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/ (last visited Nov. 5, 2018). 67. Weisberg, supra note 2. 68. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30213 (2018). 69. Memorandum from John Ainsworth, Acting Executive Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., to Coastal Commission and Interested Parties, (Oct. 26, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf. 70. Id. 71. Id. 72. Lori Weisberg, Who is Winning During Comic-Con: Airbnb or Hotels?, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB. (July 17, 2017, 6:00 AM), http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/ tourism/sd-fi-airbnb-comiccon-20170714-story.html. 73. Id. Page 89 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 322 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 average room cost by roughly $70 to $100 a night.74 Even if Airbnb’s private and shared rooms are excluded from the calculus, and only bookings for studio apartments and one-bedroom units are considered since they are more comparable to traditional hotel rooms, the typical STR still provides a less expensive option for visitors compared to hotels.75 IV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES SHOULD CONSTITUTE “DEVELOPMENT” UNDER THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT Residents in coastal cities have turned to the courts to challenge the enforcement of local STR ordinances on the grounds that they fall under the purview of the California Coastal Commission and should be subject to Coastal Commission approval before implementation.76 The crux of their arguments is that ordinances that restrict STRs have a demonstrable impact on the intensity of use of land and access to the coast and thus constitute “development” as it is broadly defined within the Coastal Act.77 While it is unsettled whether STR ordinances are development under the Coastal Act to which the Coastal Act must apply, this Article argues that based on California Supreme Court precedent that development be liberally construed,78 courts should interpret STR ordinances as falling within its broad definition. The following subsections first discuss the legal basis for such a finding by examining cases that have challenged STR ordinances under a theory that they violate the Coastal Act. The Article then considers some of the practical benefits for coastal cities in working with the Coastal Commission to develop STR regulations. 74. Id. 75. Id. 76. E.g., Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2:16-cv-04481-ODW-AGR, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (“Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to submit to the Commission a certified LCP prior to enacting the Ordinance, and further, that the ban constitutes ‘development’ under the Act as it represents a change in access to the coast.”); Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989863, at *4 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 26, 2017) (“[T]he City’s implementation of the STVR ban and its broad enforcement efforts has intentionally caused a substantial, direct and quantifiable change in the density and intensity of use of land and the intensity of use of water, or of access to the coast . . . .”). 77. Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5; Kracke, 2017 WL 9989863, at *4. 78. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 288 P.3d 717, 722 (Cal. 2012). Page 90 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 323 A. A Look at the Legal Arguments Various homeowners along California’s coast have filed lawsuits alleging that the California Coastal Commission should have a say over the enactment of STR laws. In January 2017, Santa Monica homeowner Arlene Rosenblatt argued that a vacation rental ban instituted by the City of Santa Monica violated the Coastal Act.79 The Santa Monica STR ordinance authorizes home-sharing (owner remains at the residence throughout a guest’s stay) as long as the resident obtains a business license and registers their property, but prohibits vacation rentals (owner is absent during a guest’s stay) entirely.80 Rosenblatt, an eighty-year-old retired schoolteacher, would rent out her home in Santa Monica when she and her husband left town to visit their seven grandchildren.81 Because Santa Monica’s ordinance now requires that the resident remain in the house during a guest’s stay, Rosenblatt reported that she and her husband could lose up to $20,000 a year.82 She decided to challenge the rule in court. Rosenblatt argued that Santa Monica’s ban on STRs constituted “development” under the Coastal Act because it impacted access to the coast by diminishing the pool of visitor serving accommodations.83 Additionally, Rosenblatt contended that the City failed to obtain a certified LCP from the Coastal Commission prior to enacting its ordinance, which consequently violated the Act.84 The City of Santa Monica filed a motion to dismiss.85 In its March 30, 2017 ruling, the district court denied the City’s motion to dismiss Rosenblatt’s Coastal Act claim, opining that while “California case law makes it likely that the Commission does not have unrestricted authority to override local land use regulations,” the City failed to show that Ms. Rosenblatt had not stated a claim under the Coastal Act when she alleged that “[the City] failed to submit an 79. First Amended Complaint, Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997. 80. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA HOME-SHARING ORDINANCE RULES 3–4 (2017), https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Permits/Santa%20Monica% 20HomeSharing%20Rules.pdf. 81. Sam Sanders, Rental Rules in California Raise Questions About Who’s Using Airbnb, NPR (May 17, 2015, 5:17 PM), https://www.npr.org/2015/05/17/407529301/does-airbnb-help-folks-by- or-help-businesses-get-sly. 82. Id. 83. Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5. 84. Id. 85. Id. at *1. Page 91 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 324 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 LCP and that the Ordinance conflicts with the overall policies of the Act.”86 Ultimately, however, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rosenblatt’s state law claim, and dismissed the case.87 Rosenblatt has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.88 While no decision on the merits has been rendered in this case as of writing, Rosenblatt’s unresolved suit raises new questions of law that could substantially impact how local governments in the coastal zone regulate STR activity. Do coastal cities proposing to introduce STR ordinances need to first amend their city’s LCP? In the event that they do not have a certified LCP, do cities need to apply for a coastal development permit instead? These questions will be answered in the affirmative if it is determined that STR regulations constitute development under the Act. Courts, however, have just started to grapple with these questions on a case-by-case basis.89 One difficulty courts face is that it is hard to analogize STR ordinances to previous case holdings that have addressed the definition of development under the Coastal Act. In March 2017, Theodore Kracke, a Santa Barbara resident who owns a local business that operates vacation rentals around the City, filed his First Amended Writ of Mandate and Complaint.90 He argued that Santa Barbara violated the Coastal Act by enforcing an STR ban, which prohibits short-term vacation rentals in any zone other than commercial and R- 4 zones, without first obtaining a CDP or amending its LCP and obtaining certification from the Coastal Commission.91 The Superior Court for the County of Ventura noted that “[m]ost cases in which a ‘development’ has been found have involved more substantial and discrete conduct.”92 It went on to list examples including the approval of a mobile home park conversion, the building 86. Id. at *5. 87. Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2:16-cv-04481-ODW-AGR, 2017 WL 2909404, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2017). 88. Id., appeal docketed, No. 17-55879 (9th Cir. June 22, 2017). 89. Rosenblatt, Kracke, and Johnston v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. B278424, 2018 WL 45892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) were all filed within the last few years. 90. First Amended Writ of Mandate and Complaint for 1) Civil Penalties for Violation of the California Coastal Act; 2) Injunctive Relief Under the Coastal Act; 3) Declaratory Relief Under the Coastal Act, Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989863 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 30, 2017), 2017 WL 10507452. 91. Id. at 20–22. 92. Kracke, 2017 WL 9989863, at *8. Page 92 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 325 of a fireworks display, the installation of gates with “no trespassing” signs, lot line adjustments, and offshore sand extraction.93 STR regulations appear to be distinct from the aforementioned examples of development, at least as the word is colloquially understood, because they do not entail the construction of new structures or physical alterations made to existing structures. Rather, STR ordinances regulate how owners utilize their existing property. The Superior Court went on to say, however, that despite the earlier precedent involving somewhat different kinds of activities than the implementation of STR regulations, “the provisions of the Coastal Act do not limit the scope of ‘development’ to particular conduct.”94 Rather, “[t]he action required is simply a ‘change.’”95 The language in the Coastal Act regarding the “change in the density or intensity of use of land . . . focuses on the nature of the impact necessary to find ‘development’ and does not restrict the manner in which the change comes about.”96 Plaintiff Kracke sufficiently alleged that the City council made a deliberate choice to increase enforcement of the prohibition of STRs, and that this resulted in a quantifiable change in the density and intensity of the use of land as evidenced by the resulting 87% reduction in the number of guests staying in properties managed by Kracke located in the coastal zone.97 The court concluded that: Two fundamental purposes of the Coastal Act are protecting California’s coastline and ensuring state policies prevail over local government concerns. Requiring the City to obtain a CDP before implementing a prohibition on STVRs in residential areas of Santa Barbara’s coastline is in harmony with both. For these reasons, the court finds that Kracke has alleged facts constituting a “development” within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 30106.98 93. Id. 94. Id. 95. Id. 96. Id. at *9 (citing CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30106 (2018)). 97. Id. at *7. 98. Id. at *9 (citations omitted). Page 93 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 326 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Though Kracke’s allegations were sufficient to survive demurrer, the Superior Court denied his request for a preliminary injunction.99 The questions raised by Kracke and Rosenblatt in their respective cases are similar, and the courts in both cases determined that there were sufficient allegations to make out a cognizable legal claim. While no ruling on the merits has been made as of writing in either case to decisively answer the question of whether STR ordinances constitute development under the Coastal Act, at the very least, there seems to be an indication that this legal argument has some viability. Not all courts agree, however. A homeowner in Hermosa Beach sought to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance banning STRs, arguing that the California Coastal Act preempted the ordinance.100 The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the Coastal Act, since it did not constitute a development as that word is used in the Coastal Act, which would require a coastal development permit.101 On appeal, the preemption issue was reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.102 The appellate court noted that the Coastal Commission had not sought leave to intervene in the trial court, nor did it seek to submit an amicus brief on appeal.103 Ultimately, the court decided, that “[t]he Ordinance was enacted pursuant to the City’s police power and did not fall under the auspices of the Coastal Commission.”104 Unlike the plaintiffs in Rosenblatt and Kracke, however, the plaintiffs in this case conceded in the trial court, and made no contrary argument on appeal, that “the Ordinance did not constitute a ‘development’ requiring a CDP.”105 This concession likely influenced the court’s ruling in this instance and distinguishes it from the other cases. A final and persuasive argument supporting the finding that the regulation of STRs constitutes development under the Coastal Act 99. Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989862, at *2 (June 26, 2017) (denying Kracke’s request because the court was not persuaded that an exception to the rule that an injunction is not available to restrain public officers from enforcing laws made for the public benefit applied). 100. Johnston v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. B278424, 2018 WL 458920, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). 101. Id. at *2. 102. Id. at *4. 103. Id. at *5. 104. Id. at *4. 105. Id. Page 94 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 327 comes from the Coastal Commission itself. In a letter written by the former Chairman of the Coastal Commission, the Commission’s view on this subject was made clear. The letter plainly stated: [V]acation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short-term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP.106 The Coastal Commission may very well be STR proponents’ biggest ally in the struggle to preserve their right to rent out their residence on a short-term basis in the coastal zone. The Commission aims to work with local government to implement STR regulations that respect the local context while preserving coastal recreational access opportunities.107 Now that the legal groundwork has been laid to support the theory that STR ordinances constitute development under the Coastal Act, I turn to some of the practical considerations for why coastal cities should work with the Coastal Commission when developing STR regulations. B. A Look at the Practical Arguments As a preliminary matter, it has now been established that some coastal cities that have not elected to regulate STRs within the context of their existing LCP or apply for a CDP have had their ordinances challenged on this ground in court. Thus, by working with the Coastal Commission to craft more balanced regulations, cities can help shield themselves from attacks, at least as to challenges made on this basis. 106. Coastal Commission Letter, supra note 10, at 1. 107. Id. at 3. Page 95 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 328 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Additionally, the Coastal Commission might be the only thing standing in the way to prevent all-out bans on STRs in the coastal zone. While coastal cities have their own valid reasons for wanting to limit STRs in their communities, often nuisance abatement and preservation of neighborhood character, coastal cities should still be mindful of public access issues. Access to California’s coast is a growing problem, and one of the biggest barriers Californians cite that prevent them from being able to access the coast is the high costs associated with staying overnight in coastal communities.108 In a statewide voter poll conducted in the summer of 2016, 62% of voters cited access to the coast as a problem, with between 73% and 76% of California voters citing limited options for affordable overnight accommodations as a significant barrier.109 Latino voters and families with children cited this as a big problem at an even higher rate.110 The coast is an important resource and guaranteed for all under the Coastal Act, yet the Coastal Commission cannot preserve and expand the supply of lower-cost overnight accommodations on its own. The cooperation of local coastal governments is paramount to ensure that the public has ample access to the coastline and the recreational activities it provides. Since the Coastal Commission takes public access into consideration in all of its permitting and planning decisions, coastal cities should consult the Coastal Commission when crafting their STR regulations. V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES As a preliminary matter, in order for STR regulations to comply with the Costal Act, policymakers should avoid total prohibitions of any kind, even in areas zoned as residential areas. Not only is this the Coastal Commission’s position,111 but there are economic benefits to having STRs in coastal cities whereby having a total ban would be adverse to the cities’ interests. Rather, narrowly tailored regulations 108. JON CHRISTENSEN & PHILIP KING, ACCESS FOR ALL—A NEW GENERATION’S CHALLENGES ON THE CALIFORNIA COAST 2 (2017), https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/UCLA-Coastal-Access-Policy-Report.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 109. Id. at 3. 110. Id. 111. See Coastal Commission Letter, supra note 10, at 2. Page 96 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 329 must be crafted to suit each locale, while still considering the goals underlying the Coastal Act. Instead of confining STRs to traditionally established zoning districts, such as only permitting them in commercial zones and prohibiting them in residential zones, coastal cities can control the spread of STRs, and the potential effects they may have on any given neighborhood, by imposing selected limits. This may include caps on the number of units allowed in any given zone, the number of units a single individual can list for rent, or the number of nights a unit can be rented out over a designated period of time. Additionally, coastal cities can explore creating “vacation rental overlay districts” that also help to regulate STR activity in certain areas without prohibiting them entirely. A. Coastal Cities Should Avoid Complete Bans on Short-Term Rentals Ultimately, cities are faced with two options when it comes to regulating STRs. They may allow them or restrict them. However, some cities have seemingly wanted to restrict STRs to the point of prohibiting them. In order to be consistent with the Coastal Act, coastal cities should avoid total prohibitions of STRs. Proposed amendments to LCPs that have advocated for total bans, as well as total bans in residential zones, have been denied by the Coastal Commission.112 In December 2017, the Coastal Commission denied a proposed LCP amendment submitted by the City of Laguna Beach that would ban STRs in residential zones throughout the City, while still permitting them to operate in most commercial districts.113 The City reported that the increase of STRs in Laguna Beach had begun to cause 112. The Coastal Commission denied proposed STR bans submitted by Pismo Beach, the City of Imperial Beach, and Laguna Beach because they were overly restrictive and conflicted with LCP requirements for promoting access to shoreline access areas by limiting the potential number of STRs which serve as alternate lodging opportunities for coastal visitors. CAL. COASTAL COMM’N, SAMPLE OF COMMISSION ACTIONS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS 2–3 (2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Re ntals.pdf; Memorandum from Karl Schwing, Deputy Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., to Commissioners and Interested Persons at 2, 22 (Dec. 1, 2017), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/12/th19b/th19b-12-2017-report.pdf [hereinafter Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request]. 113. Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 1–2. Page 97 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 330 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 problems such as excessive noise, instances of disorderly conduct, and exacerbated traffic congestion, leading them to the decision to ban STRs in all residential zoning districts.114 The Coastal Commission remarked that despite Laguna Beach’s intent to expand the commercial districts to allow more STRs where they previously were not permitted and to authorize existing, legally permitted STRs to continue operating in residential zones, the proposed amendment would still unduly reduce the potential aggregate number of STRs in the City.115 By entirely foreclosing the possibility of such use in all residential areas, between 5,200 and 8,900 residential lots would be excluded from ever functioning as an STR.116 Additionally, the Commission noted, the City’s certified LUP already contains language that protects and prioritizes lower-cost visitor facilities and requires that public access to the coast be maximized, and thus the proposed ban would undermine this policy.117 STRs in residential areas supplement visitor accommodation choices in a fundamentally different way than STRs located within the commercial zones, since they allow for immediate shoreline access where no commercial overnight opportunities exist.118 While the Coastal Commission has made it clear that it disfavors total prohibitions of any kind, there are economic considerations that favor a more balanced STR regulation approach as well. Cities have their own reasons for wanting to limit STRs in their communities— often nuisance abatement and preservation of neighborhood character—but there are undeniable benefits to STR activity that should not be overlooked. One economic advantage is the tax dollars cities can collect through a Transient Occupancy Tax. Airbnb has even entered into agreements with some local governments to collect and remit taxes on behalf of hosts119 in an effort likely meant, at least in part, to encourage 114. Id. at 2. 115. Id. 116. Id. 117. Id. at 2. 118. Id. at 19–20. 119. How Does Occupancy Tax Collection and Remittance by Airbnb Work?, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1036/how-does-occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance- by-airbnb-work (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). Page 98 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 331 these cities to impose fewer restrictions on STRs.120 One mechanism, a Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA), allows Airbnb to collect local taxes from guests as they book their transaction and then dispatch those tax dollars to the proper tax administrator.121 Occupancy tax collection and remittance by Airbnb is available in various cities and counties throughout the entire state of California, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Monica.122 These VCA agreements have purportedly generated millions of dollars for city coffers.123 Additionally, hosts often house guests in neighborhoods that are outside of the traditional tourist districts which brings money into local economies that have not previously benefitted from the tourism industry.124 Advocates of STRs and the sharing economy more generally know that unnecessary or excessive regulations can raise barriers to entry and increase costs of operation for hosts, which in turn can reduce the substantial consumer and community benefits that accrue when these new competitors enter the marketplace.125 The City of Laguna Beach also raised concerns about the negative impact STRs have on the availability of housing.126 Because house and rental prices are higher in coastal areas compared to the rest of the state,127 local governments are understandably wary of the potential impact STRs may have on the available housing stock in such densely populated regions. It is unsettled, however, whether the proliferation 120. Kia Kokalitcheva, Airbnb to Cities: Cooperate and We’ll Get You Tax Revenue, FORTUNE (Jan. 22, 2016), http://fortune.com/2016/01/22/airbnb-tax-revenue. 121. Airbnb: Generating $2.5 Billion in Potential Tax Revenue for America’s Cities, AIRBNB, https://2sqy5r1jf93u30kwzc1smfqt-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/US- Tax-Report3.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2018) [hereinafter Airbnb Tax Report]. 122. Occupation Tax Collection and Remittance by Airbnb in California, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2297/occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-in- california (last visited Oct. 25, 2018). 123. E.g., Airbnb entered into a VCA with Los Angeles in August 2016, which purportedly generated $13 million in tax dollars in five months. Additionally, San Diego reportedly earned $7 million in tax revenue. Airbnb Tax Report, supra note 121. 124. See Home Sharing Activity Report: Los Angeles, AIRBNBCITIZEN, https://los- angeles.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-home-sharing-activity-report-los-angeles (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 125. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 6. 126. Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 15. 127. California’s Housing Future, supra note 3, at 23, 25. Page 99 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 332 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 of STRs adversely affects the supply of housing available to permanent residents in any considerable way.128 One independent study which analyzed data from 2012 to 2016 estimated that a 10% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a 0.42% increase in rents, as well as a 0.76% increase in house prices at the zip code level.129 This is, in part, because platforms such as Airbnb make it easier for hosts to connect with potential guests. This, in turn, may encourage some landlords to convert their long-term rentals, which cater to residents, into STRs, which cater more to tourists.130 Because the supply of housing is fixed in the short run, rental rates are driven up in the long-term market.131 Additionally, it has also been argued that rising rents and home prices can lead to gentrification. Gentrification occurs when mounting costs force lower income households to leave a neighborhood, which are then replaced by wealthier residents.132 This shift in demographics can remake a locality’s entire ambiance and character.133 There may be a correlation between the expansion of STRs in a district and the subsequent increase in rent and gentrification in adjacent districts.134 With that being said, the study noted that Airbnb’s impact on the long-term market “depends on the number of landlords who are on the margin of switching between allocating their housing to long-term tenants versus short-term visitors.”135 In instances where hosts only supply a spare room while they remain in the residence, or rent out their entire residence for a short-time while the hosts themselves are 128. Compare Lee, supra note 4 (arguing that “Airbnb reduces supply by encouraging illegal conversion, hotelization, and evictions”), and Kyle Barron et al., The Sharing Economy and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Airbnb, SSRN (Oct. 5, 2017) (finding that “a 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a 0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices at the median owner-occupancy rate zipcode”), with CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC FORECAST, THE EFFECT OF SHORT TERM RENTALS ON THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN SANTA BARBARA CITY AND COUNTY (2016), https://independent.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/documents/2016/07/20/STR_ Effect_on_Housing_Supply_-_2016-05-12.pdf (finding that “[a]n increase of 1/10th of 1% in the long-term rental supply is created by prohibition of STRs, and does not represent a significant number of housing units that would be converted from STR use to a longer term supply of housing for purchase or rent”). 129. Barron et al., supra note 128, at 19. 130. Id. at 2. 131. Id. 132. Lee, supra note 4, at 240. 133. Id. 134. Id. at 240–41. 135. Barron et al., supra note 128, at 6. Page 100 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 333 temporarily out of town, the effects of Airbnb rentals on the market for long-term housing are moderated.136 This is because these units would not be available to long-term tenants anyway, so home-sharing merely provides owners with an extra stream of income for times when their residences would otherwise be underutilized.137 In the past ten years, there has been limited housing production in California’s urban and coastal communities, where jobs and services are concentrated, leading to increased housing prices.138 Allowing residents to rent out parts or all of their primary residence on a short- term basis may be vital to helping them stay in their homes as the cost of living rises.139 Thus, it is critical that local governments recognize the different ways property owners utilize platforms like Airbnb and avoid making broad generalizations as to the character and nature of all STR activity. Concerns regarding the impact STRs may have on the affordable housing stock are not trivial, but local governments should not ignore how STRs may actually help current residents afford their homes. By thoroughly evaluating how varying kinds of STR activity realistically impact their jurisdictions and the people that reside there, better regulations can be drafted that do not unduly limit the potential economic benefits afforded by such activity to both homeowners and the cities in which they live. B. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity Through Caps Given the variance in coastal resources, housing, and population across California’s coastal cities, narrowly tailored regulations must be crafted to suit each locale, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, coastal cities can impose various caps or limits on STRs, such as setting a minimum or maximum number of days a unit can be rented, limiting the number of units a single individual can advertise for rent, or designating occupancy limits and minimum separation requirements between STRs in order to customize their regulations to suit the needs and concerns of their particular community. 136. Id. at 3, 5. 137. Id. at 3. 138. California’s Housing Future, supra note 3, at 42. 139. E.g., Otis R. Taylor, Jr., Oakland Woman Is Example of Airbnb’s Benefits, S.F. CHRON. (Mar. 24, 2017, 6:00 AM), http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-woman -is-example-of-Airbnb-s-benefits-11024054.php. Page 101 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 334 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Such caps can be instituted to address two main concerns: the purported adverse effect wide-spread home-sharing may have on housing availability and the negative effects on neighborhood character, safety and congestion. Both consequences may be considered negative “externalities” associated with the growth of STRs.140 A negative externality is best understood as “an indirect cost of a commercial activity that is borne by society or bystanders outside of the industry rather than the commercial enterprise or individuals conducting the activity.”141 Community members who do not participate in the home-sharing craze experience the costs associated with STRs without receiving any direct, immediate benefit. Thus, their criticism of STRs and desire to limit them seem well-founded. The traditional tourist accommodation industry, such as hotels and bed- and-breakfasts, joins neighborhood activists in their criticism, albeit for a different reason, urging regulators to set standards that apply equally across the board in order to avoid what they deem to be unfair competition.142 To address concerns raised regarding the effects STRs may have on the available housing stock, setting a maximum number of days a unit can be rented and limiting the number of units a single individual or company can advertise for rent will likely discourage people from converting housing units from long-term to short-term accommodation. Los Angeles, for example, has proposed implementing a 180-day cap on STRs, whereby a single unit could not be rented out for more than 180 days in one year, in order to help protect the long-term housing stock.143 Some hosts have said that the 180-day cap is too restrictive, but city officials are contemplating developing a process that would allow hosts to apply for permission to exceed the cap if needed.144 Additionally, limiting the number of units a single individual or company can obtain an STR permit for to 140. Tristan P. Espinosa, Comment, The Cost of Sharing and the Common Law: How to Address the Negative Externalities of Homesharing, 19 CHAP. L. REV. 597, 601–03 (2016). 141. Id. at 601. 142. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 54, 57. 143. Jenna Chandler, Los Angeles Is Still Dragging Its Feet on Airbnb Regulations, CURBED (Feb. 6, 2018, 4:52 PM), https://la.curbed.com/2018/2/6/16981720/los-angeles-airbnb-short-term- rentals-regulations-plum. 144. Id. Page 102 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 335 one or two would likely prevent people from purchasing numerous units and converting them to short-term tourist accommodations. To address concerns over the effects STRs may have on neighborhood integrity and congestion, local governments may designate caps on the number of guests that can stay in a unit at one- time, minimum separation requirements between STRs in certain residential neighborhoods, and caps on the number of cars a guest can bring. Such caps map help reduce potential noise and parking issues. Additionally, as part of the STR permitting process, ordinances could require vacation rental owners to submit nuisance response plans.145 The City of Ventura, for example, requires owners to submit a plan that includes their name and contact information so they can be easily reached if guests engage in behavior that is disruptive to neighbors.146 If a certain STR unit receives continued complaints, a city can administer fines or revoke a host’s permit. Furthermore, neighbors that encounter STRs that present a substantial disruption to their area still have the ability to sue private property owners to abate the nuisance. Instead of broadly prohibiting STRs, caps can be used to curb the specific kind of STR activity that is deemed harmful to the community (e.g., the “hotelization” of entire buildings) while still allowing for other STR activity that helps supplement homeowner’s income and preserve the number of lower-cost visitor accommodations (e.g., renting out an under-utilized room or an entire residence when the primary resident is out of town themselves). C. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity via the Creation of a “Vacation Rental Overlay District” In addition to imposing caps that apply to traditionally established zoning districts, coastal cities can explore creating “vacation rental overlay districts” that help control certain STR activity—specifically non-owner-occupied vacation rentals—in targeted areas without issuing a total ban on all types of STR activity. The City of Carpinteria implemented this approach to help limit vacation rentals in high-traffic areas.147 The Coastal Commission has regarded Carpinteria’s 145. See, e.g., Short-Term Vacation Rentals, CITY OF VENTURA, https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/172/Short-Term-Vacation-Rentals (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 146. Id. 147. See Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 3. Page 103 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 336 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 regulation as a model ordinance.148 The overlay district applies to the city’s beach neighborhood that is closest to coastal recreation areas as well as the City’s commercial core.149 This area is also where the majority of vacation rentals already exist.150 Carpinteria’s vacation rental overlay district is broken up into four zones.151 Each zone has their own established caps on the number of vacation rentals permitted.152 When the City originally created the ordinance, it set the caps slightly above the already existing number of rentals in order to accommodate some growth.153 If each cap were reached, then a total of 60%, 50%, 15%, and 15% of units in each zone (moving from the coast and going inland), respectively, would be vacation rentals.154 STR owners and prospective owners can apply for a permit, and licenses are awarded through a lottery system.155 A license holder must apply for a new permit every year.156 The ordinance also provides that, if transient-occupancy tax is not collected for two years, then that license will expire.157 This was included in order to allay some residents’ fears that people could apply for, and be awarded licenses, but never use them.158 Additionally, the ordinance implements maximum occupancy standards and parking requirements for each license on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid adverse impacts on residential areas.159 Furthermore, the ordinance allows “home stays,” where the owner is present during a guest’s stay, and does not impose any cap on this type of STR activity.160 148. Sam Goldman, Carpinteria Prepares to Enact Short-Term Vacation Rental Rules, NOOZHAWK (Apr. 10, 2017, 11:02 PM), https://www.noozhawk.com/article/carpinteria_prepares _to_enact_short_term_vacation_rental_rules. 149. Memorandum from Steve Hudson, Deputy Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., at 1 (Nov. 17, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/12/th8b-12-2016.pdf [hereinafter Carpinteria LCP Amendment]. 150. Id. 151. Id. at 7. 152. See, e.g., id. 153. Id. at 11. 154. Goldman, supra note 148. 155. Id. 156. Id. 157. Id. 158. Id. 159. Carpinteria LCP Amendment, supra note 149, at 1. 160. Id. Page 104 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 337 Importantly, the City draws the distinction between vacation rentals and home-sharing or home stays and has adapted its ordinance in order to address both kinds of STR activity separately. By doing so, the ordinance does not ban or unduly hinder residents’ ability to rent out their homes to tourists and helps preserve the public’s ability to access the coast. Whether it be through the creation of a new overlay district or by designating caps tailored to existing zoning districts, local governments in coastal cities can create more balanced regulations that are in-line with the policies underlying the Coastal Act. VI. CONCLUSION The law surrounding STRs is evolving, and California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges due to the sheer number of STRs in their jurisdictions and rising housing prices. In order to maximize affordable accommodation options in the coastal zone, local governments should consider the policies and procedures set forth by the Coastal Act when crafting new STR restrictions. Ultimately, coastal cities should recognize that varying kinds of STR activities impact neighborhoods differently and work to craft rules that do not unduly limit the potential economic benefits afforded by some STR activity to both homeowners and the cities in which they live. Page 105 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 338 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Page 106 of 764 1 February 4, 2016 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 16, 2016 SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS LOCATION: CITY-WIDE Recommendation: Provide initial policy direction on regulating short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), focusing on how to mitigate the land use impacts of STVRs. Background: Background information was provided to the City Council in an Issue Paper at their January 9, 2016 Study Session. After discussion, the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Link to video: http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4032. City Code Enforcement staff report that STVR activity regularly occurs within the City’s residential zones and that they receive complaints regarding some of these properties. STVR of otherwise residential property has probably occurred on a limited basis for years, but the advent of the “sharing economy” and its facilitation through the internet, and specifically vacation rental websites, has changed dramatically the extent and availability of such uses. Municipal codes had generally not been written to anticipate such activity and many cities find themselves attempting to apply generic language written many years’ ago to this entirely unanticipated phenomenon. Consequently, a number of cities are now reevaluating their codes to address this issue more specifically. The City Attorney and Community Development staff interpret the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as banning STVRs in residential zones because the Code limits residential zones to “residential uses” in “dwelling units.” As explained above, the Code does not expressly ban rentals of homes for short periods of time; the lack of a clear ban of the practice in the Municipal Code makes criminal prosecution more difficult. Also, punishment for violation by administrative violation is an insufficient deterrent (a $100.00 fine) because the practice is so lucrative. Complaints regarding STVRs have to date been addressed by enforcement against nuisance activities attendant to the rentals rather than on abatement of the STVRs themselves. The majority of STVRs do not draw complaints; it is when a location is rented for the purpose of hosting parties or large groups that problems and complaints tend to emerge related to increased demand for police services, parking issues, excessive noise, disorderly conduct, overcrowding of the residence, and trash accumulation. That said, within the last year, the City has received four complaints from residents concerned about how transient occupancies are negatively impacting the stable character and quality of their immediate neighborhoods. STVRs also reduce the stock of long-term rental housing in the City. While the number of available listings vary from day to day, and some listings may be posted on multiple hosting websites, there are more than 200 STVR units currently listed for rent in Hermosa Beach. Sites like AirBnB indicate approximately 210 rentals available in Hermosa Beach, with 141 listings for an entire apartment or home, 63 as private rooms, and 6 as shared rooms. The listings on AirBnB rent for an average of $199 per night and range in cost from $50 to more than $2000 per night. Most of the posted listings are designed to accommodate small groups of 2 - 4 people, with just 31 listings able to accommodate 6 or more guests. 11a Page 107 of 764 2 Policy Considerations: The focus for the Planning Commission is the land use impacts associated with STVRs and how to mitigate adverse impacts of STVRs within the City. How the City chooses to regulate STVRs has broad implications ranging from impacts associated with the practice, revenue considerations and feasibility of enforcement under any regulatory approach. Available options include: (1) Allow and Regulate Some cities have decided to allow STVRs, require registration and compliance with conditions that mitigate their impacts and tax them through their transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) ordinances. While we have received estimates of potential TOT annual revenue as high as $900,000, Manhattan Beach reports an estimated loss of $120,000 as a consequence of its new ban (though it is unknown whether that city was capturing all of the available revenue). Revenue generated will depend on the policy adopted and the occupancy rate of such rentals. This is a use that can easily go undetected and to capture the maximum amount of revenue, the City would have to undertake an enforcement program. Coastal Commission staff prefers this option because it increases visitor-serving access to the coast. STVRs were identified by the community dialogue finance group in 2013 as a way to increase revenue to the City. Note: The City’s draft General Plan includes a proposed policy in the Land Use and Design Element to provide for regulation and collection of TOT for STVRs to align with the Goal to provide a range of coastal dependent and visitor-serving uses available to all income ranges and amenity desires. The Coastal Commission staff also prefers this option related to its goals of providing visitor-serving access to the coast for all income ranges (see attachments 1 and 2). (2) Ban Other cities, such as Manhattan Beach and West Hollywood, have elected to enact an explicit ban in order to protect the quality of life in their residential neighborhoods and to protect the stock of available rental housing. Enforcement is time-intensive and property owners are perpetually creative in finding ways to circumvent bans; however, these challenges plague enforcement on a variety of types of laws. (3) Allow on a Limited Basis Still other cities have taken a hybrid approach, allowing STVRs (and collecting TOT), but placing various limitations on their use: 1. for a limited number of days per year (typically 30-60); 2. for a minimum or maximum amount of time (e.g. for no less than 7 days at a time); 3. with a cap on the number of guests allowed; 4. only when the property owner resides in the premises and is present at all times during the duration of the rentals; 5. only in certain zones or areas, such as the coastal zone, or in high-density residential zones, or within the existing stock of nonconforming residential uses located in commercial zones; 6. density limits, i.e., one per street segment. Page 108 of 764 Page 109 of 764 4 Attachments: 1. “Could you Bnb My Neighbor? A planner’s take on the sharing economy” from American Planning Association February 2016 2. Draft General Plan Goal 8, and Proposed Policy 8.6 Regarding Short Term Rentals 3. Coastal Commission Staff’s Response to City’s Proposed Policy 4. Web pages for Carlsbad Ordinance and link <http://www.carlsbadca.gov/visitors/vacationrental/> (a recent example of a regulatory approach to short term rentals). 5. “The Rise of Vacation/Short-Term Residential Rentals and What Cities Are Doing About It”, from League of California Cities – February 2015 6. “AirBnB, Rising Rent, and the Housing Crisis in Los Angeles” from Laane a New Economy for All - March 2015 7. “Guiding Concepts for Residential Short-Term Rental Legislation” from CalTravel 8. City of Manhattan Beach Adopted Ordinances 15-0009 and 15-0010 and Staff Reports/Attachments 9. “Summary of Short Term Rental Regulations” – prepared by City of Manhattan Beach – June 2015 10. Feb 8, 2016 Correspondence from Robert Reyes of Palm Realty Boutique regarding STVRs 11. Decision-Making Tool and Evaluation Form for STVRs Page 110 of 764 Supplemental Information 9aPage 111 of 764 Page 112 of 764 Page 113 of 764 From: Claudia Berman [mailto:its_42@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:30 PM To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin Subject: Homeower Input on Short Term Vacation Rentals for Planning Commission Meeting 3/15/16 Dear Planning Commission, Here is my input for your meeting on Tuesday: First off, I am for an explicit ban on STVRs with significant fines. I do not want to see my townhouse complex turn into a hotel. I know my neighbors, and we watch out for each other. STVRs are not about Grandma renting a room. This is big business. Our residential areas should not become commercial zones. If it wasn't so profitable for the property owners, we would not be having a proliferation of these STVRs. How do you prevent an "investor" from just buying up the older townhouses/condos? We have zoning for a reason: To protect the residents and their quality of life in the residential areas and to protect and promote businesses in commercial areas. Here's some info on New York's proposed fine structure: http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/nyc-fines-airbnb-for-illgal-home- sharing/3025449.html I also think you need to look at enforcement in detail. When you analyze the options, I think each option needs to have an enforcement action plan. We can't just assume that just because a permit is required, that people will get a permit or abide by the restrictions. Portland found out that just because you require a permit, it doesn't mean that people will pay. Here's an article about Portland. Only 7% on AirBnB get a permit. It says that AirBnB won't give up the names and addresses of the hosts. http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/247793-116145-portland-to-crack-down-on-airbnb-hosts- who-fail-to-get-permits-. Then this later article 10 months later said that permits increased to 11%. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/airbnb-is-making-portlands-rental-market-even- tighter/Content?oid=16604536. If AirBnB won't give the city the host names, how can you collect from the violators? If there is a total ban, and people are in and out of the unit next to me, I can just let the city know. If the unit next to me doesn't have a permit, or the home owner is not present (if that is a rule), how would I know? Here is another interesting analysis on impacts in Los Angeles: http://www.laane.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf Also, if I go to sell my unit, and it's sandwiched between 2 STVRs, will I be able to sell it to someone that wants to live in Hermosa permanently? Or now are the only buyers who will be interested vacation rental investors? We residents have worked hard to have a wonderful quality of life here. Please help protect it. Sincerely, Claudia Berman Hermosa Home Owner Supplemental Information 9a Page 114 of 764 Page 115 of 764 Page 116 of 764 Page 117 of 764 Page 118 of 764 Page 119 of 764 Page 120 of 764 Page 121 of 764 Page 122 of 764 Page 123 of 764 Page 124 of 764 Page 125 of 764 Page 126 of 764 Page 127 of 764 Page 128 of 764 Page 129 of 764 Page 130 of 764 Page 131 of 764 Page 132 of 764 Say “NO” to Hermosa Beach Short Term Vacation Rentals and Enforce the Ban! Address to Planning Commission March 15, 2016 My name is John Wallace and I am here to speak against legalizing Short Term Vacation Rentals and to ask the Commission’s assistance that the City of Hermosa Beach unequivocally bans STVR and begins to enforce and strengthen the current statute that prohibits rentals for less than 30 days in our City. You, the Commission, have been entrusted with a great responsibility to preserve our residential beachside community and not allow it to become a tourist trap. By qualification to speak, I’ve been a Hermosa Homeowner and resident since 1995 residing in Manhattan Beach from 1984 till then. I also service the long term rental market and own 2 multi unit apartment buildings in HB and have lived next to an illegal hotel for over 10 years. I am married with a 13 year old daughter who has attended both our Hermosa Beach schools. I served as a nutrition docent for 5 years at Hermosa Valley as part of BCHD LiveWell Kids program. I’ve been an Emergency Physician at Providence Little Company of Mary for over 28 years caring for our residents and have provided pro bono services in the community outside the ER on numerous instances. The majority of my time at home is spent on the Strand, Beach, and in the Ocean and I cherish what are our greatest resources. I have re-sent a letter to Council and the Planning Commission that was initially sent on February 15, 2016 and urge you all to re-read the 9 key points against legalization. Tonight I will touch on as many as possible in my 3 minute time limit. I ask you to honor our Hermosa Beach tradition and history of being a residential, bedroom, beachside community and not become a tourist trap like Mission Beach San Diego. The Commission should consider that any final recommendation should weigh heavily the two below litmus tests: 1. MAJORITY RULES--The majority of residents of Hermosa Beach are opposed to STVR. Our country was founded on the principle of “government for the people” whereby a majority rules. For the City to ignore a majority opinion and favor a minority of illegal hotel operators some of whom don’t even live in our City and all of whom are beholden to Silicon Valley Technology Companies whose sole purpose is to augment their own profits is government for special interest. This is a residential Community and rule should protect resident’s lifestyles over the profit of a few to run commercial businesses in residential zones. This City for too long has been run to benefit visitors at the expense of its residents. 4800 votes were cast in the Proposition O election. There is no way 2400 voters will vote in favor of legalization of STVR when there are by the City’s own estimation 180-200 existing illegal hotels. 2. LAND USE AND ZONING--Legalizing STVR is a zoning violation of City Code, allowing commercial business to be operating in residential zones. Allowing such a zoning violation will cause the City great economic loss making its $17,000,000 oil debt seem like the parking ticket. With City sanction of STVR, financial loss in the form of property value in the areas of Hermosa Beach most impacted will be astronomical. Loss in economic value of Hermosa Strand properties alone will exceed $140,000,000 by a conservative estimate. Loss in property value to Walk St. Page 133 of 764 properties and other Sand Section properties the most impacted by STVR is additive by a likewise large number. Homeowner residents did not sign up to live in a commercial zone when they invested their life savings and lives in becoming Hermosa residents. Long term Renters some of whom will be future homeowners need some consideration that their supply of housing not be severely diminished by an increasing inventory of short term rentals thereby causing hyperinflation of their rents. The responsible party will pay for this. The blueprint discussion that has not yet occurred should be the following: 1. Adopt an ORDINANCE that specifically prohibits STVR. One was drafted 2 years ago which criminalized the act and was discussed by Council but not ratified. No one in the current City Government seems to be able to locate a record of that ordinance and language. I’ve asked multiple times. Look to the Manhattan Beach ordinance as a template. 2. Establish meaningful PENALTY(ies) as a deterrent to future illegal activity of SVTR which will fund initial enforcement efforts which in time will diminish as the problem goes away. 3. ENFORCEMENT issues. Lose the defeatist attitude: “We can’t enforce, so we should legalize”. Manhattan Beach doesn’t see mechanics of enforcement or cost as a problem and employs the enforcement officer to locate the problem while turning it over to the City Attorney to stop activity in its tracks. With time and repeated negative outcome for violators, enforcement needs diminish. I know the MB posture because I’ve had the conversation. Look to other Cities who ban SVTR for their model of enforcement. Hermosa Beach doesn’t enforce because the enforcement officer says he has no power, there are minimal penalties, the city attorney is not involved, and past Council refused to enforce. It is time for a long overdue change in either attitude or Government. No neighboring City has legal STVR. Manhattan, Redondo, Torrance and Santa Monica do not. It is sheer arrogance to believe that Hermosa is somehow smarter and can navigate an outcome less negative than that foreseen by our neighboring municipalities who have banned. By being the only player, Hermosa will become the sole receptacle for tourists while our residential community combusts. Allowing the Coastal Commission to buy City support for STVR will lead to never ending extortion by Coastal. Once they get their hooks into you, they will never stop telling you how to live in your City. And for $100k? Your own City attorney has said that Coastal is “over reaching” and “abusing their power”. Manhattan Beach feels that despite the fact that their LCP is in place, they still have issue with Coastal. And they are not flinching. I know, I’ve had the conversation. The ‘access’ rationale is also flawed logic. STVR in Hermosa is not low income housing and no new access is created, only displacing long term residents with tourists. Listen to people like Chris Navarro, and Mike Glasman whose lives have turned into a living hell living next to an illegal hotel. My personal solution was to build a wall at great personal cost. Most people do not have such options and are stuck. I never filed a complaint with the City. The low complaint number statistic is completely bogus. As bad as it is for immediate neighbors, STVR has a global negative effect on the City intensified by small lot sizes of 30 x 90 or less with multiple units living in close proximity. That to say, Density is also an issue. This is the “spillover” effect. STVR wouldn’t be the same problem in Page 134 of 764 rural Kansas. Long term neighbors in our community recognize what it takes to live in close proximity and attempt to treat each other fairly as they are vetted in getting along. Short term renters don’t care. They are gone next week. Talk to your friends in Northern California or google search to see what a nightmare SVTR has become for them. That’s what you get for championing your local “sharing economy” technology company which believes it neither has responsibility for national security nor for paying anyone municipal taxes with their only residence in “the Cloud”. In Northern California, Long term rental markets and neighborhoods have been destroyed. Arbitrageurs are renting multiple locations long term and turning around and subletting many simultaneously as STVR. That phenomenon has already arrived in Hermosa Beach. Look at communities that have allowed the practice and are now trying to do the walk back. The 187 page Staff Report by the Planning Commission of February 16, 2016 focused 36 pages on Carlsbad. No mention other than Manhattan Beach of the following communities who have banned or are trying to do a walkback: Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Ojai, Santa Barbara, Huntington Beach, Carmel, Laguna Beach, Santa Ynez, Healdsburg, Calistoga, Irvine. Civil War in Anaheim and Pacific Beach San Diego. The walkback is painful to impossible. It is far easier to prevent the toehold. You do not want AirBnb challenging a rescission of legalization of STVR. And AirBnb will be involved before this is over. They did the “bull rush” in Manhattan Beach to no avail. Far easier to state that “We have never allowed and never will”. There is no precedent. The STVR issue is an inflection point in the City’s history just as oil was and is. The wrong decision will affect the City forever. This should be an easy and obvious recommendation for the Commission. The alleged profit to the City a fantasy, the Coastal Commission a non-factor, neighborhood civil war, the City in another lawsuit with risk of great loss counterbalanced only by the benefit to a few who are profiteering at the expense of their neighbors and the City. Manhattan Beach had no problem making the right move. Make the right recommendation for Hermosa Beach for the right reasons: Honor the majority of residents, follow City Statutes on zoning and most importantly protect and preserve our beautiful residential beachside community. John G. Wallace, Jr, MD 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach CODA: Over 200 signatures on the AGAINST SVTR in Hermosa Beach Petition have been obtained in just over 7 days. These are all people who know exactly what they have signed and see the legalization of STVR as being destructive to their residential community. These are people who also are harder to mobilize because they are bound by the immediacy of their family and work duties first before involvement with City Government. In contrast, the illegal hoteliers look at these interactions with PC and City Council as mandatory business meetings to influence government to allow them to do whatever it is they want to sustain their profits. The experience in Manhattan Beach was in the final Page 135 of 764 innings, a “bull rush” led by Technology companies and a small minority of business owners in residential areas. The MB council initially was 5-0 against and ultimately settled at 4-1 to make SVTR illegal and punishable. This, too, will come to the Hermosa Beach debate. Hopefully, Hermosa Beach Government can show the similar wisdom to our closest neighbor town in its decision making or we all suffer the consequences. Page 136 of 764 February 15, 2016 Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary, Justin Massey and Jeff Duclos Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Kent Allen, Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Marie Rice, Rob Saemann Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City Clerk 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Opposition to Short Term Rentals We, the below undersigned, would like to register our fervent opposition to the current movement to legalize short term rentals (STVR) in any form in the City of Hermosa Beach. We would also like to register our disappointment with a City government that has failed to enforce a City Statute that prohibits short term rentals i.e. rentals of less than 30 days. We, the below undersigned, believe that the actual data driven issues regarding STVR clearly establish that STVR should be prohibited and enforced with heavy fines. We also believe that a conjoint Commission between the City and neighborhood representatives be established to adjudicate any property upon which the accusation of STVR has been levied and that the decision of such a Commission be final and determinant of the fine. 1. Legalizing STVR creates a zoning infringement of a commercial use in a residential zone and will put the City at great risk for a lawsuit. 2. Legalizing STVR creates economic loss to neighboring property owners in terms of loss of real estate value for which the City of Hermosa Beach may be financially responsible. 3. Legalizing STVR shrinks the long term rental market causing rent inflation and making it more difficult for those residents who will become future homeowners to obtain shelter in our City and raise their families and attend our schools. 4. There has been no study to date which proves that legalizing STVR is a bonanza revenue stream for City Government. 5. There are numerous recent examples of municipalities (not mentioned in the Staff report) reversing course after having acquiesced to the fad of the “sharing economy” trying to halt further intrusions into neighborhood lifestyles and quality because of the negative outcomes associated with legalized STVR. 6. There is no intuitive logic to confirm that individuals who are in the City for a night or a week have an increased or even equal regard for the City of Hermosa Beach as do those long term residents. 7. The vast majority of long term Hermosa Beach residents are for prohibition of STVR. 8. STVR's cannibalize the City’s landmark hotel project on the Plaza by allowing illegal hoteliers to set up business in residential zones ad lib. 9. It is illogical to assume that while the City is advocating inability to police current illegal STVR, in contradiction, could police legality of STVR and ensure City profits. This should be an easy decision for Council. It is one of quality versus profits for illegal hotel owners. Legalizing STVR would be government at its worst favoring special interest groups over the quality of life of long terms residents and constituents to whom City Officials have taken a Page 137 of 764 sworn oath to defend. It is a decision that benefits a few who are profiting by burdening the vast majority of citizens. We also feel the scheduling of this Planning Commission meeting in the middle of “ski week” is inappropriate while many residents are away, allowing those professional illegal hoteliers an enhanced public presence for their own advantage. SIGNATURES John Wallace, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, wallyjohn.md@verizon.net Karynne Thim, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, kt@ktbeachproperties.com Janet Crenshaw, 1222 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, janetcrenshaw@hotmail.com Laurie and Thomas Brodie, 1712 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, thomasbrodiemd@gmail.com John Thuotte and Miwa Stone, 840 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, jthuotte@verizon.net Michele Lee Hampton, 1721 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, mlhca1@aol.com Robert and Beth Flanders, 713 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, flandersfamily7@gmail.com Dan and Becky Inskeep, 79 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, daninskeep@hotmail.com Mike and Gina West, 1715 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, michael.west@fmr.com Bryan and Norma Rosenberg, 2443 Myrtle, Hermosa Beach, brosenberg@cosff.com Damon, Cyndi, Olivia and Victoria MacDougall, 444 Hermosa Ave., #302, Hermosa Beach, cyndimacd@gmai.com Brad Gerber, 18 18th Court, Hermosa Beach, bradleyjgerber@gmail.com Matt Shannon and Wendi Rae Lee, 1514 Hermosa Ave., Hermosa Beach, mks1225@gmail.com Christa Lyons, 320 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, christalyons@verizon.net Mo Lee, 601 Manhattan Ave, Hermosa Beach, momarylee@verizon.net Robert Knapp and Karen Ulman, 1722 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, bobadob7@aol.com Page 138 of 764 Page 139 of 764 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 14, 2016 9:00 PM To:Yu-Ying Ting Subject:Fwd: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental For the record. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julie Mote <juliemote1234@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 Subject: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental To: Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com> Hello, as a resident and home owner, I am against short term rentals as are the vast majority of residents. But, my opinion below is one that should be viewed as impartial at this point. I think moving forward on this issue at this time is putting the cart before the horse. This issue will be addressed and challenged in those cities that have recently placed a new ban, such as MB. Let’s not spend our resources going down a path that may likely need to be revisited based on what will likely occur in other cities. We have a 30 day limit and let’s just leave it until we know what we are permitted to do. If MB ban is permitted than we know that an option is to continue to ban ST rentals or further regulate. If the ban is somehow prohibited and MB is forced to permit ST rentals within a set of requirements/regulations than we will know what those requirements are and can work within those requirements to do what is best for HB based on what we will know are the parameters. At this point, ongoing debates about what the Commission will or will not do, whether the Commission even has jurisdiction on how a City can regulate short term rentals, or how far we can regulate is speculation. Let’s let this issue play out in MB and other cities. We need not make a rushed decision now that we may regret or need to readdress and spend further resources. Thanks > From: kentjallen@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:25:57 -0700 > Subject: Re: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental > To: juliemote1234@hotmail.com > > Thank you for the note. > > One thing I'm not clear on is this: Are you for or against short term rentals? > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Julie Mote <juliemote1234@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members; > > Why does the Short Term Rental issue need to be decided now as this is an > > issue pending for Manhattan Beach and other coastal cities given their > > recent bans on ST rentals? At this point, the use of the Coastal Commission > > as an argument seems premature as MB will need to address those issues given > > that ST landlords in those cities are appealing the issue before the Coastal > > Commission. If this is a concern shouldn’t HB just maintain the 30 day limit > > in place and await a resolution or judicial determination regarding the Supplemental Information9a Page 140 of 764 2 > > Coastal Commission requirements that will include or not include parameters > > that the coastal cities must follow? Once there is a resolution, HB can > > address whether to continue the 30 day limit or place restrictions and the > > extent of those restrictions provided known parameters instead of > > speculating what is and is not permitted. Since HB has had a 30 day limit > > in place, we don’t have the issue of ST landlords asserting that their > > rental income and livelihoods have been affected by the change. In the legal > > field, an issue is Stayed (put on hold) if there is/are similar issues > > pending before a governmental agency or Courts in order to prevent wasteful > > resources and time on redundancy. Seems like a high volume of resources > > will be used by HB to address this issue unnecessarily at this time. One > > thing is certain, if the City permits ST rentals and then later decides to > > modify or take away in some manner it will be much more difficult as > > landlords will assert that their livelihoods and income will be affected > > given that they have remodeled the residence, moved, or taken some other > > act in reliance of ST rental income. Accordingly, to say that the City can > > implement strict ST requirements and see if it works and then later take it > > away if it proves that it will not is unfair to all. > > Thank you. > > Julie Mote > > Hermosa Resident, 27th Street Page 141 of 764 Page 142 of 764 Page 143 of 764 The decision should be a simple matter of zoning. We all bought homes or lease homes in residential zones. Do we suddenly want an illegal hotel being operated next door? Protect your property rights and your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your home. Stop the influx of temporary housing, the risk of noisedisturbances from rowdy guests week after week, and piles of trash left that attractrodents.Protect the rights of the hardworking community members who support our schools and support our local businesses. After a hard day's work, we want to come home and relax in our neighborhoods and not be burdened by the stress and anxiety caused by neighbors who choose to earn their income illegally by turning their homeinto a hotel in a residential neighborhood.Unprofessionally run, illegal businessesoperating in our city are already ruining our neighborhoods and upsetting our full time residents.This may not be happening to you right now, but, if this is made legal, it will. This does not only affect property owners, it affects those who rent.Families who lease long term have the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. The Coastal Commission requires cities to provide affordable housing. Do not be fooled by arguments stating the Coastal Commission requires cities to provide affordable housing via short term rentals. Hermosa's own City Attorney said it's an "overreach" and "abuse of authority" by Coastal, and the City "should make a policy determination based on what's right and best for the community."Property ownersillegally renting their homes charge a premium and most are more costly than the hotelsin town. Short term rentals do NOT provide affordable housing. Can we trust those who are already breaking the law? The city is considering making it legal instead of enhancing and enforcing the existing laws to protect our neighborhoods. If made legal how can anyone trust that those whocurrently show no respect for the law or their neighbors will suddenly obey guidelinesand pay taxes? Instead the city should increase fines against violators and fine any person,enterprise, managing agency or rental agent who advertises, solicits or facilitates the rental for less than 30 consecutive days of a short-term vacation unit located within residential districts. Page 144 of 764 Recipient:The City of Hermosa Beach Letter:Greetings, Please listen to community members who want to save our neighborhoods and city from a proliferation of short terms rentals. Say NO to short term rentals. Adopt an ordinance that specifically bans them and gives staff the necessary enforcement tools. Increase fines against violators and fine any person, enterprise, managing agency or rental agent who advertises, solicits or facilitates the rental of a residential unit for less than 30 consecutive days. Page 145 of 764 Comments Name Location Date Comment Karynne Thim Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Short term rentals don't belong in residential neighborhoods and are not good for our community. They damage surrounding property values. Brad Gerber Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Changing zoning to allow hotels to pop up throughout the city would cause personal properties values to decrease and change the dynamics of our neighborhood for the worse. People and cars coming and going at 5am - 2am leaving for airports, not knowing where they are driving so blocking alleys. Partying everyday of the week. I urge each council member and planner to look next door to your house and imagine that single family house or four unit apartment building turning into a nightly rental or how about an hourly rental? Do not focus on the potential $$ derived from Transit Taxes, it is illegal. John Wallace Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Please see the February 15, 2016 petition sent to City Council for why legalizing STVR is WRONG! Protect our City and it's long term vetted residents from profiteering and those who disrespect our City and it's heritage as a beachside bedroom community, not a tourist trap Karynne Thim Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Vacation rentals (aka de facto hotels) don't belong in residential zones, erode our sense of community, and have a negative impact on surrounding property values. City leaders - please listen to the majority of residents and do what's right for our community. Pass an ordinance to ban short term rentals and get tough on enforcement by giving your staff the tools it needs to enforce the ban. Make it illegal to advertise or facilitate the rental of a property for less than 30 days. Other cities succesfully enforce bans by making it a misdemeanor and levy fines of $2,500/day or 6 months in jail. Michael Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 I want to preserve the character of our neighborhoods and live next to neighbors not hotel guests Bao Duong Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 short term rentals would destroy the sense of neighborhood and community which is one of things that make Hermosa so special Claudia Berman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 I am very concerned that over the next several years, Hermosa will become a city of absentee property owners trying to make an easy buck. These short term renters won't be concerned about water use, recycling, parking regulations, etc. They won't be part of the community. Visitors are great! We already have great hotels for short term visitors, and two more are on the way. Redondo Beach is cracking down on short term renters.We should too. Dan Inskeep Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Allowing short term rentals is permitting commercial activity in a residential zone. City zoning maps with designated commercial areas should not be circumvented without following the City's formal variance process, including evaluation and input from citizens, on a case-by-case basis. Chris Navarro Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 There us NOTHING good about these already illegal vacation rentals! Only a plus for the landlords reaping the monetary benefits from their lack of respect of the neighborhood surrounding. Chris Brown Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Short term rentals violate our zoning laws. We want neighbors, not hotel guests. Amy Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in Hermosa Beach, CA. They are not safe for our families and compromise the community experience of neighborhoods. Page 146 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Richard Reznichek Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I live in a residential neighborhood where illegal short-term rentals are taking place -- including across the alley from my home. Extra noise, parking problems, extra trash, revolving strangers are some of the unwanted results. Carol Reznichek Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 It is unfair to turn residential areas into short term hotels and party rentals. The goal here is to make money for the owners and it is of no benefit to their neighbors. We have hotels and are building more for visitors to come and enjoy the beach. Willard Weston Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I feel that short term rentals in the city of Hermosa Beach (houses in residential neighborhoods), diminishes the quality of life for the long tern residents, both owners and renters. It adds to the already strong "Party" reputation the city has. Bruce Bartlett Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I think it's bad for the community and unfair for the hotels we tax. Karen Ulman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 To preserve our neighborhood. Tracy Hart Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Short Term Rentals are already causing substantial disturbance and property damage in our community. It has also been bringing in an element of danger to our children and our homes. Bob Wolfe Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I'm concerned about the impact of short term rentals not only on neighboring homeowners for all the reasons cited (noise, trash, parties, etc.) but also upon the overall supply of apartments within Hermosa Beach. I think that Hermosa has a healthy mix of apartments and residential stock that is good for the region as a whole and that allows people to live in our beach community outside of home ownership. As tenants in beach communities like Venice have discovered, apartment rentals and leases will disappear as landlords discover that they can make astronomical profits by converting their buildings to short term rentals. Cassandra Sorrell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I am against short-term rentals. It erodes the sense of community, creates increased noise, traffic, parking, trash, etc. My husband and I moved to Hermosa from Manhattan Beach because our neighbor rented every square foot of the property to short term tenants. They did not care about how it impacted the quality of our life, unlike the lovely neighbors we have now. Please don't allow people in this community to turn homes into impersonal hotels where we don't have relationships with our neighbors. I would attend the meeting if we didn't have tickets to see Bruce On 3/15. Please Keep Hermosa Hermosa ❤️ Kimberly Konis hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-08 I am signing because Hermosa needs to follow suit of our neighboring cities that have taken note of their resident's concerns: We do not want hotel-like conditions in our neighborhoods, around our children and the noise, annoyance and charm we found in Hermosa and subsequently bought property here. Randy Kirk Herosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I had a short term rental next door too, and they party late, make noise etc during their week long vacations sandra kreiswirth hermosa bech, CA 2016-03-08 I agree. Hilary Young Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in my neighborhood. We have experienced this already and it has been a negative experience. Joe ODonnell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Let's keep Hermosa a small town, not a transient town. Sharon Paul Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I want the law to remain the same as it has been. No less than 30 days. Robert Fortunato Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 This is a problem for many friends and neighbors who have made being a good neighbor and community member a priority. Page 147 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Richard De Leonardis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 This SHOULD NOT be permitted. Hermosa Beach residents who live here already deal with excessive abuse of our town. We accept the fact we all want an enjoyable beach town. BUT over abuse is not acceptable and changing this law would lend itself more issues. We currently do not have enough law enforcement to take care of daily issues. This will only increase needs. Rob McGarry Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Allowing vacation and short-term rentals would be a mistake and would likely erode the great community feel of our small town. We have hotels, and there are more coming. Tourism is important to our local economy, but allowing anyone with a rental unit to turn it into a single room hotel is not a good idea! Debbie Ross Los Angeles, CA 2016-03-08 I bought a home in a residential neighborhood which banned short term rentals. I don't see why the City would effectively turn my home into a hotel zone because a few people want to profit from a commercial venture. This is a zoning change for all of us without our consent. Can I now start running a restaurant out of my kitchen? Or can my husband start running an auto repair shop out or garage? Allowing short term rentals would allow the party atmosphere of the Pier flow into all of our neighborhoods. That bachelorette party or superbowl party six feet from my house will destroy our quiet enjoyment of our home. The response to call the police for noise problems doesn't solve the daily frustrations this will bring to homeowners who bought homes, not hotels. Lindsay Jaime Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I'm signing this petition against short term rentals in Hermosa beach. My neighbor now rents his house on the weekends and our quiet neighborhood turns into a feat party. It's gotten out of control. Let's preserve the character and charm of Hermosa beach. There are plenty of hotels for people to stay at. We don't need to turn our neighborhoods into a hotel as well. Thank you. Tom French Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I don't want a Club Med moving in next door in my residential neighborhood. Jeffrey paris Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 no short term rentals Jason Meugniot Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in my neighborhood. Other surrounding cities have banned STRs. And Hermosa should do the same. I do not want the added noise, trash, traffic and disinterested parties affecting my teen children's safety and quality of life. Raymond Jackson Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I don't want to live next to a hotel. Lauren Perreault Manhattan Beach, CA 2016-03-08 As a REALTOR, I believe these properties are detrimental to overall neighborhood values. Patricia Morales Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I experienced a STR last summer problem next door to me. The woman was physically aggressive and drunk. The tenant of the apartment she rented was a lawyer and he lied to the landlord regarding using AirBnB colleen hartley Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I do NOT want Hermosa to make short term rentals legal because it is NOT FAIR to the residents who bought in a residential area AND pay the property taxes. BERNARD FRIEDMAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 2016-03-09 I am totally in agreement with the above petition and being a resident at this address for 43 years. I feel the QUALITY of Life has gone down over the years. This need to STOP Jill Irwin Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I hate the noise and the cars always parked in the alley. Page 148 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Susan Sima Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I don't want it, it is not what makes Hermosa Beach, they add congestion in the alleys by double parking causing emergency vihicles unable to access. The pets that they tow along with them they poop in the alleys and The Strand and don't pick up. They party until late and take it to the beach with calls of help...this is not Hermosa Beach, this is not fair to the residence that live here year round, you want to put up another boutique hotel then do that. Stop the short term vacation rentals. Andrew Boughton Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I live in a townhouse complex with 4 young kids. I like to know the neighbors rather than random vacationers. Safer neighborhoods. Kevin Coye Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I feel the short term rentals need to be more regulated michael buchanan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Short term rentals will take significant resources to police and diminish quality of life for homeowners. Will also hurt home values. Lorie Armendariz Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 The City of Hermosa Beach has invested $400,000 in a consultant who has devised a plan (PLAN Hermosa) to increase density, take away property rights, congest our streets and generally pack in as many people as possible. Short term rentals are all part of that bigger plan. Take a look.... <a href="https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0dxNVA3M EE&amp;usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0d xNVA3MEE&usp=sharing</a> Lorie Armendariz Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 The City of Hermosa Beach has invested $400,000 in a consultant who has devised a plan (PLAN Hermosa) to increase density, take away property rights, congest our streets and generally pack in as many people as possible. Short term rentals are all part of that bigger plan. Take a look.... <a href="https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0dxNVA3M EE&amp;usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0d xNVA3MEE&usp=sharing</a> Russell Wilson Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I want to preserve Hermosa's unique character and not encourage further "party town" behavior here. Mark Baker Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Most short term renters show very little respect for their neighbors. They think nothing of making excessive noise at late hours while others are trying to sleep. Lori Bzura Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 opposed to short term rentals Barbra Benes Redondo Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Ban Short Term Rentals. James Tarman Malibu, CA 2016-03-09 Ban all short term rentals. Michael Stamolis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I think its bad for our neighborhood to have short term renters, because it brings in an element to Hermosa that interrupts our peaceful lifestyle, and devalues our property values. If someone wants a short term rental, they should stay in one of the great hotels in the area Laurie Baker Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 don't want to see our community erode any further as just a place to come party and then leave. Anna Doherty Hermosa, CA 2016-03-09 I have been impacted by a STR Stephanie Goshtigian Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 It is not good for neighborhood stability. Page 149 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Barbara Force Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Short term erodes resident and long term renters parking spaces, unknown faces in neighborhood and noise. cathy chambliss Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I am signing because I have children and want to know who my neighbors are and who they are around. I do not feel the idea of a stranger moving in short term is goof for our community. Maria Stamolis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 Under 30 day rentals are de facto unregulated hotels. Personal residential property should not be used for this purpose as it detracts from safety security and quiet enjoyment as well as the values of our homes. Short-term rentals do not contribute responsibly and meaningfully to the community. The City Council is the representative body for the community not temporary, unregulated businesses. Lily Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I'm signing because I live next door to one and I hate it!!! Elizabeth Ingraham-Ono Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I had unfortunate experience of living right by one of these Air B & B rentals. The person who was renting the home turned it into a short term rental. She deceived the owner of the property. The constant flow of unknown people was concerning and some of those that came for a stay were rude and did things like park across your driveway. The home was destroyed by the short term residents. Many were there just for a weekend or very short stay. So glad that owner put home back on market and we now have stable nice neighbors. Bryan Libby Manhattan Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I do not support short term rentals. They negatively impact our neighborhoods and town. Ruth Gonzalez Reznichek Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I agree with this ban... Donald Love Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I'm signing because allowing short term rentals would negatively impact our property value, quality of life and place undue strain on our school system Kathleen Midstokke Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 Enforce the current law. I have lived here 30 years in an R-1 neighborhood which is a one-way street with parking only on one side. My house is 1923 with no garage or driveway. We currently have at least 2 short term rentals and one group home (6-8 persons?) on this block between PCH and Prospect. This will also hurt the current and 2 or 3 currently planned new hotels in town. We need to co-ordinate with Mike Webb, elected City Attorney in RB and not reinvent a bunch of high city attorney fees with HB Michael Jenkins. I think we even have a contract with Webb for prosecutor services. Also, so many extra people use more untilities, water, trash, etc. Jennifer Luria Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I do not want short term rentals in Hermosa Beach. We love our neighborhood because we know our neighbors and our kids feel comfortable running around outside. If we allow short term rentals in Hermosa it will drastically change the nature of our sweet little town. Please do not allow short term rentals in Hermosa. Jennifer Giemza Oak Park, IL 2016-03-11 I am opposed to short term rentals in Hermosa Beach Monique Jones Los Angeles, CA 2016-03-11 The house directly behind us is constantly filled with new tenants that throw loud parties, keep their barking dog outside and keep up the yard space so we are constantly cleaning up weeds and old fruit that lands on our side. Lori Miller Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I am signing this petition to ban short term rentals because they reduce housing available to those who live and work in our community. Lorri Perreault Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I have a STR next door to my home and it has created serious problems in our neighborhood. Gil Luria Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I want my kids to be safe. Page 150 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Richard Sutton Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 This will degrade the quality of life. We have had short term rentals in our complex and were forced to endure the noise and trash they leave behind. The people that use these rentals have no ties to the city. They are users and abusers of the infrastructure with no tax revenue. Marilyn Wee Sit Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I don't want a hotel next door! Let's enforce the existing law. gene pao Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 i oppose short term rentals in hermosa beach Jay Perreault Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 My family and my neighborhood have been adversely affected by a short term rental at 106 Hill St on our street. There have been countless loud parties involving alcohol and drugs. It is clearly a safety and security issue for our street and Hermosa Beach. Kwan emily@emilykwan.net Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 This would bring in more criminal activities as we have seen rising crime in our neighborhood, break in home & vehicles. We want to preserve our neighbor so that we can continue to live here safely. and Erica Lynett Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 As a parent and property owner, I care about the integrity of our neighborhoods. jamiej stockley Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 There are already enough loud, wild parties in the city, we definitely don't need to add the influx of folks who focus on throwing wild parties with alcohol and drug use. I have children in the school district and love our city - if this is allowed it will cause us to move. Brian Clark Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 Keep city nice & CLEAN John Thuotte Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 My neighbor was renting his place last summer with VRBO. The renters were always up late. They were very loud and had no regard for us residents with school age children that needed to go to bed early on weeknights. They would tell him 2 people were staying- and 12 would show up, block the driveway, leave garbage outside. It was terrible. Bryan Rosenberg Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 I'm against short term rentals in my neighborhood. Beth Flanders Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 I am against short term rentals in Hermosa Beach- protect our home town beach city from becoming a tourist town. Doug Reddell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I'm signing because I bought in a residential area and want it to stay that way. I also don't want to see values of homes in Hermosa deteriorate because the city allows short term rentals. Jill Reddell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I'm signing because Hermosa is a family community at heart, and I'd like it to remain as such. I have a young child and don't want different neighbors every weekend. That's what hotels are for. Let's keep Hermosa the way it is and the way we love it. Michele Hampton hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-13 I have personally experienced the short term rental situation last summer. There was a home that had rented out for a month and almost every night for a month there were parties. Loud music, people coming and going, food trucks. Unacceptable for those who are either responsible home owner or renters. I will not put up with that again. Disrespectful. Let's get the hotels built as soon as possible and put the short term rentals to bed. Page 151 of 764 Name Location Date Comment Christine Tasto Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 The house behind us has turned into a STVR and as neighbors we shouldn't be forced to live next to a revolving hotel. We bought our house in a quiet residential neighborhood. After living through last Summer where they rented to a bachelor party, theatre camp, family reunion, etc every week - and the occupants partied on the rooftop deck nearly every night and often until 3am - it was obvious that something needs to change. Especially when the owner felt it was appropriate to list the home as 14 person occupancy! There are plenty of affordable options for hotels in the area - we don't need homes to be turned into hotels. christian africa hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-13 Short term rentels ruin the market for long term renters who actually contribute to Hermosa beach. Please take a stand against people that are running basically illegal hotels. Adam Smith Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 Im signing because I agree. Mike West Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I am against short term rentals Katherine DeVore Africa Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 Short term rentals drive up rents for residents and occasionally can lead to illegal eviction of long-term renters, and it also erodes the sense of community and the great "small town" feel of Hermosa. Keri Hogan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I have first hand experience with the negative impact caused by STR. James Hogan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I have lived the nightmare of having short term rentals both near and in the same building as me. Everything written in this petition is accurate. frances light Weatherford, TX 2016-03-14 We have the same problem. It's hard to enjoy day to day living when you have inconsiderate people renting for partying and such. Marieke Miller Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I happen to live adjacent to a short term rental. I cant count the number of times I've had to walk over and tell occupants to quiet down well after an acceptable neighborly time (1am,2am a couple of times 3 am.) Ive repeatedly had to ask renters to stop smoking outside my front door, or swept up used cigarettes from the gutter . They play obnoxiously loud music at all hours and drop f bombs with ease despite the obvious fact that there are at least 12 children under the age of 13 living withing 40 feet of this residence. This particular rental has been rented to reality television programs featuring nudity ( without notice to neighbors until its already been approved and within vision of some households.) The people who come to this rental don't care about our personal space, our children, the sanctity of our neighborhood or the well fare of our coast because they get to pack up and go home. Most definitely NOT to a short term rental I'm wagering. The people who advocate for short term rentals within such an impacted community as ours most likely do not have to reside beside one. I say this: if yo'rer in favor of such things by all means let them come and perch on your doorstep, but I'm betting they would say NIMBY. So say I! Ross Mohr Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 STR is not aligned with building a family oriented community. Benefits are for individuals and drive a different culture & real estate market. Dan Hitomi Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I'm against short-term rentals as I do works against building a better, safer and tight-knit community. Sam Perrotti Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I am against short term rentals. Page 152 of 764 Page 153 of 764 Page 154 of 764 Lost in all the debate is the amount of business and revenue that those families that stay in 200+ STR homes generate on a daily basis, and not just the 12% bedroom tax either. Its time we change the demographic of our downtown area from drunken 20 year olds to nice families that support our local businesses, restaurant, shops and stores. Pier Avenue has been empty long enough we need good quality foot traffic to support our local Merchants! STR’s will be a positive addition to our community! Robert Reyes Sunny California Vacation Rentals 310 308-8778 Beachforsale@yahoo.com http://sunnycaliforniavacationrentals.com   Page 155 of 764 Page 156 of 764 STR 2 of those were one resident complaining about another residence. Go ask our police officers what their top three sources of complaints are in the city and not one will include STR’s. It will involve all of the old problems that Hermosa has always had before STR’s. I could take you right now on a walking tour of long-term chronic offenders on The Strand. I can also point out the residences that were problems and have now been rendered largely “non- problems” by STR. There is a residence five or six lots south of ours on The Strand that had a long history of problem long-term renters, mostly kids just out of college. The structure itself became run down and for many years it was hard to differentiate it from any frat house. The owners of the house then began STR and this priced the kids out of the property. In fact, at one point during the transition, the short-term renters began to complain about the long-term renters and their hangers-on living in another part of the residence and the many and varied nuisances arising therefrom. Not only did STR “tame the party” at this property but the money made from STR allowed the owners to renovate the home. Families who rent short term will not tolerate dilapidated conditions where college kids and their friends will. Long-term leases are prohibitively expensive in Hermosa and owners often lease to those who represent they can afford the rent and, then, bring in sub- lessees in the form of friends, or friends of convenience and their associates, to help him/her defray the cost. The owner has a contract and a name and a layer of plausible deniability and absolutely no idea who is staying at his property at any given time. Historically, the only thing long-term about most long-term rentals in Hermosa is language of the contract. The actual inhabitants of the properties stay daily, weekly, bi-weekly, seasonally or just long enough to leave with empty pockets; an AA chip and at least one venereal disease. I have never been involved in more altercations in my life than I was at our building trying to get strangers who claim to be residents of a long-term rental, but whom no one has ever seen, to show some respect for those around them. Page 157 of 764 STR 3 Why has nothing been done to control sub-lessees over the decades? Because the practice is impossible to police outside of PD nuisance citations. At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Saemann described a residence across the street from him with an out-of-state owner and two long- term lessee’s. He described the lessees’ moving out over 4th of July weekend and a large number of people coming in from who knows where. He, further, described this as an STR problem. With all due respect, that is not an STR problem but a classic Hermosa “sub- lessee” problem. There is a long-term lease in place but the lessees have probably decided to violate their contract and make a little money. If the owner were to visit his property and recognize no one there, that is a sub-lease issue, not STR issue. In any case, its the result of irresponsible ownership. We cannot make STR the “bogeyman” for all the irresponsible behavior of owners in Hermosa that has gone on for decades, long before STR. STR manifests real estate appraisal’s principal of “highest and best use” in The Strand area. It is true that there is significant money to be made. It is also true that, if done properly, it is the best use for quality of life for everyone in the area. STR replaces the sub-lessee model - “one guy with a decent credit rating and five of his derelict friends” - with responsible families who happen to be visiting from outside the state or country. We’ve had fantastic renters from the Midwest, East Coast, Europe and Canada. This May or June, walk into Paciugo Gelato on Hermosa Ave. and look at the families in there and listen to the different accents and languages (and please don’t take the last of the Caramel Sea Salt…my favorite). These people are here for a week or two and they’ve chosen Hermosa over Santa Monica and Newport Beach and they’re having a great time. The Strand is not a place to “put down roots”. It is a world-class vacation destination. The only question is, who will the vacationers be? Kids just out of college or middle-class Canadian and European families? Old derelicts or “empty-nesters” from Chicago? Now, one could make the point that if an owner/landlord is irresponsible and Page 158 of 764 STR 4 doesn’t care about what is happening on his property in the long-term rental environment then he’s not going to care about it in the STR environment either and we’ll get the same result. It’s a fair point. After all, STR does create a couple of unique challenges in that it creates many first time landlords who’ve got to deal with a high volume of activity. I can tell you my wife spends an average of 4-6 hours screening and educating each tenant. She has developed an online system of checks and cross-checks and re- checks It may be easier to become an FBI agent then to rent our place. There are four out of six units in our building, along with properties in every direction outward from our building, doing STR. There were some bumps in our area at first. However, we’ve educated ourselves and each other and communication is good and things are good. If you’re interested, here is some of what we’ve learned in the form of a sample list of “Do’s and Don’ts” (not exhaustive): Do: *Always attempt to rent to families of 3 to 4 or older couples and ensure that they are not using the property for parties or gatherings. *Ensure that the tenants are well aware of common area use, hours of use, parking, trash collection, bike/beach gear storage. *Assure that the children are properly supervised. *Take extra care prior to summer holidays and never ever rent for a weekend, or less than a week, in this period. Also take care of your tenants and their kids. Educate them as to what they are about to experience. (e.g. The Ironman is not the Ironman you’re probably Page 159 of 764 STR 5 thinking of and the “jumpees” being set up on the beach by the eager young men are not for your kids but are, in fact, wrestling pits for strippers.) *Cross check forms of ID and meet the tenant to make sure that the person who is making the payment is the primary occupant. *Take a large security deposit. Do not: *Rent to smokers *Rent to anyone who lives in the Los Angeles Basin *Rent to “work colleagues” especially from the “IT” industry *Rent only for a weekend *Do not rent to groups of friends of either sex under the age 45. One of the benefits of the STR model is that the tenants are not on the property long enough to start feeling empowered or entitled and, so, they are generally compliant. Also, the security deposits are large compared to the total rent and are a real deterrent to misbehavior. If you just follow a few common sense rules and communicate clearly and monitor effectively you have no problems. If STR were banned by Hermosa Beach tomorrow, the city would not be better off but worse off. Nice families and responsible people, generally, do not burn thousands of dollars a month on long-term rent. Groups of derelicts pool that kind of money on long-term rents for the short intervals that they can afford it before they move on. We can tell you that we have begun “sending out feelers” to prospective one- Page 160 of 764 STR 6 year renters in case you decide to ban STR and we have a few who are interested. They happen to be corporate professionals who would only be in our place about one-half the time. These guys have other homes outside the state and would only live in Hermosa part-time and would also use the place for “client retreats”. What these guys will pay is still far more than any family or responsible couple is going to burn over an entire year. For these guys, it’s a business expense. However, I can tell you my wife would quickly exclude them as an STR. So, let’s say we rent to these guys and Hermosa has its long-term renters and everything is wonderful…until these guys have been there a while and start to feel comfortable and a “friend of a client” gets too drunk and the complaints start. In this scenario, our leverage is significantly decreased. Additionally, there is huge demand for vacation stays in our great little city and nowhere near the supply to accommodate it. Again, Commissioner Saemann in the latest meeting said that we already have suitable STR in Hermosa in the form of hotel rooms. With all due respect, again, this obviously cannot be accurate. If 200 STR properties is a good number, then most of the renters in those properties would require more than one hotel room (that’s a large part of why they do STR). If we say they would need two or three rooms we can use 2.5 as a rough multiplier and that’s 500 hotel rooms. There are nowhere near 500 hotel rooms in existence now or in the near future or, given the density, ever. In the end, I would make the assertion that not only are well managed STR’s beneficial to the overall quality of life in Hermosa Beach, they are the highest and best use of many of the properties. It is the way to bring the city into its proper place as a world-class vacation destination while maintaining, and improving, quality of life for all of Hermosa’s residents. What Is the Solution? Page 161 of 764 STR 7 There are several possible solutions but one that would be extremely low maintenance for the city and still generate some revenue would be to follow the “Residential Alarm Permit” model. My wife and I pay the city of Torrance about $45 dollars a year to have a monitored alarm in our home. We get a couple of free false alarm activations per year and after that we would begin paying on a fairly aggressive fee schedule. As to the current question, the goal is the protection of the quiet enjoyment of property and quality of life, generally, in Hermosa Beach. The aim should be to minimize nuisance no matter the source, be it owners, long-term renters, sub- lessees, hangers on or STR. The first part of the solution is to add a “serial offender fine” to the normal nuisance fines for all owners in any situation in Hermosa. No matter the source of the problem, if there are more than two nuisance citations issued by HBPD in any 12 months then the owner pays an additional (and substantial) level of fine as a serial offender. For STR, specifically, these owners are required to pay for an annual permit at some cost. This permit would be in lieu of TOT for these properties since TOT would be nearly impossible to implement. As a one example of the difficulty, most landlords who do STR don’t do it exclusively. They do short- term and longer term. How does the city know what proportion of a property’s rentals are short-term? Carrying on then, if there is a nuisance citation issued by the PD than the STR owner pays the normal fine; the serial offender fine (if applicable) and, if it is verified (by PD at the issuance of the citation or through online searches on the rental sites or otherwise) as being STR and the owners do not have a current permit then they pay a multiple of the original permit cost as a penalty. Here, the owner could gamble and not get a permit and hope that he isn’t issued a nuisance citation during the year. However, if he does the permit could end up costing him maybe four or five times as much. Not only would getting a permit be the right thing to do, it would also be a sort of insurance. This solution would be very easily administered by current city staffing and Page 162 of 764 STR 8 would not require new hiring. There would be additional revenue from the annual permits for STR. To the extent an owner needed several high-cost fines to be brought into compliance there would be even more revenue but the real goal for this part would be responsible behavior by all owners and not revenue. It’s fair, effective and very low cost to administrate…custom built for a small beach city like Hermosa. A Last Note in the Form of a Request As a last note, we would ask that, while there remains wide acknowledgement regarding the lack of clarity or specificity vis-a-vis STR in the municipal code and while all this is being sorted out, that the members of the City Council suspend the “spontaneous visits” to our properties by Code Enforcement. If they are abating an actual nuisance that is one thing but simply harassing quiet and respectful families to castigate them as law breakers and miscreants is silly and unbecoming. We know Bob and Justin are just trying to do their jobs but the current environment is putting these poor guys in ridiculous positions (for example, requiring Justin to go and corner the bright and shining faces of a husband, wife and two little daughters from Saskatchewan while the “long-term” drunks from the alley unit and their non-resident “associates” camp out on our front deck all day long just waiting for an opportunity to harass and intimidate other tenants). Are we serious? Let’s please just all figure this out together and embarrass ourselves as little as possible in the process. Page 163 of 764 STR 9Page 164 of 764 From: Matt Shannon [mailto:mks1225@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:00 PM To: City Clerk; Elaine Doerfling; Terri Dinubilo Subject: Opposition to Short term Vacation Rentals Dear Elaine, Please use my letter below in lieu of my attendance for tonight's meeting on Short Term Rentals. Thank You, Matt Shannon Dear City of Hermosa Beach Leaders, I'm a long term renter in Hermosa Beach and I've resided here for over 7 years . I have a small family with a 2 year old son and another one arriving in April. We love Hermosa and I want nothing more than to raise my family here and one day purchase a home of my own. We currently live on the 1500 block of Palm and my family has been directly affected by a short term rental directly across the alley from us. It usually starts on a Sunday when one group of renters moves out and another moves in. We are startled out of bed by loud talking, slamming of car doors and loitering right under our window. This all happens well before 6am on the ONLY day that we don't have to deal with construction noise. After the renters leave the Manager comes in with his tools and cleaning supplies to get ready for the next group of renter. When the next renters come in, say on a Monday or Tuesday, we have a build up of anxiety about what type of renters we are going to get but it usually doesn't matter as we end up having to call the police for one reason or another. The house I'm speaking of has an illegal open fire pit on the deck. Renters love to light it up no matter how hot it is outside. Unfortunately, we have to leave our windows open to keep our house cool but quickly get overwhelmed by smoke forcing us to close our windows and even leave the house until the smoke settles. On one instance renters had the fire pit blazing so large that embers were flying in to the construction house next door. I felt that they were threatening our lives so I called dispatch. The fire department arrived and made them put the blaze out but not before telling them who called. For the rest of the night we had a deck full of drunk people screaming toward our house that we ruined their party. Last October, we had a wedding group at the rental house. I believe this is a 3 bed 3 bath house but that didn't stop them from cramming 20 people in it for the weekend. These renters couldn't care less about Hermosa's rules and regulations. They had four cars parked tandem in a two car garage making it impossible for us to get out of our garage. They finally moved them only to have a huge party bus pull up and park in the middle of Palm drive for over two hours essentially telling those driving on palm to turn around. Page 165 of 764 I can go on and on but these are just a couple of examples off the top of my head of what we go through week to week. Even though our experiences aren't always this extreme, at a minimum we deal with late weekday nights on the deck, smokers forcing us to close our windows, cars coming and going at all hours, heavy drinking and drug use, parking issues and many other inconveniences that no person/family should have to deal with on a weekly basis. I don't believe that STRs will work in any way or form in a densely populated city as Hermosa Beach and should be heavily enforced to ensure the quality of life that Hermosa residents deserve. Thank you for your time, Shannon Family -- Matt Shannon Mks1225@gmail.com Page 166 of 764 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 52 Number 3 Developments in the Law Article 3 Winter 2-1-2019 Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act Lucy Humphreys Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Housing Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Lucy Humphreys, Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Costal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Costal Act, 52 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 309 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. Page 167 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 309 REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES: HARMONIZING LOCAL ORDINANCES WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT Lucy Humphreys* In the past several years, local governments throughout California have debated and implemented new ordinances in order to regulate short-term rentals, such as those listed on peer-to-peer vacation rental platforms like Airbnb. California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges when trying to regulate short-term rentals due to the popularity of short-term rentals in their jurisdictions, rising housing prices along the coast, and California Coastal Act requirements. One of the primary goals of the California Coastal Act is to maximize public access to the coast. This Article explores the interplay between state policy embodied by the Coastal Act and the ordinances passed by local governments in order to provide recommendations as to how coastal cities can create regulations that best balance the varying interests surrounding short-term rentals. * J.D. Candidate, May 2019, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. I would like to thank Professor Todd Elliott and Professor Katherine Trisolini for their advice and support throughout the writing process. Thank you, also, to the editors and staff of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review for their help in reviewing and editing this Article. Finally, a special thanks to Steve, who provided me with much needed moral support as I worked on this Article, and to my parents Aimee and Michael, for their constant love and guidance. Page 168 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 310 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 311 II. SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE SHARING ECONOMY .................. 313 A. What is the Sharing Economy? ...................................... 313 B. Airbnb and the Rising Popularity of Short-Term Rentals ....................................................................................... 314 C. Cities’ Existing Authority to Regulate Short-Term Rentals: Zoning and Land Use ..................................................... 316 III. THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND TODAY’S COASTAL ACCESS ISSUES ................................................................................... 318 A. Background on the Coastal Act ...................................... 318 B. Development Under the Coastal Act .............................. 319 C. Coastal Access Issues in California Today ..................... 320 IV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES SHOULD CONSTITUTE “DEVELOPMENT” UNDER THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT ... 322 A. A Look at the Legal Arguments ..................................... 323 B. A Look at the Practical Arguments ................................. 327 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES ............................................ 328 A. Coastal Cities Should Avoid Complete Bans on Short- Term Rentals .................................................................. 329 B. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity Through Caps .. 333 C. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity via the Creation of a “Vacation Rental Overlay District” ............................ 335 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 337 Page 169 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 311 I. INTRODUCTION In the past several years, municipalities throughout California have debated and implemented new ordinances in order to regulate short-term rentals, or “STRs,” such as those listed on peer-to-peer vacation rental platforms like Airbnb, HomeAway, and FlipKey.1 Yet, the passage of such regulations has not been without controversy. STRs and the platforms that promote them have developed a mixed reputation, with advocates lauding the potential financial benefits STRs afford both hosts and city coffers via taxation, and opponents warning of the deteriorative effect STRs have on neighborhood character and the available housing stock. While all local governments developing guidelines must grapple with these competing perspectives, California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges due to the sheer number of STRs in their jurisdictions, housing prices, and California Coastal Act requirements. As a practical matter, because coastal cities offer distinctive recreational activities, which make them particularly desirable travel destinations for many tourists, the number of STRs are often greater in these targeted areas.2 Additionally, housing and rental prices are higher in coastal areas compared to the rest of the state,3 so concerns about the potential negative impact STRs have on the availability of adequate affordable housing options are amplified.4 Furthermore, local governments located in the “coastal zone,”5 as defined by the 1. Ashley M. Peterson, Sharing Space, L.A. LAW., Jan. 2017, at 28. 2. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, three major cities along California’s coast, have the most Airbnb listings in California and accounted for almost half of the total rental revenue in the state in 2016. California Airbnb Data and Pricing Analytics, AIRDNA, https://www.airdna.co/region/us/california (last visited Oct. 19, 2018) (AirDNA reports that Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego are the most popular cities for Airbnb in California); Lori Weisberg, Airbnb Details Sharp Growth in California Last Year, L.A. TIMES (Mar. 2, 2017, 12:40 PM), https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-hosts-20170302-story.html. 3. CAL. DEP’T OF HOUS. & CMTY. DEV., CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FINAL STATEWIDE HOUSING ASSESSMENT 2025, 23 (2018), http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/SHA_Final_Combined.pdf [hereinafter California’s Housing Future]. 4. See, e.g., Dayne Lee, How Airbnb Short-Term Rentals Exacerbate Los Angeles’s Affordable Housing Crisis: Analysis and Policy Recommendations, 10 HARV. L. & POL’Y REV. 229, 234–39 (2016). 5. The coastal zone encompasses an area stretching three miles out to sea and inland anywhere from 1,000 yards to several miles. Robert García & Erica Flores Baltodano, Free the Beach! Public Access, Equal Justice, and the California Coast, 2 STAN. J. C.R. & C.L. 143, 180 (2005). Page 170 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 312 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 California Coastal Act of 1976,6 may also need to consider the policies and procedures set forth by the Coastal Act when crafting new STR restrictions.7 This latter consideration is the chief focus of this Article. California places high value on the public’s right to access the coast. The Coastal Act codified this principal and created the California Coastal Commission, tasking it with regulating “development”8 in the coastal zone and maximizing public access to the coast.9 The Commission views STRs as an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, and thus regulations that seek to ban STRs entirely or greatly reduce their numbers in coastal cities are deemed to be contrary to its mandate.10 Some local governments within the coastal zone, however, have proceeded to pass regulations that either largely limit or outlaw STRs in their jurisdictions. Plaintiffs have thus challenged these rules on the grounds that they overly restrict public access and fail to follow certification procedures required by the Coastal Act.11 As of writing, there has yet to be a decisive court ruling as to whether STR regulations constitute “development” under the Coastal Act to which the Act must apply.12 This Article explores the interplay between state policy embodied by the Coastal Act and local governance in order to provide recommendations as to how coastal cities can create provisions that best balance the varying interests surrounding STRs. Part II provides background on the sharing economy and the rise of housing platforms and explains how these platforms have boosted the scale and intensity of STR activity. Expounding on the California Coastal Act, Part III provides background on the Act, focusing on its definition of “development.” Additionally, this Part addresses some of the coastal 6. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30103 (2018). 7. See infra Part V. 8. “Development” is defined broadly under the California Coastal Act. See infra Part III.B. 9. Lee A. Kaplan, Whose Coast Is It Anyway? Climate Change, Shoreline Armoring, and the Public’s Right to Access the California Coast, 46 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10971, 10974 (2016); see CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 30001.5, 30330 (2009). 10. Letter from Steve Kinsey, Coastal Commission Chair, to Coastal Planning/Community Development Directors (Dec. 6, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/ Short_Term_Vacation_Rental_to_Coastal_Planning_&_Devt_Directors_120616.pdf [hereinafter Coastal Commission Letter]. 11. See infra Part V. 12. Id. Page 171 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 313 access issues present in California today and how STRs may present a more cost-effective lodging option for guests compared to traditional hotels. Lastly, this Part discusses cities’ existing authority to regulate STRs as part of their police powers. Part IV argues that courts should interpret STR ordinances as constituting “development” within the Act, and thus cities should work with the Coastal Commission when developing STR regulations and follow Coastal Act procedures, such as amending an existing Local Coastal Program (LCP) or applying for a coastal development permit (CDP), to ensure the implementation of valid regulations. Finally, Part V provides recommendations for coastal cities, advising against all-out prohibitions of STRs, even in residential areas, and advocates for the creation of narrowly tailored regulations that curb the specific kind of STR activity that is deemed harmful to the community while still allowing for other STR activity that benefits homeowners and protects lower-cost visitor accommodation choices. The Article explores how both caps and “vacation rental overlay districts” can be used to achieve thoughtful regulations that maximize STR activity along the coast while still considering overall community character and welfare. II. SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE SHARING ECONOMY A. What is the Sharing Economy? The on-demand economy. The platform economy. The sharing economy.13 While the model may go by different names, each moniker describes the same fundamental story. Over the past few years, disruptive innovators have revolutionized the way consumers and suppliers transact with one another to such an extent that new labels evolved to describe the phenomenon.14 These pioneering peer-to-peer platforms have had a transformative effect on traditional businesses, as evidenced by the significant impact companies like Uber and 13. Additional names include the gig economy and the peer economy. Nathan Heller, Is the Gig Economy Working?, NEW YORKER (May 8, 2017), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/ 2017/05/15/is-the-gig-economy-working. 14. See U.S. FED. TRADE COMM’N, THE “SHARING” ECONOMY: ISSUES FACING PLATFORMS, PARTICIPANTS & REGULATORS 10 (2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/ sharing-economy-issues-facing-platforms-participants-regulators-federal-trade-commission- staff/p151200_ftc_staff_report_on_the_sharing_economy.pdf [hereinafter FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy]. Page 172 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 314 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Airbnb have had on the for-hire transportation and short-term lodging sectors, respectively.15 Despite infiltrating a variety of different industries,16 these new enterprises share certain characteristics. A sharing economy marketplace involves three chief participants: the platform, which provides the marketplace, the consumer (which, in the STR space, is often referred to as a “renter” or “guest”) and the supplier or “host.”17 Additionally, the platforms typically employ a rating system whereby the consumer and the supplier can both review one another, consumers can pay for their services using in-app payment systems, and the platforms give suppliers the flexibility to earn money based on their own schedules.18 At the center of this Article are the home-sharing or vacation rental platforms that have transformed the practice of renting out part or all of one’s residence. B. Airbnb and the Rising Popularity of Short-Term Rentals Home-sharing is not a new practice. Historically, renting out a room in one’s home to a short-term boarder was perhaps even commonplace, particularly in urban areas where affordable housing was especially scarce.19 Nevertheless, the inception of online booking platforms has fundamentally altered the scale of this activity, leading to increased attention and debate.20 Airbnb is arguably the most recognizable of these platforms. Founded in 2008 and based in San Francisco, Airbnb describes itself as a “trusted community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world.”21 It is an online marketplace by which hosts can rent all or part of their personal residence to a guest as short-term housing accommodation.22 The 15. See id. at 1. 16. Examples include Postmates for food delivery, TaskRabbit for everyday chores and services, Handy for housecleaning, and Dogvacay for pet-sitting. Heller, supra note 13. 17. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 3. 18. Heller, supra note 13. 19. Jamila Jefferson-Jones, Airbnb and the Housing Segment of the Modern “Sharing Economy”: Are Short-Term Rental Restrictions an Unconstitutional Taking?, 42 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 557, 561–63 (2015) (“Historians estimate that one in five to one in three nineteenth century American households took in boarders.”). 20. See id. at 561. 21. About Us, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/about/about-us (last visited Feb. 10, 2018). 22. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 19. Page 173 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 315 platform boasts more than three million listings worldwide in more than sixty-five thousand cities and 191 countries.23 Airbnb and the like have shaken up the old, long-established tourism model. While traditionally the average traveler would book accommodation through formal businesses such as hotels, the sharing economy allows ordinary people to rent out their apartments, homes, or spare bedrooms to the general public.24 The average person is now able to effortlessly enter the tourism accommodation sector and compete for tourists.25 As a result, commentators have observed how STRs in the sharing economy have blurred the line between personal and commercial activity, leading to new regulatory challenges.26 For many homeowners, Airbnb provides an easy way to earn extra income by utilizing an already purchased personal asset, namely their residence, to help offset the cost of maintaining a home.27 STRs are generally defined as transient occupancy for less than 30 days.28 Some hosts may rent out a portion of their home to a guest and remain in the unit during their stay, while others rent out their entire residence. For purposes of this Article, the former will be referred to as “home- sharing,” and the latter will be referred to as a “vacation rental,” though both practices are understood to fall under the STR umbrella. These hosts rent out their spaces for short periods of times to supplement their livelihood, but are not in the “business” of short-term renting per se. Distinct from the above-mentioned activity, Airbnb may also facilitate more commercial pursuits as well, or what some critics have referred to as the “hotelization” of entire buildings.29 This refers to a practice where landlords convert their property into pseudo-hotels and rent every unit to short-term lodgers rather than leasing to long-term tenants.30 Some argue that hosting platforms like Airbnb may actually 23. About Us, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/about/about-us (last visited Feb. 10, 2018). 24. Daniel Guttentag, Airbnb: Disruptive Innovation and the Rise of an Informal Tourism Accommodation Sector, 18 CURRENT ISSUES TOURISM 1192, 1194–95 (2015). 25. Id. at 1195. 26. Jefferson-Jones, supra note 19, at 561. 27. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 16. 28. See Peterson, supra note 1, at 30 (discussing how “a short-term rental guest who rents a single room in an owner-occupied dwelling for less than 30 days would likely be considered a lodger”). 29. Lee, supra note 4, at 238. 30. Id. Page 174 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 316 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 incentivize this kind of use because of the ease by which property owners can advertise a room on the platform and earn a substantial profit over the rent that would ordinarily be paid by a long-term tenant.31 Ultimately, local governments that wish to regulate STRs must recognize the different ways property owners are utilizing platforms like Airbnb and avoid making broad generalizations as to the character and nature of all STR activity. This will help ensure that regulations effectively and accurately consider the competing interests surrounding STRs, from private property owners’ rights to the preservation of a community’s character and welfare.32 Additionally, this Article argues that coastal cities in California must also consider the policies within the California Coastal Act in their calculus when implementing and enforcing STR regulations. C. Cities’ Existing Authority to Regulate Short-Term Rentals: Zoning and Land Use In contrast to state lawmakers’ early response to address other activity brought about by the so-called sharing economy, like the rise of the ride-sharing industry made popular by companies such as Lyft and Uber, California does not regulate STRs at the state level.33 State- wide legislation has failed due, in part, to cities’ reluctance to have the state involved in local tax collection and Airbnb’s success in rallying hosts to oppose legislation.34 Thus, the decision to regulate STRs has been left up to local governments. There is clear legal precedent in California endowing cities with the ability to regulate STRs as a land use matter.35 A local 31. Id. at 230. 32. Emily M. Speier, Embracing Airbnb: How Cities Can Champion Private Property Rights Without Compromising the Health and Welfare of the Community, 44 PEPP. L. REV. 387, 398–99 (2017). 33. Liam Dillon, California Lawmakers Can’t Figure Out What to Do with Airbnb. Here’s Why, L.A. TIMES (Feb. 3, 2017, 12:05 AM), http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-airbnb- laws-california-legislature-20170203-story.html; Tomio Geron, California Becomes First State to Regulate Ridesharing Services Lyft, Sidecar, UberX, FORBES (Sept. 19, 2013, 3:40 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/09/19/california-becomes-first-state-to-regulate- ridesharing-services-lyft-sidecar-uberx/#3412033e1804. 34. Dillon, supra note 33. 35. Andrea S. Visveshwara & Kevin R. Heneghan, Emerging Issues in the Enforcement of Short-Term Rental Regulations, LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGULATION ISSUES (May 4, 2017), https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/ Page 175 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 317 government’s authority to impose restrictions on STRs derives from its right to implement zoning regulations,36 which is a well-established, legitimate exercise of its police power.37 Police power broadly describes the right of governments to implement laws that further public safety, public health, peace and quiet, and law and order.38 Thus, local ordinances that are enacted in order to maintain the character of a residential neighborhood are a proper use of a city’s zoning power.39 Even before the rise of the sharing economy, the issue of whether local governments could regulate STRs had been raised.40 In 1991, owners of a single-family home challenged an ordinance adopted by the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea that prohibited transient occupancy for remuneration41 in residentially zoned areas on the grounds that it violated various constitutional rights, including their right of privacy and association.42 A Coastal Act claim was not raised. The Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal upheld the defendant city’s ordinance, holding that the ordinance was rationally related to the legislative intent behind the ordinance, which was to preserve the residential character of the city’s neighborhoods.43 The Court opined that “[i]t stands to reason that the ‘residential character’ of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes . . . are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29 days” because “[s]hort- term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league . . . [or engage] in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.”44 Remarkably, the Court upheld the ordinance despite Plaintiffs’ compelling argument that the ordinance was overly vague and, thus, Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2017/Spring-Conf-2017/Heneghan- ResidentialRentalRegulationIssues. 36. Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 286 Cal. Rptr. 382, 385 (Ct. App. 1991). 37. Id. (citing Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 386 (1926)). 38. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 (1954). 39. Ewing, 286 Cal. Rptr. at 388. 40. Id. at 386. 41. The ordinance defined remuneration as “compensation, money, rent, or other bargained for consideration given in return for occupancy, possession or use of real property.” Id. at 384. 42. Id. 43. Id. at 387–88. 44. Id. at 388. Page 176 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 318 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 could be applied too broadly. Plaintiffs criticized, and the city attorney admitted, that the ordinance’s definition of “remuneration” was worded in such a way that it could be read to include a prohibition on house-sitting, pet-sitting, or even allowing a homeowner to have a guest stay in exchange for dinner or yard work.45 The Court opined that while it was uncertain exactly how the City would interpret the ordinance, and acknowledged a broad reading of “remuneration” could lead to absurd applications, the purpose of the ordinance was clearly to prohibit transient commercial use of residential property.46 Yet, at what point does housing a guest at one’s home for compensation amount to the kind of forbidden “commercial” uses that conceivably do have a deteriorative effect on neighborhood character? Is hosting a paying guest on days that a homeowner is out of town, for example, really so disruptive to a community’s integrity that banning it is justified given the ordinance’s purported intent? As discussed more in Part V, this Article recommends that cities acknowledge and thoroughly evaluate how varying kinds of STR activity realistically impact their jurisdictions in order to avoid drafting regulations that needlessly restrict homeowners and limit coastal accommodation options for visitors. III. THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND TODAY’S COASTAL ACCESS ISSUES A. Background on the Coastal Act In 1976, the California Coastal Act was enacted in order to combat degradation in the quality and availability of recreational land along the coast.47 One of the primary goals of the Act is to maximize public access to the coast, in addition to protecting natural resources, encouraging public participation in decisions affecting coastal planning, and balancing conservation efforts with development and private property rights.48 The Coastal Act requires local governments, 45. Id. at 391. 46. Id. The Court noted, “The word ‘commercial’ appears repeatedly at every critical juncture in the Ordinance.” It continued, “we view Carmel’s repeated use of the word as strong evidence that Carmel intends only to prevent homeowners in the R-1 District from operating like a ‘bed and breakfast, hostel, hotel, inn, lodging, motel, resort or other transient lodging . . . .’” Id. 47. García & Baltodano, supra note 5, at 181. 48. Id.; CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30001.5 (2009) (“[T]he basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to . . . [m]aximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public Page 177 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 319 businesses, and private individuals found in the designated coastal zone to comply with its policies.49 To implement its policies, the Act established the California Coastal Commission as a permanent public entity, and its primary responsibility is the regulation of “development” in the coastal zone.50 B. Development Under the Coastal Act “Development” is defined broadly under the Coastal Act.51 As relevant to this Article, the Coastal Act defines development as any “change in the density or intensity of use of land.”52 The Supreme Court of California opined that “[a]n expansive interpretation of ‘development’ is consistent with the mandate that the Coastal Act is to be ‘liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.’”53 Furthermore, the Court added, “the Coastal Act’s definition of ‘development’ goes beyond ‘what is commonly regarded as a development of real property.’”54 The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of development under the Coastal Act is pertinent to understanding how ordinances that impede STR activity may constitute development and thus fall under the auspices of the Act and the Coastal Commission, discussed infra. Under the Act, the Coastal Commission is responsible for permitting development within the coastal zone, but this power is delegated to local agencies upon preparation and certification of a Local Coastal Program.55 There is no single design for an LCP except that each is comprised of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and an recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”). 49. JORDAN DIAMOND ET AL., THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL ACT 5 (2017), https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Coastal-Act-Issue- Brief.pdf. 50. Kaplan, supra note 9, at 10974. 51. J. David Breemer, What Property Rights: The California Coastal Commission’s History of Abusing Land Rights and Some Thoughts on the Underlying Causes, 22 UCLA J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 247, 252 (2004). 52. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30106 (2018). 53. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 288 P.3d 717, 722 (Cal. 2012). 54. Id. 55. Kaplan, supra note 9, at 10974. Page 178 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 320 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Implementation Plan (IP).56 An LUP contains policies that are consistent with the Coastal Act and tailored to the geographic area it covers, while an IP contains ordinances or regulations that implement the policies outlined in the LUP.57 LCPs must be certified by the Coastal Commission to ensure that they accurately reflect the fundamental objectives of the Coastal Act.58 Additionally, certified LCPs can be subject to review by the Coastal Commission and amendments can and should be made as needed.59 While the Coastal Act incentivizes local governments to develop LCPs in order to gain coastal development permitting authority, there are still a number of jurisdictions that have not developed LCPs,60 and about two-thirds of existing LCPs are out of date.61 If a jurisdiction in the coastal zone does not have a certified LCP, the Coastal Commission retains its authority to issue coastal development permits. C. Coastal Access Issues in California Today As discussed above, one of the primary goals of the Coastal Act is to maximize public access to and along the coast. Yet, in spite of this legal protection that has been in place for over forty years, California residents have not had equal access to the coastline.62 In general, economically disadvantaged and minority residents live further from coastal access points compared to wealthy, white residents.63 Furthermore, as California’s population continues to grow, disparities in coastal access may be stretched even further.64 California’s coastal cities are among the most popular tourist destinations in the state. In 2016, around five million visitors booked 56. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30108.6 (2018). For an example of an LCP, see CITY OF SEASIDE, EXHIBIT C: PROPOSED LUP AND IP WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS (2012), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/12/Th15a-12-2012-a1.pdf. 57. See CITY OF SEASIDE, supra note 56. 58. Joel Jacobs, A Bug in The Programs: The Need to Create Greater Incentives for Local Coastal Program Updates, 36 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 3, 5 (2016). 59. Id. 60. In fiscal year 2016–2017, 33 segments were reported as having no certified LCP, though some of the jurisdictions had received grants from the Coastal Commission to assist in developing one. CAL. COASTAL COMM’N, SUMMARY OF LCP PROGRAM ACTIVITY IN FY 16–17, 1–2 (2017), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/rflg/FY16_17_LCPStatusSummaryChart.pdf. 61. DIAMOND ET AL., supra note 49, at 8. 62. Dan R. Reineman et al., Coastal Access Equity and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act, 36 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 89, 99 (2016). 63. Id. at 102. 64. Id. at 99. Page 179 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 321 temporary lodging through Airbnb in California.65 Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, all situated on California’s stunning coastline, accounted for nearly half of the state’s total rental revenue.66 And the popularity of short-term rentals just continues to grow. In just a year, the number of Californians sharing their homes on the platform rose 51%.67 The Coastal Act specifically requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities to be protected and encouraged in order to ensure maximum public access.68 In a memo written by the California Coastal Commission, the agency criticized outright bans as well as regulations that significantly limit the availability of STRs.69 According to the memo, overnight accommodations are vital to enabling those who live far away from the coastline to visit and enjoy the recreational opportunities available at the beach and ocean.70 Over the years, nightly room rates have increased significantly.71 As a result, the Commission seeks to promote more affordable options to ensure coastal access, and STRs present a unique solution. San Diego’s popular Comic-Con weekend provides an example that illustrates how STRs may present a more affordable accommodation option for coastal visitors compared to traditional hotels.72 Airbnb hosts reportedly accommodated 14,000 guests during Comic-Con in 2016, and 19,000 guests were projected to stay at Airbnb listings for the 2017 convention weekend.73 While Airbnb’s average nightly rates do tend to go up at this peak time, the average Airbnb short-term rental still undercuts San Diego hotels’ $261 65. Weisberg, supra note 2. 66. Id. Also, note that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, not the California Coastal Commission, has regulatory authority over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh. S.F. BAY CONSERVATION & DEV. COMM’N, http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/ (last visited Nov. 5, 2018). 67. Weisberg, supra note 2. 68. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30213 (2018). 69. Memorandum from John Ainsworth, Acting Executive Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., to Coastal Commission and Interested Parties, (Oct. 26, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf. 70. Id. 71. Id. 72. Lori Weisberg, Who is Winning During Comic-Con: Airbnb or Hotels?, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB. (July 17, 2017, 6:00 AM), http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/ tourism/sd-fi-airbnb-comiccon-20170714-story.html. 73. Id. Page 180 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 322 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 average room cost by roughly $70 to $100 a night.74 Even if Airbnb’s private and shared rooms are excluded from the calculus, and only bookings for studio apartments and one-bedroom units are considered since they are more comparable to traditional hotel rooms, the typical STR still provides a less expensive option for visitors compared to hotels.75 IV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES SHOULD CONSTITUTE “DEVELOPMENT” UNDER THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT Residents in coastal cities have turned to the courts to challenge the enforcement of local STR ordinances on the grounds that they fall under the purview of the California Coastal Commission and should be subject to Coastal Commission approval before implementation.76 The crux of their arguments is that ordinances that restrict STRs have a demonstrable impact on the intensity of use of land and access to the coast and thus constitute “development” as it is broadly defined within the Coastal Act.77 While it is unsettled whether STR ordinances are development under the Coastal Act to which the Coastal Act must apply, this Article argues that based on California Supreme Court precedent that development be liberally construed,78 courts should interpret STR ordinances as falling within its broad definition. The following subsections first discuss the legal basis for such a finding by examining cases that have challenged STR ordinances under a theory that they violate the Coastal Act. The Article then considers some of the practical benefits for coastal cities in working with the Coastal Commission to develop STR regulations. 74. Id. 75. Id. 76. E.g., Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2:16-cv-04481-ODW-AGR, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (“Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to submit to the Commission a certified LCP prior to enacting the Ordinance, and further, that the ban constitutes ‘development’ under the Act as it represents a change in access to the coast.”); Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989863, at *4 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 26, 2017) (“[T]he City’s implementation of the STVR ban and its broad enforcement efforts has intentionally caused a substantial, direct and quantifiable change in the density and intensity of use of land and the intensity of use of water, or of access to the coast . . . .”). 77. Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5; Kracke, 2017 WL 9989863, at *4. 78. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 288 P.3d 717, 722 (Cal. 2012). Page 181 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 323 A. A Look at the Legal Arguments Various homeowners along California’s coast have filed lawsuits alleging that the California Coastal Commission should have a say over the enactment of STR laws. In January 2017, Santa Monica homeowner Arlene Rosenblatt argued that a vacation rental ban instituted by the City of Santa Monica violated the Coastal Act.79 The Santa Monica STR ordinance authorizes home-sharing (owner remains at the residence throughout a guest’s stay) as long as the resident obtains a business license and registers their property, but prohibits vacation rentals (owner is absent during a guest’s stay) entirely.80 Rosenblatt, an eighty-year-old retired schoolteacher, would rent out her home in Santa Monica when she and her husband left town to visit their seven grandchildren.81 Because Santa Monica’s ordinance now requires that the resident remain in the house during a guest’s stay, Rosenblatt reported that she and her husband could lose up to $20,000 a year.82 She decided to challenge the rule in court. Rosenblatt argued that Santa Monica’s ban on STRs constituted “development” under the Coastal Act because it impacted access to the coast by diminishing the pool of visitor serving accommodations.83 Additionally, Rosenblatt contended that the City failed to obtain a certified LCP from the Coastal Commission prior to enacting its ordinance, which consequently violated the Act.84 The City of Santa Monica filed a motion to dismiss.85 In its March 30, 2017 ruling, the district court denied the City’s motion to dismiss Rosenblatt’s Coastal Act claim, opining that while “California case law makes it likely that the Commission does not have unrestricted authority to override local land use regulations,” the City failed to show that Ms. Rosenblatt had not stated a claim under the Coastal Act when she alleged that “[the City] failed to submit an 79. First Amended Complaint, Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997. 80. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA HOME-SHARING ORDINANCE RULES 3–4 (2017), https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Permits/Santa%20Monica% 20HomeSharing%20Rules.pdf. 81. Sam Sanders, Rental Rules in California Raise Questions About Who’s Using Airbnb, NPR (May 17, 2015, 5:17 PM), https://www.npr.org/2015/05/17/407529301/does-airbnb-help-folks-by- or-help-businesses-get-sly. 82. Id. 83. Rosenblatt, 2017 WL 1205997, at *5. 84. Id. 85. Id. at *1. Page 182 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 324 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 LCP and that the Ordinance conflicts with the overall policies of the Act.”86 Ultimately, however, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rosenblatt’s state law claim, and dismissed the case.87 Rosenblatt has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.88 While no decision on the merits has been rendered in this case as of writing, Rosenblatt’s unresolved suit raises new questions of law that could substantially impact how local governments in the coastal zone regulate STR activity. Do coastal cities proposing to introduce STR ordinances need to first amend their city’s LCP? In the event that they do not have a certified LCP, do cities need to apply for a coastal development permit instead? These questions will be answered in the affirmative if it is determined that STR regulations constitute development under the Act. Courts, however, have just started to grapple with these questions on a case-by-case basis.89 One difficulty courts face is that it is hard to analogize STR ordinances to previous case holdings that have addressed the definition of development under the Coastal Act. In March 2017, Theodore Kracke, a Santa Barbara resident who owns a local business that operates vacation rentals around the City, filed his First Amended Writ of Mandate and Complaint.90 He argued that Santa Barbara violated the Coastal Act by enforcing an STR ban, which prohibits short-term vacation rentals in any zone other than commercial and R- 4 zones, without first obtaining a CDP or amending its LCP and obtaining certification from the Coastal Commission.91 The Superior Court for the County of Ventura noted that “[m]ost cases in which a ‘development’ has been found have involved more substantial and discrete conduct.”92 It went on to list examples including the approval of a mobile home park conversion, the building 86. Id. at *5. 87. Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2:16-cv-04481-ODW-AGR, 2017 WL 2909404, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2017). 88. Id., appeal docketed, No. 17-55879 (9th Cir. June 22, 2017). 89. Rosenblatt, Kracke, and Johnston v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. B278424, 2018 WL 45892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) were all filed within the last few years. 90. First Amended Writ of Mandate and Complaint for 1) Civil Penalties for Violation of the California Coastal Act; 2) Injunctive Relief Under the Coastal Act; 3) Declaratory Relief Under the Coastal Act, Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989863 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 30, 2017), 2017 WL 10507452. 91. Id. at 20–22. 92. Kracke, 2017 WL 9989863, at *8. Page 183 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 325 of a fireworks display, the installation of gates with “no trespassing” signs, lot line adjustments, and offshore sand extraction.93 STR regulations appear to be distinct from the aforementioned examples of development, at least as the word is colloquially understood, because they do not entail the construction of new structures or physical alterations made to existing structures. Rather, STR ordinances regulate how owners utilize their existing property. The Superior Court went on to say, however, that despite the earlier precedent involving somewhat different kinds of activities than the implementation of STR regulations, “the provisions of the Coastal Act do not limit the scope of ‘development’ to particular conduct.”94 Rather, “[t]he action required is simply a ‘change.’”95 The language in the Coastal Act regarding the “change in the density or intensity of use of land . . . focuses on the nature of the impact necessary to find ‘development’ and does not restrict the manner in which the change comes about.”96 Plaintiff Kracke sufficiently alleged that the City council made a deliberate choice to increase enforcement of the prohibition of STRs, and that this resulted in a quantifiable change in the density and intensity of the use of land as evidenced by the resulting 87% reduction in the number of guests staying in properties managed by Kracke located in the coastal zone.97 The court concluded that: Two fundamental purposes of the Coastal Act are protecting California’s coastline and ensuring state policies prevail over local government concerns. Requiring the City to obtain a CDP before implementing a prohibition on STVRs in residential areas of Santa Barbara’s coastline is in harmony with both. For these reasons, the court finds that Kracke has alleged facts constituting a “development” within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 30106.98 93. Id. 94. Id. 95. Id. 96. Id. at *9 (citing CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30106 (2018)). 97. Id. at *7. 98. Id. at *9 (citations omitted). Page 184 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 326 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Though Kracke’s allegations were sufficient to survive demurrer, the Superior Court denied his request for a preliminary injunction.99 The questions raised by Kracke and Rosenblatt in their respective cases are similar, and the courts in both cases determined that there were sufficient allegations to make out a cognizable legal claim. While no ruling on the merits has been made as of writing in either case to decisively answer the question of whether STR ordinances constitute development under the Coastal Act, at the very least, there seems to be an indication that this legal argument has some viability. Not all courts agree, however. A homeowner in Hermosa Beach sought to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance banning STRs, arguing that the California Coastal Act preempted the ordinance.100 The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the Coastal Act, since it did not constitute a development as that word is used in the Coastal Act, which would require a coastal development permit.101 On appeal, the preemption issue was reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.102 The appellate court noted that the Coastal Commission had not sought leave to intervene in the trial court, nor did it seek to submit an amicus brief on appeal.103 Ultimately, the court decided, that “[t]he Ordinance was enacted pursuant to the City’s police power and did not fall under the auspices of the Coastal Commission.”104 Unlike the plaintiffs in Rosenblatt and Kracke, however, the plaintiffs in this case conceded in the trial court, and made no contrary argument on appeal, that “the Ordinance did not constitute a ‘development’ requiring a CDP.”105 This concession likely influenced the court’s ruling in this instance and distinguishes it from the other cases. A final and persuasive argument supporting the finding that the regulation of STRs constitutes development under the Coastal Act 99. Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 56-2016-00490376-CU-WM-VTA, 2017 WL 9989862, at *2 (June 26, 2017) (denying Kracke’s request because the court was not persuaded that an exception to the rule that an injunction is not available to restrain public officers from enforcing laws made for the public benefit applied). 100. Johnston v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. B278424, 2018 WL 458920, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). 101. Id. at *2. 102. Id. at *4. 103. Id. at *5. 104. Id. at *4. 105. Id. Page 185 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 327 comes from the Coastal Commission itself. In a letter written by the former Chairman of the Coastal Commission, the Commission’s view on this subject was made clear. The letter plainly stated: [V]acation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short-term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP.106 The Coastal Commission may very well be STR proponents’ biggest ally in the struggle to preserve their right to rent out their residence on a short-term basis in the coastal zone. The Commission aims to work with local government to implement STR regulations that respect the local context while preserving coastal recreational access opportunities.107 Now that the legal groundwork has been laid to support the theory that STR ordinances constitute development under the Coastal Act, I turn to some of the practical considerations for why coastal cities should work with the Coastal Commission when developing STR regulations. B. A Look at the Practical Arguments As a preliminary matter, it has now been established that some coastal cities that have not elected to regulate STRs within the context of their existing LCP or apply for a CDP have had their ordinances challenged on this ground in court. Thus, by working with the Coastal Commission to craft more balanced regulations, cities can help shield themselves from attacks, at least as to challenges made on this basis. 106. Coastal Commission Letter, supra note 10, at 1. 107. Id. at 3. Page 186 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 328 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Additionally, the Coastal Commission might be the only thing standing in the way to prevent all-out bans on STRs in the coastal zone. While coastal cities have their own valid reasons for wanting to limit STRs in their communities, often nuisance abatement and preservation of neighborhood character, coastal cities should still be mindful of public access issues. Access to California’s coast is a growing problem, and one of the biggest barriers Californians cite that prevent them from being able to access the coast is the high costs associated with staying overnight in coastal communities.108 In a statewide voter poll conducted in the summer of 2016, 62% of voters cited access to the coast as a problem, with between 73% and 76% of California voters citing limited options for affordable overnight accommodations as a significant barrier.109 Latino voters and families with children cited this as a big problem at an even higher rate.110 The coast is an important resource and guaranteed for all under the Coastal Act, yet the Coastal Commission cannot preserve and expand the supply of lower-cost overnight accommodations on its own. The cooperation of local coastal governments is paramount to ensure that the public has ample access to the coastline and the recreational activities it provides. Since the Coastal Commission takes public access into consideration in all of its permitting and planning decisions, coastal cities should consult the Coastal Commission when crafting their STR regulations. V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL CITIES As a preliminary matter, in order for STR regulations to comply with the Costal Act, policymakers should avoid total prohibitions of any kind, even in areas zoned as residential areas. Not only is this the Coastal Commission’s position,111 but there are economic benefits to having STRs in coastal cities whereby having a total ban would be adverse to the cities’ interests. Rather, narrowly tailored regulations 108. JON CHRISTENSEN & PHILIP KING, ACCESS FOR ALL—A NEW GENERATION’S CHALLENGES ON THE CALIFORNIA COAST 2 (2017), https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/UCLA-Coastal-Access-Policy-Report.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 109. Id. at 3. 110. Id. 111. See Coastal Commission Letter, supra note 10, at 2. Page 187 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 329 must be crafted to suit each locale, while still considering the goals underlying the Coastal Act. Instead of confining STRs to traditionally established zoning districts, such as only permitting them in commercial zones and prohibiting them in residential zones, coastal cities can control the spread of STRs, and the potential effects they may have on any given neighborhood, by imposing selected limits. This may include caps on the number of units allowed in any given zone, the number of units a single individual can list for rent, or the number of nights a unit can be rented out over a designated period of time. Additionally, coastal cities can explore creating “vacation rental overlay districts” that also help to regulate STR activity in certain areas without prohibiting them entirely. A. Coastal Cities Should Avoid Complete Bans on Short-Term Rentals Ultimately, cities are faced with two options when it comes to regulating STRs. They may allow them or restrict them. However, some cities have seemingly wanted to restrict STRs to the point of prohibiting them. In order to be consistent with the Coastal Act, coastal cities should avoid total prohibitions of STRs. Proposed amendments to LCPs that have advocated for total bans, as well as total bans in residential zones, have been denied by the Coastal Commission.112 In December 2017, the Coastal Commission denied a proposed LCP amendment submitted by the City of Laguna Beach that would ban STRs in residential zones throughout the City, while still permitting them to operate in most commercial districts.113 The City reported that the increase of STRs in Laguna Beach had begun to cause 112. The Coastal Commission denied proposed STR bans submitted by Pismo Beach, the City of Imperial Beach, and Laguna Beach because they were overly restrictive and conflicted with LCP requirements for promoting access to shoreline access areas by limiting the potential number of STRs which serve as alternate lodging opportunities for coastal visitors. CAL. COASTAL COMM’N, SAMPLE OF COMMISSION ACTIONS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS 2–3 (2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Re ntals.pdf; Memorandum from Karl Schwing, Deputy Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., to Commissioners and Interested Persons at 2, 22 (Dec. 1, 2017), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/12/th19b/th19b-12-2017-report.pdf [hereinafter Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request]. 113. Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 1–2. Page 188 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 330 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 problems such as excessive noise, instances of disorderly conduct, and exacerbated traffic congestion, leading them to the decision to ban STRs in all residential zoning districts.114 The Coastal Commission remarked that despite Laguna Beach’s intent to expand the commercial districts to allow more STRs where they previously were not permitted and to authorize existing, legally permitted STRs to continue operating in residential zones, the proposed amendment would still unduly reduce the potential aggregate number of STRs in the City.115 By entirely foreclosing the possibility of such use in all residential areas, between 5,200 and 8,900 residential lots would be excluded from ever functioning as an STR.116 Additionally, the Commission noted, the City’s certified LUP already contains language that protects and prioritizes lower-cost visitor facilities and requires that public access to the coast be maximized, and thus the proposed ban would undermine this policy.117 STRs in residential areas supplement visitor accommodation choices in a fundamentally different way than STRs located within the commercial zones, since they allow for immediate shoreline access where no commercial overnight opportunities exist.118 While the Coastal Commission has made it clear that it disfavors total prohibitions of any kind, there are economic considerations that favor a more balanced STR regulation approach as well. Cities have their own reasons for wanting to limit STRs in their communities— often nuisance abatement and preservation of neighborhood character—but there are undeniable benefits to STR activity that should not be overlooked. One economic advantage is the tax dollars cities can collect through a Transient Occupancy Tax. Airbnb has even entered into agreements with some local governments to collect and remit taxes on behalf of hosts119 in an effort likely meant, at least in part, to encourage 114. Id. at 2. 115. Id. 116. Id. 117. Id. at 2. 118. Id. at 19–20. 119. How Does Occupancy Tax Collection and Remittance by Airbnb Work?, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1036/how-does-occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance- by-airbnb-work (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). Page 189 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 331 these cities to impose fewer restrictions on STRs.120 One mechanism, a Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA), allows Airbnb to collect local taxes from guests as they book their transaction and then dispatch those tax dollars to the proper tax administrator.121 Occupancy tax collection and remittance by Airbnb is available in various cities and counties throughout the entire state of California, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Monica.122 These VCA agreements have purportedly generated millions of dollars for city coffers.123 Additionally, hosts often house guests in neighborhoods that are outside of the traditional tourist districts which brings money into local economies that have not previously benefitted from the tourism industry.124 Advocates of STRs and the sharing economy more generally know that unnecessary or excessive regulations can raise barriers to entry and increase costs of operation for hosts, which in turn can reduce the substantial consumer and community benefits that accrue when these new competitors enter the marketplace.125 The City of Laguna Beach also raised concerns about the negative impact STRs have on the availability of housing.126 Because house and rental prices are higher in coastal areas compared to the rest of the state,127 local governments are understandably wary of the potential impact STRs may have on the available housing stock in such densely populated regions. It is unsettled, however, whether the proliferation 120. Kia Kokalitcheva, Airbnb to Cities: Cooperate and We’ll Get You Tax Revenue, FORTUNE (Jan. 22, 2016), http://fortune.com/2016/01/22/airbnb-tax-revenue. 121. Airbnb: Generating $2.5 Billion in Potential Tax Revenue for America’s Cities, AIRBNB, https://2sqy5r1jf93u30kwzc1smfqt-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/US- Tax-Report3.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2018) [hereinafter Airbnb Tax Report]. 122. Occupation Tax Collection and Remittance by Airbnb in California, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2297/occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-in- california (last visited Oct. 25, 2018). 123. E.g., Airbnb entered into a VCA with Los Angeles in August 2016, which purportedly generated $13 million in tax dollars in five months. Additionally, San Diego reportedly earned $7 million in tax revenue. Airbnb Tax Report, supra note 121. 124. See Home Sharing Activity Report: Los Angeles, AIRBNBCITIZEN, https://los- angeles.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-home-sharing-activity-report-los-angeles (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 125. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 6. 126. Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 15. 127. California’s Housing Future, supra note 3, at 23, 25. Page 190 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 332 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 of STRs adversely affects the supply of housing available to permanent residents in any considerable way.128 One independent study which analyzed data from 2012 to 2016 estimated that a 10% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a 0.42% increase in rents, as well as a 0.76% increase in house prices at the zip code level.129 This is, in part, because platforms such as Airbnb make it easier for hosts to connect with potential guests. This, in turn, may encourage some landlords to convert their long-term rentals, which cater to residents, into STRs, which cater more to tourists.130 Because the supply of housing is fixed in the short run, rental rates are driven up in the long-term market.131 Additionally, it has also been argued that rising rents and home prices can lead to gentrification. Gentrification occurs when mounting costs force lower income households to leave a neighborhood, which are then replaced by wealthier residents.132 This shift in demographics can remake a locality’s entire ambiance and character.133 There may be a correlation between the expansion of STRs in a district and the subsequent increase in rent and gentrification in adjacent districts.134 With that being said, the study noted that Airbnb’s impact on the long-term market “depends on the number of landlords who are on the margin of switching between allocating their housing to long-term tenants versus short-term visitors.”135 In instances where hosts only supply a spare room while they remain in the residence, or rent out their entire residence for a short-time while the hosts themselves are 128. Compare Lee, supra note 4 (arguing that “Airbnb reduces supply by encouraging illegal conversion, hotelization, and evictions”), and Kyle Barron et al., The Sharing Economy and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Airbnb, SSRN (Oct. 5, 2017) (finding that “a 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a 0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices at the median owner-occupancy rate zipcode”), with CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC FORECAST, THE EFFECT OF SHORT TERM RENTALS ON THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN SANTA BARBARA CITY AND COUNTY (2016), https://independent.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/documents/2016/07/20/STR_ Effect_on_Housing_Supply_-_2016-05-12.pdf (finding that “[a]n increase of 1/10th of 1% in the long-term rental supply is created by prohibition of STRs, and does not represent a significant number of housing units that would be converted from STR use to a longer term supply of housing for purchase or rent”). 129. Barron et al., supra note 128, at 19. 130. Id. at 2. 131. Id. 132. Lee, supra note 4, at 240. 133. Id. 134. Id. at 240–41. 135. Barron et al., supra note 128, at 6. Page 191 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 333 temporarily out of town, the effects of Airbnb rentals on the market for long-term housing are moderated.136 This is because these units would not be available to long-term tenants anyway, so home-sharing merely provides owners with an extra stream of income for times when their residences would otherwise be underutilized.137 In the past ten years, there has been limited housing production in California’s urban and coastal communities, where jobs and services are concentrated, leading to increased housing prices.138 Allowing residents to rent out parts or all of their primary residence on a short- term basis may be vital to helping them stay in their homes as the cost of living rises.139 Thus, it is critical that local governments recognize the different ways property owners utilize platforms like Airbnb and avoid making broad generalizations as to the character and nature of all STR activity. Concerns regarding the impact STRs may have on the affordable housing stock are not trivial, but local governments should not ignore how STRs may actually help current residents afford their homes. By thoroughly evaluating how varying kinds of STR activity realistically impact their jurisdictions and the people that reside there, better regulations can be drafted that do not unduly limit the potential economic benefits afforded by such activity to both homeowners and the cities in which they live. B. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity Through Caps Given the variance in coastal resources, housing, and population across California’s coastal cities, narrowly tailored regulations must be crafted to suit each locale, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, coastal cities can impose various caps or limits on STRs, such as setting a minimum or maximum number of days a unit can be rented, limiting the number of units a single individual can advertise for rent, or designating occupancy limits and minimum separation requirements between STRs in order to customize their regulations to suit the needs and concerns of their particular community. 136. Id. at 3, 5. 137. Id. at 3. 138. California’s Housing Future, supra note 3, at 42. 139. E.g., Otis R. Taylor, Jr., Oakland Woman Is Example of Airbnb’s Benefits, S.F. CHRON. (Mar. 24, 2017, 6:00 AM), http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-woman -is-example-of-Airbnb-s-benefits-11024054.php. Page 192 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 334 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Such caps can be instituted to address two main concerns: the purported adverse effect wide-spread home-sharing may have on housing availability and the negative effects on neighborhood character, safety and congestion. Both consequences may be considered negative “externalities” associated with the growth of STRs.140 A negative externality is best understood as “an indirect cost of a commercial activity that is borne by society or bystanders outside of the industry rather than the commercial enterprise or individuals conducting the activity.”141 Community members who do not participate in the home-sharing craze experience the costs associated with STRs without receiving any direct, immediate benefit. Thus, their criticism of STRs and desire to limit them seem well-founded. The traditional tourist accommodation industry, such as hotels and bed- and-breakfasts, joins neighborhood activists in their criticism, albeit for a different reason, urging regulators to set standards that apply equally across the board in order to avoid what they deem to be unfair competition.142 To address concerns raised regarding the effects STRs may have on the available housing stock, setting a maximum number of days a unit can be rented and limiting the number of units a single individual or company can advertise for rent will likely discourage people from converting housing units from long-term to short-term accommodation. Los Angeles, for example, has proposed implementing a 180-day cap on STRs, whereby a single unit could not be rented out for more than 180 days in one year, in order to help protect the long-term housing stock.143 Some hosts have said that the 180-day cap is too restrictive, but city officials are contemplating developing a process that would allow hosts to apply for permission to exceed the cap if needed.144 Additionally, limiting the number of units a single individual or company can obtain an STR permit for to 140. Tristan P. Espinosa, Comment, The Cost of Sharing and the Common Law: How to Address the Negative Externalities of Homesharing, 19 CHAP. L. REV. 597, 601–03 (2016). 141. Id. at 601. 142. FTC Guide on the Sharing Economy, supra note 14, at 54, 57. 143. Jenna Chandler, Los Angeles Is Still Dragging Its Feet on Airbnb Regulations, CURBED (Feb. 6, 2018, 4:52 PM), https://la.curbed.com/2018/2/6/16981720/los-angeles-airbnb-short-term- rentals-regulations-plum. 144. Id. Page 193 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 335 one or two would likely prevent people from purchasing numerous units and converting them to short-term tourist accommodations. To address concerns over the effects STRs may have on neighborhood integrity and congestion, local governments may designate caps on the number of guests that can stay in a unit at one- time, minimum separation requirements between STRs in certain residential neighborhoods, and caps on the number of cars a guest can bring. Such caps map help reduce potential noise and parking issues. Additionally, as part of the STR permitting process, ordinances could require vacation rental owners to submit nuisance response plans.145 The City of Ventura, for example, requires owners to submit a plan that includes their name and contact information so they can be easily reached if guests engage in behavior that is disruptive to neighbors.146 If a certain STR unit receives continued complaints, a city can administer fines or revoke a host’s permit. Furthermore, neighbors that encounter STRs that present a substantial disruption to their area still have the ability to sue private property owners to abate the nuisance. Instead of broadly prohibiting STRs, caps can be used to curb the specific kind of STR activity that is deemed harmful to the community (e.g., the “hotelization” of entire buildings) while still allowing for other STR activity that helps supplement homeowner’s income and preserve the number of lower-cost visitor accommodations (e.g., renting out an under-utilized room or an entire residence when the primary resident is out of town themselves). C. Regulating Short-Term Rental Activity via the Creation of a “Vacation Rental Overlay District” In addition to imposing caps that apply to traditionally established zoning districts, coastal cities can explore creating “vacation rental overlay districts” that help control certain STR activity—specifically non-owner-occupied vacation rentals—in targeted areas without issuing a total ban on all types of STR activity. The City of Carpinteria implemented this approach to help limit vacation rentals in high-traffic areas.147 The Coastal Commission has regarded Carpinteria’s 145. See, e.g., Short-Term Vacation Rentals, CITY OF VENTURA, https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/172/Short-Term-Vacation-Rentals (last visited Oct. 19, 2018). 146. Id. 147. See Laguna Beach LCP Amendment Request, supra note 112, at 3. Page 194 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 336 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 regulation as a model ordinance.148 The overlay district applies to the city’s beach neighborhood that is closest to coastal recreation areas as well as the City’s commercial core.149 This area is also where the majority of vacation rentals already exist.150 Carpinteria’s vacation rental overlay district is broken up into four zones.151 Each zone has their own established caps on the number of vacation rentals permitted.152 When the City originally created the ordinance, it set the caps slightly above the already existing number of rentals in order to accommodate some growth.153 If each cap were reached, then a total of 60%, 50%, 15%, and 15% of units in each zone (moving from the coast and going inland), respectively, would be vacation rentals.154 STR owners and prospective owners can apply for a permit, and licenses are awarded through a lottery system.155 A license holder must apply for a new permit every year.156 The ordinance also provides that, if transient-occupancy tax is not collected for two years, then that license will expire.157 This was included in order to allay some residents’ fears that people could apply for, and be awarded licenses, but never use them.158 Additionally, the ordinance implements maximum occupancy standards and parking requirements for each license on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid adverse impacts on residential areas.159 Furthermore, the ordinance allows “home stays,” where the owner is present during a guest’s stay, and does not impose any cap on this type of STR activity.160 148. Sam Goldman, Carpinteria Prepares to Enact Short-Term Vacation Rental Rules, NOOZHAWK (Apr. 10, 2017, 11:02 PM), https://www.noozhawk.com/article/carpinteria_prepares _to_enact_short_term_vacation_rental_rules. 149. Memorandum from Steve Hudson, Deputy Director, Cal. Coastal Comm’n, et al., at 1 (Nov. 17, 2016), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/12/th8b-12-2016.pdf [hereinafter Carpinteria LCP Amendment]. 150. Id. 151. Id. at 7. 152. See, e.g., id. 153. Id. at 11. 154. Goldman, supra note 148. 155. Id. 156. Id. 157. Id. 158. Id. 159. Carpinteria LCP Amendment, supra note 149, at 1. 160. Id. Page 195 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 2019] REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN CALIFORNIA 337 Importantly, the City draws the distinction between vacation rentals and home-sharing or home stays and has adapted its ordinance in order to address both kinds of STR activity separately. By doing so, the ordinance does not ban or unduly hinder residents’ ability to rent out their homes to tourists and helps preserve the public’s ability to access the coast. Whether it be through the creation of a new overlay district or by designating caps tailored to existing zoning districts, local governments in coastal cities can create more balanced regulations that are in-line with the policies underlying the Coastal Act. VI. CONCLUSION The law surrounding STRs is evolving, and California’s coastal cities face distinct challenges due to the sheer number of STRs in their jurisdictions and rising housing prices. In order to maximize affordable accommodation options in the coastal zone, local governments should consider the policies and procedures set forth by the Coastal Act when crafting new STR restrictions. Ultimately, coastal cities should recognize that varying kinds of STR activities impact neighborhoods differently and work to craft rules that do not unduly limit the potential economic benefits afforded by some STR activity to both homeowners and the cities in which they live. Page 196 of 764 (8) 52.3_HUMPHREYS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/24/2019 8:47 PM 338 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52:309 Page 197 of 764 5/24/16 AGENDA, ITEM 3a - ORDINANCE NO. 16-1365 SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ON 5/24/16 AT 4:02 PM Page 198 of 764 Page 199 of 764 Page 200 of 764 Page 201 of 764 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 TDD (415) 597-5885 ATTACHMENT C (Sent Individually via US Mail) December 6, 2016 TO: Coastal Planning/Community Development Directors SUBJECT: Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone Dear Planning/Community Development Director: Your community and others state and nationwide are grappling with the use of private residential areas for short-term overnight accommodations. This practice, commonly referred to as vacation rentals (or short-term rentals), has recently elicited significant controversy over the proper use of private residential stock within residential areas. Although vacation rentals have historically been part of our beach communities for many decades, the more recent introduction of online booking sites has resulted in a surge of vacation rental activity, and has led to an increased focus on how best to regulate these rentals. The Commission has heard a variety of viewpoints on this topic. Some argue that private residences should remain solely for the exclusive use of those who reside there in order to foster neighborhood stability and residential character, as well as to ensure adequate housing stock in the community. Others argue that vacation rentals should be encouraged because they often provide more affordable options for families and other coastal visitors of a wide range of economic backgrounds to enjoy the California coastline. In addition, vacation rentals allow property owners an avenue to use their residence as a source of supplemental income. There are no easy answers to the vexing issues and questions of how best to regulate short-term/vacation rentals. The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance and direction on the appropriate regulatory approach to vacation rentals in your coastal zone areas moving forward. First, please note that vacation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short-term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP. The Commission has experience in this arena, and has helped several communities develop successful LCP vacation rental rules and programs (e.g., certified programs in San Luis Obispo and Page 202 of 764 Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone term Page 2 Santa Cruz Counties going back over a decade; see a summary of such LCP ordinances on our website at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Rentals .pdf ). We suggest that you pay particular attention to the extent to which any such regulations are susceptible to monitoring and enforcement since these programs present some challenges in those regards. I encourage you to contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts. Second, the Commission has not historically supported blanket vacation rental bans under the Coastal Act, and has found such programs in the past not to be consistent with the Coastal Act. In such cases the Commission has found that vacation rental prohibitions unduly limit public recreational access opportunities inconsistent with the Coastal Act. However, in situations where a community already provides an ample supply of vacation rentals and where further proliferation of vacation rentals would impair community character or other coastal resources, restrictions may be appropriate. In any case, we strongly support developing reasonable and balanced regulations that can be tailored to address the specific issues within your community to allow for vacation rentals, while providing appropriate regulation to ensure consistency with applicable laws. We believe that appropriate rules and regulations can address issues and avoid potential problems, and that the end result can be an appropriate balancing of various viewpoints and interests. For example, the Commission has historically supported vacation rental regulations that provide for all of the following:  Limits on the total number of vacation rentals allowed within certain areas (e.g., by neighborhood, by communitywide ratio, etc.).  Limits on the types of housing that can be used as a vacation rental (e.g., disallowing vacation rentals in affordable housing contexts, etc.).  Limits on maximum vacation rental occupancies.  Limits on the amount of time a residential unit can be used as a vacation rental during a given time period.  Requirements for 24-hour management and/or response, whether onsite or within a certain distance of the vacation rental.  Requirements regarding onsite parking, garbage, and noise.  Signage requirements, including posting 24-hour contact information, posting requirements and restrictions within units, and incorporating operational requirements and violation consequences (e.g., forfeit of deposits, etc.) in rental agreements.  Payment of transient occupancy tax (TOT).  Enforcement protocols, including requirements for responding to complaints and enforcing against violations of vacation rental requirements, including providing for revocation of vacation rental permits in certain circumstances. These and/or other provisions may be applicable in your community. We believe that vacation rentals provide an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, especially for larger Page 203 of 764 Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone term Page 3 families and groups and for people of a wide range of economic backgrounds. At the same time we also recognize and understand legitimate community concerns associated with the potential adverse impacts associated with vacation rentals, including with respect to community character and noise and traffic impacts. We also recognize concerns regarding the impact of vacation rentals on local housing stock and affordability. Thus, in our view it is not an ‘all or none’ proposition. Rather, the Commission’s obligation is to work with local governments to accommodate vacation rentals in a way that respects local context. Through application of reasonable enforceable LCP regulations on such rentals, Coastal Act provisions requiring that public recreational access opportunities be maximized can be achieved while also addressing potential concerns and issues. We look forward to working with you and your community to regulate vacation rentals through your LCP in a balanced way that allows for them in a manner that is compatible with community character, including to avoid oversaturation of vacation rentals in any one neighborhood or locale, and that provides these important overnight options for visitors to our coastal areas. These types of LCP programs have proven successful in other communities, and we would suggest that their approach can serve as a model and starting place for your community moving forward. Please contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts. Sincerely, STEVE KINSEY, Chair California Coastal Commission Page 204 of 764 5/10/16 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ON 5-9-16 AT 12:03PM Page 205 of 764 Page 206 of 764 Page 207 of 764 Page 208 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 18 Meeting Date: July 28, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-103 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 83011) AT 911 1ST STREET TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT, A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUMS AND DEVELOP FOUR NEW BUILDINGS FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA-7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 153322, Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines (Urban Infill); and 2. Review the application and consider adopting Resolution No. 25-10 (Attachment 1) approving Precise Development Plan 24-09, Conditional Use Permit 24-09, and recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 83011 to consolidate three existing lots into a single ground lot and a subdivision of 13 condominiums for a new mixed-use development consisting of twelve residential units and a single commercial unit at 911 1st Street, subject to conditions of approval. Executive Summary: On January 11, 2024, the applicant submitted a “Preliminary Application” in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code § 65941.1) for a mixed-use development. The applicant subsequently filed a timely formal application on July 3, 2024. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the application and consider approval of the Master Planning Application, Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and determine the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Page 209 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 18 Background: The project site consists of three interior sloped lots totaling 20,213 square feet on 1st Street, east of Pacific Coast Highway. The site is currently developed with two paved parking lots with ornamental landscaping, including three on-site trees. The site has street access via 1st Street and is located in the Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) Zone and Housing Element Overlay (Attachment 2). The Housing Element Overlay identifies inventory sites that could be developed with housing in order to satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Under the City’s Housing Element, residential and mixed uses are permitted on RHNA sites in the SPA-7 zone. The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial (CC) which allows mixed-use developments. As defined in the General Plan, mixed-use development is “any mixture of land uses on a single parcel, including mixtures of residences with commercial… (PLAN Hermosa page 16)”. Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7), Housing Element Overlay Lot Size 20,213 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: R-1 East: R-P South: R-P West: SPA-7 Surrounding Uses North: Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Commercial The project site was originally under the same ownership of 102 Pacific Coast Highway, located to the west of the site, and was used as parking for the office area of the telecommunications switching station. In 1991, the Planning Commission approved a Parking Plan (P.C. Resolution 91-70) at 102 Pacific Coast Highway to allow the use of excess parking spaces (located at the subject site) for storage of new vehicle inventory for the Land Rover dealership and/or public parking. The Land Rover dealership relocated in 2016 and the subject site was sold to a separate owner. Since 911 1st Street is no Page 210 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 18 longer under the same ownership, this application would be considered independent from 102 Pacific Coast Highway. Previously Proposed Development at 911 1st Street In 2022, the applicant originally submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD), a Zone Change to change the zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential-Professional (RP); a Conditional Use Permit, a Precise Development Plan, and a Tentative Tract Map for a proposed 12-unit condominium project. At its March 15, 2022, meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this item and held a discussion on the following topics: 1. Consistency of the project as it relates to the above-described applications; 2. Clarification and additional information based on the ongoing Housing Element efforts and RHNA allocation numbers; and 3. Staff coordination with applicant on affordability options. The Planning Commission continued the item for the purpose of allowing staff and the applicant to look into these items. At its November 15, 2022 regular meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and recommended City Council adopt and approve the applicant’s request to build a 12 unit-condominium project. At its November 29, 2022 regular meeting, City Council opened the public hearing on the item and held a discussion on the following topics: 1. Proposed development agreement; and 2. Maximizing public benefit. The City Council ultimately denied the application. Currently Proposed Development at 911 1st Street On January 11, 2024, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code § 65941.1) to construct a mixed- use development consisting of 12 residential units. The project includes a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots into a single parcel for 12 residential condominium units within four buildings. On July 3, 2024, the applicant filed for a Formal Application for a Master Planning Application, Precise Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permit, and a Tract Map for a substantially similar project consisting of 12 residential units and a single, 245-square- foot commercial unit, along with a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots into a single ground lot and create 13 condominium units (12 residential units and one commercial unit). Page 211 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 18 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1, applicants must file a formal application for the project within 180 days of filing a preliminary application under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 in order for the Act to apply to the project. The formal application must be substantially similar to the preliminary application, but some variation in the projects is permitted. The timely filing of a formal application within 180 days effectively freezes the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time of the preliminary application, including the status of the Housing Element, such that the project is subject only to those regulations in effect at that time. The applicant filed a Preliminary Application on January 11, 2024, and then filed a timely Formal Application on July 3, 2024, within 180 days of the Preliminary Application. So, the City is only permitted to apply ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect on January 11, 2024 to the project. Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions Meeting Date Description March 15, 2022 Planning Commission (PC) considers application for a GPA, ZC, CUP, PDP, TTM, and Adoption of a Negative Declaration for a 12-unit residential condominium project. PC continued the item. November 15, 2022 PC recommended City Council approve the project. November 29, 2022 City Council denied the application. Ordinances, Policies, and Standards Applicable to the Project The City Council adopted a Housing Element Overlay in November 2023 to create capacity for housing that could satisfy the city’s Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA). To expand the City’s residential capacity PLAN Hermosa was amended to allow residential uses, in a mixed-use development, within the Community Commercial land designation. As of August 1, 2024, the City has a Housing Element which is deemed to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). Associated Zone Text Amendments, such as the City’s Land Value Recapture, were then effectuated. However, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for the project prior to these dates, and pursuant to Government Code, Section 65589.5(o)(1) “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted”. In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) requires the City find a “housing development project” consistent with zoning standards when it conforms to the underlying General Plan, but the zoning standards are inconsistent (Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (h)(2).) A “housing development project” means a use consisting of residential Page 212 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 18 units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing. Because the term “units” is plural, a development must consist of more than one unit to qualify under the HAA. The development can consist of attached or detached units and may occupy more than one parcel, so long as the development is included in the same development application. Government Code, section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(4) also clarifies that a proposed housing development project shall be considered consistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective General Plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the General Plan. Project Consistency with PLAN Hermosa The General Plan Designation for the project site is Community Commercial (“CC”) which allows mixed-use developments, as amended by Ordinance No. 24-7453, and adopted by City Council on September 10, 2024 (Attachment 3). The General Plan defines “Mixed Use” as, “any mixture of land uses on a single parcel, including mixtures of residences with commercial, offices with retail, or visitor accommodation with offices and retail. As distinguished from a single-use land use designation or zone, mixed use refers to an authorized variety of uses for buildings and structures in a particular area.” Additionally, the City’s certified Housing Element provides that the property will have a residential density consistent with the High Density use designation, which allows for 25.1 to 33 dwelling units per acre. As a result, the property is permitted to develop up to 15 residential units. Because the applicant is proposing a total of 12 units along with the 245- square-foot commercial space, the proposed project is considered a “mixed-use development” and aligns with the CC General Plan land use designation. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5 subdivision (j)(4), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zone which is consistent with the general plan; however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. Furthermore, where an inconsistency between the City’s General Plan and zoning standards for the project site exists, the City is authorized to require the development project to comply with objective standards and criteria contained elsewhere in the zoning code which is consistent with the General Plan. The City determined that the Multiple-Family Residential (“R-P”) Zone standards would be the most appropriate zoning standards to apply.1 1 Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Government Code Section 65589.5) Page 213 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 18 Finally, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5 subdivision (j), the City may not deny a mixed-use project (with at least two-thirds of the square footage dedicated to residential uses) that is consistent with the zoning code’s objective standards unless the City can prove that there is a “specific, adverse impact” to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Under the HAA, “specific, adverse impact” is defined narrowly to mean “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B). Project Description The property is currently developed with two paved parking lots on a 0.46-acre sloped lot with three on-site tree, vegetation, concrete masonry unit (“CMU”) block walls located on the property lines and in the middle of the property delineating the two parking lots, and two iron gates which provide access to each parking lot respectively. The lot rises 16 feet across the site and 13 feet along the front. The property is currently in a rundown state with cracked pavement and overgrown vegetation. The proposed project would redevelop two existing parking lots to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 12 condominiums and a 245-square-foot commercial unit. The proposed commercial unit is designed so that it can be used for a variety of neighborhood-serving uses that are permitted in the zone. The proposed project’s residential aspect includes the construction of four buildings containing three condominiums each. The proposed condominiums are three-story, twenty-nine feet in height, with attached two- car garages and roof top decks. The proposed project includes eight floor plan types ranging from 1,500 to1,800 square feet. The proposed project would have seven guest parking spaces, consisting of one American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) designated stall and five standard stalls for the residential units; and one ADA stall for the commercial unit. The proposed residential units would have a modern architectural style utilizing several materials (i.e., metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) and recesses in the façade to break monotony. The proposed project would include 3,658 square feet of landscaped area. Open space will be provided with 2,482 square feet of common open space and a total of 2,400 square feet of private open space—200 square feet per unit. Open space includes landscaped areas, patios, balconies, and roof decks. Additionally, the proposed project will replace the two existing curb cuts with one centered cub cut and driveway approach. The proposed project would also include removal of the three on-site trees, grading, and new Low Impact Development (“LID”) system to ensure sufficient on-site drainage. Proposed off-site improvements include a new driveway, street trees, and new sewer and water connections. Page 214 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 18 The project requires the Planning Commission’s review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the condominium and professional office uses and Precise Development Plan for the purposes of promoting architectural unity, enhancing design, and ensuring neighborhood compatibility of the proposed twelve-unit condominium with 245-square- foot commercial unit. The project also requires the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Tentative Map to consolidate three lots into a single ground lot and subdivision that would create 13-unit condominium units (Attachment 4 and Attachment 5). Discussion: The proposed project is to construct a new mixed-use development consisting of a 245- square-foot commercial unit and 12-unit condominiums consisting of four, three-unit- attached condominium buildings with attached garages and roof decks. Eleven proposed units are designed as three bedrooms and two bathrooms, and one proposed unit is designed as two bedrooms with two bathrooms. All units will have a kitchen, living room, and a two-car garage. The units in the two buildings located on the easterly portion of the property are proposed to have access to roof decks. The proposed project will also have six uncovered residential guest parking spaces and one uncovered commercial guest parking space. The proposed project also included associated site improvements, including new paving and landscaping. Development Standards The following summarizes the Multiple Family Residential (“R-P”) Zone Development Standards. Pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”), any use permitted in the R-P Zone may be permitted in the R-3 zone, subject to the same regulations as provided in said R-3 Zone and subject to Chapter 17.22 for condominiums. Criteria Required Provided Lot Standards Lot Coverage Maximum 65% 46% Height 30 ft maximum 29 ft Yards: Front 10 ft (residential) 0 ft (commercial) 10 ft (residential) 7 ft (commercial) Side 10% of lot width, not less than 3 feet and not to exceed 5 feet (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8’-3 11/16” 8’-3 11/16” Rear 5 ft (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8 ft (residential) 150 (commercial) Parking: Garage Spaces 2 per unit 24 private spaces Residential guest spaces 1 guest space for each two dwelling units 6 guest spaces Page 215 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 18 Criteria Required Provided Commercial spaces 1 space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area 1 space Open Space 300 sq.ft. per unit (3,600 sq.ft.) plus 100 sq.ft. of common open space per unit for development of 5 or more units (1,200 sq. ft) 4,800 sq.ft. total required 2,400 sq.ft. (private open space) 2,482 sq.ft. (common open space) 4,850 sq.ft. total provided Landscape 5% of lot (1,001.88 sq.ft.) 3, 626 sq.ft. Storage: Private storage 200 cubic feet per unit 200 cubic feet per unit Recyclable/waste storage 36 waste bins (3 per unit) 3 per unit Design Minimum unit sizes Two bedrooms 1,250 sq.ft. Three bedrooms 1,400 sq.ft. 1,300 sq.ft. 1,600 3,100 sq.ft. *The project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act. Housing Element Overlay The subject property is located in the Housing Element Sites Inventory Overlay. The purpose of this overlay is to identify sites designated by the City’s Housing Element for satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”). The 2021-2029 Housing Element included this property on the sites inventory list for the development of 12 residential units at an above-moderate level of affordability. Pursuant to the HBMC, if a site is designated as Housing Element (“HE”) is developed at a density that is below the minimum residential density anticipated in the City’s Housing Element, the City must either: 1. Make a finding that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the City’s remaining RHNA for the Housing Element planning period by income category. This finding should include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the City’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level; or 2. Make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for the income category within 180 days or other time frame as established by law, whichever is later. The project site would be developed with 12 above moderate units, which is consistent with the density and level of affordability planned for in the Housing Element and no additional findings are required. Page 216 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 18 Land Value Recapture On January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code approving Zone Text Amendment 23-02-B, adding the Land Value Recapture Program and Amending Criteria for Affordable Housing. The ordinance became effective upon certification of the Housing Element on August 1, 2024. The amendment required sites that are designated as HE Overlay sites and have underlying non-residential zones be subject to the city’s Land Value Recapture Program for affordable housing. Consequently, projects that do not incorporate a minimum percentage of affordable units would be subject to the Land Value Recapture fee. In this case, even though the project site is classified as an HE Overlay site, it is not subject to the relevant requirements. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application on January 11, 2024, followed by a timely formal application on July 3, 2024. This sequence of submissions freezes the regulations that were in effect at the time of the Preliminary Application, including the status of the Housing Element and the zoning code. As a result, the project is only subject to the regulations that were in place at that time. Findings: Pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.180, commercial uses within a mixed-use development shall be as permitted in the underlying commercial zone. The RP zone allows professional services, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. At this time, the applicant does not propose an intended use. Any future business would need to comply with the city’s municipal code. Pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.22.040, all condominiums shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 all projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit must make the following findings to approve the CUP. While the standards for review for a Conditional Use Permit have since changed, the applicable findings for a Conditional Use Permit as of January 11, 2024 were: 1. Distance from existing residential uses. Residential properties are located immediately adjacent to the subject property toward the north, south, and east. The project itself is mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and a small commercial space that would be compatible with the general development pattern in the area. 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking, and its distance from the proposed use. Pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the project requires two off-street parking spaces per residential unit, and one (1) guest parking space per two units. This totals 30 parking spaces needed for the residential component of the project. The commercial unit requires one (1) parking space. The applicant proposes 31 parking spaces on-site, which will include 24 private residential Page 217 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 18 garage parking spaces, six (6) residential guest parking spaces, and one (1) commercial parking space. 3. Location of and distance to churches, schools, hospitals, and public playgrounds. The subject property is located half a mile from the nearest church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Church; school, Our Lady of Guadalupe School; and park, Edith Rodaway Friendship Park. 4. The combination of uses proposed. The applicant proposes a mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and one 245-square-foot commercial unit. The condominiums, consisting of commercial office and residential uses, are compatible with the area given the neighborhood is comprised of residential properties and commercial uses nearby along Pacific Coast Highway. 5. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to assure the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses. The site would be maintained and utilized as residential condominiums and commercial office use which is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed project’s residential aspect includes the construction of four buildings containing three condominiums each. The proposed condominiums are three-story, twenty-nine feet in height, with attached two- car garages and roof top decks. The proposed project includes eight floor plan types ranging from 1,500 to1,800 square feet. A new driveway approach and drive aisle would be created at the center of the property. The proposed project would have seven guest parking spaces, consisting of one American with Disabilities Act (ADA) designated stall and five standard stalls for the residential units; and one ADA stall for the commercial unit. The proposed residential units would have a modern architectural style utilizing several materials (i.e., metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) and recesses in the façade to break monotony The project also proposes mechanical equipment, such as electrical transformers, be located in the middle of the property between buildings to ensure code compliance and prevent visibility from the public right- of-way. The development conforms to the RP zoning standards including parking and open space and would be compatible with the surrounding area. 6. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size of streets serving the area. Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes compared to residential uses, which could negatively impact a neighborhood. However, the project proposes a 245-square-foot commercial unit, which would result in minimal traffic. The Fehr & Peers memo regarding 911 1st Street Condominium Project 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation, dated April 17, 2025 for the project (Attachment 6), found that the project would generate a no more than eight peak hour trips, seven trips during the AM peak hour and eight trips for the PM peak hour. As such, vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would not cause a significant impact on the neighborhood. 7. The proposed exterior signs and décor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area. The proposed architecture would be compatible with the surrounding area as there are existing developments that incorporate a contemporary architectural theme. The project would also be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building Page 218 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 18 configuration is consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. Any exterior signage would require a permit and would comply with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 pertaining to signs. 8. The number of similar establishments or uses within close proximity to the proposed establishment. This finding is not applicable as residential uses are established to the north, east, and south of the subject property. Commercial uses are established to the south of the property. 9. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use. Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts of the project would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Therefore, adverse impacts are not anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary. The commercial space would be permitted for professional office uses and due to the low intensity of the use and location near the southwest portion of the site is compatible with the residential development. 10. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services; The proposed twelve-unit condominium and a single 245-square-foot commercial unit would connect to the existing utilities that service the residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. The submitted plans were preliminary reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building and Safety Division. The project is an infill development and would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure and public services provided to the area. 11. Will the establishment contribute to the concentration of similar outlets in the area. The project is located in an area comprised of residential and commercial zoning designations which are substantially developed based on the assigned zoning designations. The location of this primarily residential development is consistent with the neighborhood. 12. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. Conditions of approval requiring the applicant to comply with the rules and regulation of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, requirements for ground disturbing activities for purposes of protecting cultural resources and ensuring that activities are within acceptable vibration standard. In addition, a condition of approval has been included restricting the use of the commercial area to a professional office. Furthermore, all projects requiring a Precise Development Plan must make findings pursuant to Section 17.58.040 of the Municipal Code. While the standards for review for a Precise Development Plan have since changed, the applicable findings for a Precise Development Plan as of January 11, 2024 were: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects. Residential development is directly to the north, south, and east of the subject site. The proposed 12-unit condominium and a 245-square-foot commercial unit development will blend in with the existing streetscape of multi-family residential uses. Therefore, negative impacts to existing residential uses are not anticipated. Page 219 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 18 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; Based on the proposed development, the R-P zone requires 24 enclosed parking spaces (2 per unit) and one guest space for every two units (six guest spaces total). One parking space for each 245 square feet of commercial floor area is required (one parking space total). The proposed project would offer 24 enclosed parking spaces, six residential guest parking spaces, and one commercial guest space, therefore meeting parking requirements. 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility. The surrounding residential area is comprised of multi-story, multi-family residences with some single-story single-family residences. The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area as it would be a multi-story residential development. The existing properties on 1st Street are developed with four to sixteen dwelling units and are similar in dwelling unit per acre (du/ac) densities. The allowable density for the High Density General Plan Land Use designation is 25.1-33.0 du/ac. The proposed project is consistent with the existing du/ac and proposes 12-units or 25.9 du/ac. 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area. Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes compared to residential uses, which could negatively impact a neighborhood that currently experiences traffic and parking related concerns. However, the commercial unit being proposed (245 square feet) is small and would not result in high traffic demand. The Fehr & Peers Class 911 1st Street Condominium Project 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation technical study, prepared April 2025 for the project (Attachment 6), found that the project would generate a no more than eight peak hour trips, seven trips during the AM peak hour and eight trips for the PM peak hour. As such, vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would not cause a significant impact on the neighborhood. 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area. The proposed project would utilize an architectural style compatible with the surrounding area. Existing developments in the neighborhood incorporate a contemporary architectural style. The proposed project will be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is also consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. The applicant does not propose any signage at this time. Any future signage would be required to obtain a building permit and comply with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools. The surrounding vicinity is residential and commercial. Vehicular access to the site would be provided off 1st Street which is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. The proposed driveway would be centered in the middle of the project, more than 46 feet from the closest residential driveway. 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use. Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts created by the project would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Therefore, adverse impacts are not Page 220 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 18 anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary during construction and there being no long-term ambient noise impacts 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services. The proposed twelve-unit condominium and 245-square-foot commercial unit would connect to the existing utilities that service the residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. The submitted plans were preliminary reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building and Safety Division, and no major concerns were identified. The project is an infill development and would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure and public services provided to the area. 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, Class 32, “In-fill Development.” Furthermore, the technical studies prepared for the project determine that there is no evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions of approval requiring the applicant to comply with the rules and regulation of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, requirements for ground disturbing activities for purposes of protecting cultural resources and ensuring that activities are within acceptable vibration standard. 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. This finding is not applicable. Finally, all projects seeking approval of a tentative tract map must make findings pursuant to Section 16.08.060 of the Municipal Code. 1. The proposed subdivision would not create lots smaller than a forty (40) foot width and having less than four thousand (4,000) square feet. The consolidation of the three lots would create a new 20,137-square-foot parcel with a width of 119’. 2. The proposed lots, after being divided, front on public streets and do not front on any alleys. The subject property would maintain its frontage on 1st Street. 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area. The proposed project would utilize an architectural style compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is consistent with the development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. 4. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone and general plan designation within a three Page 221 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 14 of 18 hundred (300) foot radius; provided, however, that all such lots used in the comparison shall be in the same neighborhood area. The newly proposed lot will consolidate three existing lots into a single parcel 20,137 square feet in size. The newly created lot frontage will be about 119 feet in width. The newly created lot size and lot frontage will not result in a reduction in size or lot frontage of the prevailing lot or neighboring properties. 5. The granting of the subdivision would result in the creation of lots that would be of a size and configuration which would be in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the land use zone in which it is located. The proposed map would combine three lots into a single 20,137-square-foot lot, exceeding the minimum requirement of 4,000-square-foot for the RP zone. The subdivision would create 13 condominiums and would be compliant with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.20. 6. The creation of the proposed lots would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the city; The proposed parcel would assist in the development of 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Element Site Inventory List of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. 7. The tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. The City Council adopted a Housing Element Overlay in November 2023 to create capacity for housing that could satisfy the city’s Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA). To expand the City’s residential capacity, PLAN Hermosa was amended to allow residential uses, in a mixed-use development, within the Community Commercial land designation. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Page 222 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 15 of 18 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seeks to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. The proposed project site is located within walking distance to Pacific Coast Highway, which has numerous commercial business The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of several different materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) to break monotony. Housing Element Issue Area 2 – New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.1. The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the community. Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range The proposed project consists of 12 residential condominium units and one commercial unit. Creating new opportunity for home ownership within the city. The proposed project will be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. Page 223 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 16 of 18 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Issue Area 3 – Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing Policy 3.1 The City will evaluate new development proposals in light of the community's environmental resources, the capacity of public infrastructure to accommodate the projected demand, and the presence of environmental constraints. Policy 3.3 The City will continue to review current zoning practices for consistency with the General Plan as a way to facilitate new mixed-use development within or near the commercial districts. Issue Area 4 – Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of residential development proposals. Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to assist in their understanding of the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the city. The proposed project meets the definition of mixed use as defined in the General Plan. The project site was previously evaluated for appropriateness of housing with the adoption of the Housing Element and corresponding Overlay. The specific project was found eligible for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. The project proposes to develop 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Inventory list of the General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. The project is being processed in a manner with state law ensuring compliance. Infrastructure Element Goal 5. The storm water management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable Policy 5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage This new development is designed to comply with LID standards through the incorporation of an infiltration pit, area drains and grass areas. Page 224 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 17 of 18 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 32 categorically exemption, for In-fill development, as defined in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of a mixed-use development which will a) be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations b) occurs within city limits on a site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, c) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and d) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as detailed in Attachment 6. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highway exist in the vicinity of the project. Public Notification: For the July 28, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 514 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within a 500- foot radius on July 9, 2025. A legal ad was published on July 17, 2025 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC section17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as (Attachment 7). As of the writing of the report, staff has received two written public comments (Attachment 8). Page 225 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 18 of 18 Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 25-10 2. Resolution 24-7453 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 83011 4. Zoning Map with Housing Element Overlay 5. Project Plans 6. Class 32 Exemption 7. Public Notification Package 8. Public Comments Respectfully Submitted by: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 226 of 764 Page1 of 12 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 25-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM NO. 83011) LOCATED AT 911 1ST STREET TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT, A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUMS, AND DEVELOP FOUR NEW BUILDINGS FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY; AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332, CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: WHEREAS, on January 11, 2024, the applicant, Luigi Schiappa, filed an SB 330 Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 subdivision (a) for the construction of twelve residential units at 911 1st Street in the City of Hermosa Beach. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (o)(1), the Preliminary Application effectively “froze” the City’s ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time of submission, including the status of the City’s Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 2024, the applicant filed a Formal Application for a substantially similar project for the construction of twelve residential units and one commercial unit at 911 1st Street in the City of Hermosa Beach (the “project”). The Formal Application was filed within the state prescribed 180-day timeline pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 subdivision (e)(1); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, because the applicant successfully submitted a complete and timely Preliminary Application and Formal Application for the project, the City may only apply the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted, subject to the limitations provided in Section 65589.5 subsection (o); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of July 15, 2025, conducted a public hearing, and considered all testimony and evidence, both oral and written, that was presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 32, “In-fill Development,” as the project will be a) consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, b) occurs within city limits on a site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, c) the project site has no value as habitat for Page 227 of 764 Page2 of 12 endangered, rare, or threatened species, d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and d) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as detailed in Attachment A of the Resolution. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highway exist in the vicinity of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HMBC”) in place on January 11, 2024, at which time the applicant submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1: 1. Distance from existing residential uses. Residential properties are located immediately adjacent to the subject property toward the north, south, and east. The project itself is mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and a small commercial space that would be compatible with the general development pattern in the area. 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking, and its distance from the proposed use. Pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the project requires two (2) off-street parking spaces per residential unit, and one (1) guest parking space per each two units, thus requiring 30 parking spaces for the residential component of the project. The commercial unit requires one (1) guest parking space. The applicant proposes 31 parking spaces, 24 private residential spaces, six (6) residential guest spaces, and one (1) commercial guest space. 3. Location of and distance to churches, schools, hospitals, and public playgrounds. The subject property is located half a mile from the nearest church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Church; school, Our Lady of Guadalupe School; and park, Edith Rodaway Friendship Park. 4. The combination of uses proposed. The applicant proposes a mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and one 245-square-foot commercial unit. The condominiums, consisting of commercial office and residential uses, are compatible with the area given the neighborhood is comprised of residential properties and commercial uses nearby along Pacific Coast Highway. 5. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to assure the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses. Page 228 of 764 Page3 of 12 The site would be maintained and utilized as residential condominiums and commercial office use which is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed project’s residential aspect includes the construction of four buildings containing three condominiums each. The proposed condominiums are three-story, twenty-nine feet in height, with attached two- car garages and roof top decks. The proposed project includes eight floor plan types ranging from 1,500 to1,800 square feet. A new driveway approach and drive aisle would be created at the center of the property. The proposed project would have seven guest parking spaces, consisting of one American with Disabilities Act (ADA) designated stall and five standard stalls for the residential units; and one ADA stall for the commercial unit. The proposed residential units would have a modern architectural style utilizing several materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) and recesses in the façade to break monotony The project also proposes mechanical equipment, such as electrical transformers, located in the middle of the property between buildings to ensure code compliance and prevent visibility from the public right-of-way. The development conforms to the RP zoning standards including parking and open space and would be compatible with the surrounding area. 6. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size of streets serving the area. Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes compared to residential uses, which could negatively impact a neighborhood. However, the project proposes a 245-square-foot commercial unit, which would result in minimal traffic. The Fehr & Peers Class 911 1st Street Condominium Project 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation technical study, prepared April 2025 for the project as detailed in Attachment A of the Resolution, found that the project would generate a no more than eight peak hour trips, seven trips during the AM peak hour and eight trips for the PM peak hour. As such, vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would not cause a significant impact on the neighborhood. 7. The proposed exterior signs and décor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area. The proposed architecture would be compatible with the surrounding area as there are existing developments that incorporate a contemporary architectural theme. The project would also be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. Any exterior signage would require a permit and would comply with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 pertaining to signs. 8. The number of similar establishments or uses within close proximity to the proposed establishment. This finding is not applicable as residential uses are established to the north, east, and south of the subject property. Commercial uses are established to the south of the property. 9. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts of the project would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Therefore, adverse impacts are not anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary. The commercial space would be permitted for professional office use and due to the low intensity of the use and location near the southwest portion of the site is compatible with the residential development. Page 229 of 764 Page4 of 12 10. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services. The proposed twelve-unit condominium and 245 square-foot commercial unit would connect to the existing utilities that service the residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. The submitted plans were preliminary reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building & Safety Division. The project is an infill development and would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure and public services provided to the area. 11. Will the establishment contribute to the concentration of similar outlets in the area. The project is in an area comprised of residential and commercial zoning designations which are substantially developed based on the assigned zoning designations. The location of this primarily residential development is consistent with the neighborhood. 12. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. Conditions of approval requiring the applicant to comply with the rules and regulation of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, requirements for ground disturbing activities for purposes of protecting cultural resources, and ensuring that activities are within acceptable vibration standard. In addition, a condition of approval has been included restricted the use of the commercial area to a professional office. SECTION 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan, pursuant to the review criteria for Precise Development Plans in the HMBC in place on January 11, 2024, at which time the applicant submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects. Residential development is directly to the north, south, and east of the subject site. The proposed 12-unit condominium and 245-square-foot commercial unit development will blend in with the existing streetscape of multi-family residential uses. Therefore, negative impacts to existing residential uses are not anticipated. 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need. Based on the proposed development, the R-P zone requires 24 enclosed parking spaces (2 per unit) and one guest space for every two units (six guest spaces total). One parking space for each 245 square feet of commercial floor area is required (one parking space total). The proposed project would offer 24 enclosed parking spaces, six residential guest parking spaces, and one commercial guest space, therefore meeting parking requirements. 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility. The surrounding residential area is comprised of multi-story, multi-family residences with some single-story single-family residences. The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area as it would be a multi-story residential development. The existing properties on 1st Page 230 of 764 Page5 of 12 Street are developed with four to sixteen dwelling units and are similar in dwelling unit per acre (du/ac) densities. The allowable density for the High Density General Plan Land Use designation is 25.1-33.0 du/ac. The proposed project is consistent with the existing du/ac and proposes 12-units or 25.9 du/ac. 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area. Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes compared to residential uses, which could negatively impact a neighborhood that currently experiences traffic and parking related concerns. However, the commercial unit being proposed (245 square feet) is small and would not result in high traffic demand. The Fehr & Peers Class 911 1st Street Condominium Project 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation technical study, prepared April 2025 for the project as detailed in Attachment A of the Resolution, found that the project would generate a no more than eight peak hour trips, seven trips during the AM peak hour and eight trips for the PM peak hour. As such, vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would not cause a significant impact on the neighborhood. 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area. The proposed project would utilize an architectural style compatible with the surrounding area. Existing developments in the neighborhood incorporate a contemporary architectural style. The proposed project will be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is also consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. The applicant does not propose any signage at this time. Any future signage would be required to obtain a building permit and comply with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools. The surrounding vicinity is residential and commercial. Vehicular access to the site would be provided off 1st Street which is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. The proposed driveway would be centered in the middle of the project more than 46 feet from the closest residential driveway. 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use. Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts created by the project would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Therefore, adverse impacts are not anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary during construction and there being no long-term ambient noise impacts. 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services. The proposed twelve-unit condominium and 245 square-foot commercial unit would connect to the existing utilities that service the residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. The submitted plans were preliminary reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building & Safety Division, and no major concerns were identified. The project is an infill development and would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure and public services provided to the area. 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative Page 231 of 764 Page6 of 12 terms. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, Class 32, “In-fill Development.” Furthermore, the technical studies prepared for the project determine that there is no evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions of approval requiring the applicant to comply with the rules and regulation of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, requirements for ground disturbing activities for purposes of protecting cultural resources, and ensuring that activities are within acceptable vibration standard. 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. This finding is not applicable. SECTION 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Section 16.08.060 of the HBMC: 1. The proposed subdivision would not create lots smaller than a forty (40) foot width and having less than four thousand (4,000) square feet. The consolidation of the three lots will create a new 20,137 square-foot parcel with 119-foot width. 2. The proposed lots, after being divided, front on public streets and do not front on any alleys. The subject property would maintain its frontage on 1st Street. 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area. The proposed project would utilize an architectural style compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, The project would also be consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood. 4. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone and general plan designation within a three hundred (300) foot radius; provided, however, that all such lots used in the comparison shall be in the same neighborhood area. The newly proposed lot will consolidate three existing lots into a single parcel 20,137 square feet in size. The newly created lot frontage will be about 119 feet in width. The newly created lot size and lot frontage will not result in a reduction in size or lot frontage of the prevailing lot or neighboring properties. 5. The granting of the subdivision would result of 4,000reation of lots that would be of a size and configuration which would be in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the land use zone in which it is located. The proposed map would combine three lots into a single 20,137-square-foot lot, exceeding the minimum requirement of 4,000-square-foot for the RP zone. The subdivision would create 13 condominiums and would be compliant with HBMC Chapter 17.20. Page 232 of 764 Page7 of 12 6. The creation of the proposed lots would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the city. The proposed parcel would assist in the development of 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Element Site Inventory list of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. 7. The tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. For purposes of this section "neighborhood area" is defined as the block or group of blocks, within the same zone and general plan designated area, being located within clearly defined common boundaries. Boundaries shall include arterial or collector streets, parks or open space designated areas (such as the "greenbelt"), or significant topographical features such as hillsides. (Ord. 95-1129 §§ 1, 2, 1995; prior code § 29.5-8) Additionally, pursuant to HBMC Section 16.16.020, no land shall be subdivided and developed pursuant to a tentative map for any purpose which is inconsistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The City Council adopted a Housing Element Overlay in November 2023 to create capacity for housing that could satisfy the City’s Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA). To expand the City’s residential capacity, PLAN Hermosa was amended to allow residential uses, in a mixed-use development, within the Community Commercial land designation. SECTION 4. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. In particular, the project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies: General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. The proposed project site is located within walking distance to Pacific Coast Highway, which has numerous commercial business The proposed project would contribute to the Page 233 of 764 Page8 of 12 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seeks to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of several different materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) to break monotony. Housing Element Issue Area 2 – New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.1. The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the community. Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Issue Area 3 – Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing Policy 3.1 The City will evaluate new development proposals in light of the community's environmental resources, the capacity of public infrastructure to accommodate the projected demand, and the presence of environmental constraints. Policy 3.3 The City will continue to review current zoning practices for consistency with the General Plan as a way to facilitate new mixed-use development within or near the commercial districts. Issue Area 4 – Removal of Governmental Constraints to The proposed project consists of 12 residential condominium units and one commercial unit. Creating new opportunity for home ownership within the city. The proposed project will be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. The proposed project meets the definition of mixed use as defined in the General Plan. The project site was previously evaluated for appropriateness of housing with the adoption of the Housing Element and Page 234 of 764 Page9 of 12 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Housing Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of residential development proposals. Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to assist in their understanding of the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the city. corresponding Overlay. The specific project was found eligible for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. The project proposes to develop 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Inventory list of the General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. The project is being processed in a manner with state law ensuring compliance. Infrastructure Element Goal 5. The storm water management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable Policy 5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces. This new development is designed to comply with LID standards through the incorporation of an infiltration pit, area drains and grass areas. Page 235 of 764 Page10 of 12 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Master Planning Application (MPA 24-001), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24-02), and Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-01) to allow the construction of a new three-story mixed-use development consisting of commercial unit, single-family dwelling, and accessory dwelling unit as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 25-09, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: General Conditions 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 15, 2025, in accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC or requirements of this approval. 2. The project shall fully comply with all requirements of the Residential Professional (R- P) Zone as applicable of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to: a. Height, including all required roof-mounted equipment, shall fully comply with the 30-foot height limit. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time of the building plan review, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. b. Architectural treatments and accessory facilities shall be as shown on building elevations, site, and floor plans. 3. The project shall comply with all requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach Building Division, Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the HBMC. 4. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee, Luigi Schiappa, and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department signed affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and Page 236 of 764 Page11 of 12 proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration shall be provided. 6. The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this permit and any law, statute, ordinance, or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. 8. To the extent permitted by law, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by any party against the indemnified parties to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 9. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Planning 10. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for plan review to the Community Development Department. These conditions shall be indexed on the cover sheet and referenced on the site plan. 11. Landscaping: Any proposed onsite landscaping shall comply with HBMC chapter 8.60, Water Efficient Landscaping and HBMC section 8.44.095(F)(1) and must be submitted to the Community Development Department and be approved prior to issuance of the building permit. 12. Street Trees: A minimum of five, 24-inch box size trees shall be provided within the public right-of-way abutting the project site. The tree specie selected shall be consistent with the Public Works Department’s Approved Street Tree List. Page 237 of 764 Page12 of 12 13. Noise: Residential uses shall be separate from commercial uses by sound proofed floors and walls with minimum sound transmission rating as required for condominiums as set forth in Chapter 17.22. Commercial uses hours of operations shall be limited where appropriate so that residents are not exposed to offensive noise or activity. 14. Walls/Fences: All walls, or fences, including the visible surface of retaining walls, shall be constructed of, or treated with, an aesthetically pleasing material approved by the Community Development Director, including, but not limited to, masonry block designed and manufactured to be exposed (e.g., split-face, scored, textured or striated); surface treated masonry (e.g. stucco or paint); wrought iron or simulated wrought iron; brick; wood; stucco or paint. Plain gray untreated block not designed or manufactured to be exposed and chain link fences are prohibited (HBMC Section 17.46.130.E). 15. Security: Entrances for residences shall be separate from non-residential uses and be independently accessible to pedestrian and parking areas. 16. Lighting: Outdoor lighting and lighting for signs associated with commercial uses designed so as not to adversely impact residences. No flashing, blinking, or high- intensity lighting. Adequate lighting to illuminate parking areas and corridors to access parking and public sidewalk. Lighting for signs may only be illuminated during business hours. 17. Lighting: All lighting shall be directed downward, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) securing lighting and porch lights. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties. 18. Signs: Signs shall be limited to the commercial space frontage pursuant to the requirements of HBMC Chapter 17.50, Signs. 19. Limitations on hours of operation: The hours of operation for any commercial use shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 20. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney in conformance with Section 17.22.050 and conditions of this approval prior to Final Map approval. a. Proof of recordation of approved CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. b. All required parking spaces shall remain available for parking and shall not be used for storage or other purposes c. Storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles shall not be allowed. d. Owner shall disclose separately and in writing upon sale or rental of the subject property that it is a mixed-use development and permits commercial professional office uses and residential uses. Page 238 of 764 Page13 of 12 e. The commercial tenant shall maintain a commercial business license as required by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 21. All proposed mechanical equipment shall located outside of required setbacks in accordance with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. All mechanical equipment must be screened from public view subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 22. Upon plan check submittal, transformers shall be shown to be located behind residential setback requirements in accordance with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 23. Applicant shall receive approval from the Public Works department prior to City Council approval of a Final Map. 24. Prior to filing for approval of the Final Map, applicant shall pay the City of Hermosa Beach Park and Recreation Area Dedication fees per unit in lieu of on-site parkland dedication pursuant to HBMC Chapter 16.12 25. Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: • All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. • The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. • All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. • All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. • General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. • Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off. 26. In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location. 27. The project shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings. 28. Construction projects within the city shall install odor-reducing equipment in Page 239 of 764 Page14 of 12 accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138. 29. Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment of SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD SOON funds. 30. As a standard condition of approval for future development projects implemented under PLAN Hermosa that involve ground disturbance or excavation: • For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits, a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities. • If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. Environmental Services 31. The trash container storage area for the residential portion of the project should be sized to accommodate three containers, each 65-gallons in capacity (typical residential-style wheeled carts). This would allow adequate service for all three streams of waste (trash, recycling and organics – i.e., black, blue and green carts). This will provide sufficient service options as required by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and State laws. 32. Additionally, for the containers identified for the commercial space, please re-label them to indicate trash, recycling and organics service (presumably T, R, O). Locations for only one of each container (three total) need to be identified. Access to these carts should also be considered as they will either need to be rolled out to the curb for regular service or subscribed to “walk out” service through the waste hauler (Athens Services). Building At the time of building and safety plan check submittal, plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following: 33. Compliance with 2022 Codes: Ensure all plans follow the currently adopted 2022 codes. Page 240 of 764 Page15 of 12 34. Submit all Architectural and Structural Plans for plan review and approval and acquire all required permits, in compliance with the code in place at submittal. 35. Utilities: Provide Energy Calculations and contact the local utility providers to account for utility equipment that may need to be located on the property (transformers, etc.) 36. Must meet all ADA requirements to include parking, path of travel, restrooms, etc. 37. The installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems/Fire Alarms will be required. Please confirm with your design professional and reference the currently adopted 2020 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, Section 1103.5. Separate submittals will be required to Los Angeles County directly. 38. Energy/Electrification Requirements: Must meet the current requirements for Solar and electrification requirements that relate to electric appliance requirements and EV ready requirements. Public Works 39. Applicant must read and follow the instructions in the Parkway Tree permit Request document if they wish to plant or remove any parkway tree in the Right-of-Way. Please provide a Parkway Tree Permit Request Form, provided on the City website. 40. No new walls or foundation footing will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public right-of-way. 41. A Residential Encroachment permit is required for non-confirming structures located over or within the public right-of-way. 42. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way shall commence unless and until all necessary permits are attained from the Public Works Department including, if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit. 43. If any owner, lessee or agent or any other person or persons constructing or arranging for the construction of: (a) any commercial or industrial building or residential dwelling structure, or addition thereto, exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, or (b) any accessory building greater than fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the existing main building, shall provide for the construction of Portland cement concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, street pavement between the gutter and center line of the street fronting the property, and pavement between the edge of pavement and center line of any alley adjoining the property, in accordance with the standard specifications of the City Engineer. (Ord. 02-1219, §1, May 2002). 44. If Public Works Improvements are required, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, an approved civil engineering plan(s) prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by Public Works, addressing grading, undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and Public Works specifications, shall be filed with the Community Development Department. 45. If Public Works Improvements are required, civil engineering plans shall include Page 241 of 764 Page16 of 12 adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on street. 46. If Public Works Improvements are required, sewer manhole rim/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. 47. If Public Works Improvements are required, sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the permittee plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 48. If Public Works Improvements are required, the project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Ch. 8.44). The project must implement Low Impact Development Standards and submit calculations and documents (i.e. Appendix D and E of the Storm Water LID Guidelines) at time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan. Fire 49. A digital copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review and approval prior to recordation. Submittal shall be provided through EPIC-LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development–City Request–Final Map (Tract/Parcel). 50. The required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be indicated on the Final Map as “Private Driveway and Fire Lane” with the widths clearly depicted. A common or reciprocal access note for the multiple units sharing the driveway/fire lane shall be clearly indicated on the Final Map or submit a copy of Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) document to the fire department’s Land Development Unit for review and acceptance prior to Final Map clearance. 51. A digital copy of the Water Plans for the required public fire hydrant(s) shall be submitted to the Fire Department’s Land Development Unit for review and approval. Provide written verification stating the required public fire hydrants have been bonded for in lieu of installation. Submittal shall be provided through EPIC-LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development—City Request—Water Plan & System Review. 52. Install 1 public fire hydrant on the Easterly property line or as noted on the Tentative Map/Site Plan approved by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. All fire hydrants shall measure 6” X 4” X 2-1/2” brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Fire Code 501.4 SECTION 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council for the City of Hermosa Beach approve Tentative Tract Map No. 83011 to consolidate three existing lots into a single ground lot and a subdivision of 13 condominiums for a new mixed-use development consisting of twelve residential units and 245-square-foot commercial unit at 911 1st Street, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 25-09. Page 242 of 764 Page17 of 12 SECTION 6. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after exhaustion of any available administrative remedies, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. The Hermosa Beach City Council may on its own initiative review all actions of the Planning Commission. If the City Council does not initiate review of this decision as set forth in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.52.040, this decision will become final. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on the 28th of July, 2025. ______________________________________________________________________________________ VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution PC 25-10 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of July 28, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chair Alison Becker, Secretary Date Page 243 of 764 Page18 of 12 Attachment A Page 244 of 764 1 911 FIRST STREET PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located at 911 1st Street, consists of three sloped lots totaling 0.46-acres. Currently, the site is currently developed as two parking lots and features ornamental vegetation including three trees. It also includes concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls along the property perimeter and in the middle, dividing the two parking lots. There are two iron gates that provide vehicle access to each parking lot. The site has a notable slope, rising approximately 16 feet from east to west along the property frontage, and it also slopes upward from south to north, increasing in height by about five feet. The project proposes to develop the site to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and a 245-square-foot commercial unit within four, three-story (29’), buildings with an attached two-car garage for each residential unit. The project includes eight plan types ranging in size from 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet. The project would have seven guest parking spaces, consisting of one American with Disabilities Act (ADA) stall and five standard stalls for the residential units; and one ADA stall for the commercial unit. Residential units would have a modern architectural style utilizing several materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) and recesses in the façade to break up massing. The project proposes a landscaped area of 3,658 square feet. This includes 2,482 square feet of common open space and 2,400 square feet of private open space. Each unit will have access to 200 square feet of private open space. In addition, the project will eliminate the two existing curb cuts and construct a single curb cut and driveway approach at the middle of the property. The project will also involve the removal of three on-site trees, grading, and the installation of a new Low Impact Development (LID) system to manage on-site drainage effectively. Additionally, off- site improvements will include a new driveway approach, street trees, and new sewer and water connections. The project requires the Planning Commission’s review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 13 condominiums and professional office use and Precise Development Plan for the purposes of promoting architectural unity, enhancing design, and ensuring neighborhood compatibility of the proposed twelve-unit condominium with 245-square-foot commercial unit. Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to consolidate three lots into a single ground lot and create a 13-unit condominium subdivision including 12 residential units and one commercial unit. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT The 911 First Street Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project is exempt in accordance with Section 15332 which addresses in-fill development projects. Attachment A Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-10 Page 245 of 764 2 15332 – IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below. A brief explanation is given to support the finding that the project meets each of the five conditions, (a) through (e). (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial (CC) which identifies mixed- use developments as an appropriate land use (PLAN Hermosa, page 76 as amended by City Council Resolution No. 24-7453). As defined in the General Plan a mixed-use development is defined as, “Any mixture of land uses on a single parcel, including mixtures of residences with commercial, offices with retail, or visitor accommodation with offices and retail. As distinguished from a single-use land use designation or zone, mixed use refers to an authorized variety of uses for buildings and structures in a particular area.” (PLAN Hermosa, page 16). The project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan as detailed in the table below. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seeks to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. The proposed project site is located within walking distance to Pacific Coast Highway, which has numerous commercial business The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Page 246 of 764 3 The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of several different materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) to break monotony. Housing Element Issue Area 2 – New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.1 The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the community. Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Issue Area 3 – Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing Issue Area 4 – Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of residential development proposals. Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to assist in their understanding of the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the city. The proposed project consists of 12 residential condominium units and one commercial unit. Creating new opportunity for home ownership within the city. The proposed project will be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. The proposed project meets the definition of mixed use as defined in the General Plan. The project proposes to develop 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Inventory list of the General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. The project is being processed in a manner with state law ensuring Infrastructure Element Page 247 of 764 4 Goal 5. The storm water management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable Policy 5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces. This new development is designed to comply with LID standards through the incorporation of an infiltration pit, area drains and grass areas. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. The zoning designation for the site is Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7), Housing Element Overlay. Pursuant to Government Code section 655895, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project is inconsistent with the general plan. The local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zone which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. Based on state law staff determined that the multiple-family residential zone standards, Residential (RP), are the appropriate development standards with which the project must comply1. The following 1 In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(1). The project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Page 248 of 764 5 summarizes the Multiple Family Residential (R-P) Zone Development Standards. Pursuant with HBMC any use permitted in the R-P Zone may be permitted in the R-3 zone, subject to the same regulations as provided in said R-3 Zone and subject to Chapter 17.22 for condominiums. Criteria Required Provided Lot Standards Lot Coverage Maximum 65% 46% Height 30 ft maximum 29 ft Yards: Front 10 ft (residential) 0 ft (commercial) 10 ft (residential) 7 ft (commercial) Side 10% of lot width, not less than 3 feet and not to exceed 5 feet (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8’-3 11/16” 8’-3 11/16” Rear 5 ft (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8 ft (residential) 150 (commercial) Parking: Garage Spaces 2 per unitt 24 private spaces Residential guest spaces 1 guest space for each two dwelling units 6 guest spaces Commercial spaces 1 space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area 1 space Open Space 300 sq.ft. per unit (3,600 sq.ft.) plus 100 sq.ft. of common open space per unit for development of 5 or more units (1,200 sq. ft) 4,800 sq.ft. total required 4,882 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. (private open space) 2,450 sq.ft. (common open space) Landscape 5% of lot (1,001.88 sq.ft.) 3, 626 sq.ft. Storage: Private storage 200 cubic feet per unit 200 cubic feet per unit Recyclable/waste storage 36 waste bins (3 per unit) 3 per unit Design Minimum unit sizes Two bedrooms 1,250 Three bedrooms 1,400 1,300 sq.ft. 1,600 -3,100 sq.ft. *The project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act when a timely formal application is filed. Accountability Act when a timely formal application is filed. A preliminary application was submitted to the City on January 23, 2024 and filed a formal application on July 3, 2024. Page 249 of 764 6 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is on a site of 0.46 acres located in a mixed commercial and residential area in the city of Hermosa Beach, California, with a commercial development (Frontier Communications) adjacent to the site to the west and residential housing on adjacent properties to the north, east and south. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site has previously been developed. The site is covered with an asphalt surface with ornamental landscaping and trees and has recently been used as an automobile parking lot. The project site has limited value for habitat and is not known to provide habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. As part of the City’s standard procedures, the street tree removals will be subject to review and approval by either the Public Works Commission or Public Works Director in accordance with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Traffic CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for environmental analysis and prescribes criteria for analyzing VMT impacts. Analysis of the proposed project’s VMT impact utilizes the screening thresholds developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, 2018), specifically the screening threshold of small projects which supports a finding that “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact” (OPR, 2018, Page 12). The First Street Project is estimated to generate 89 average daily trips (based on trip generation rates of single-family attached and general office land use categories per the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition). Because the project’s 89 daily trips are well below the 110 trips per day screening threshold, the project can be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Noise and Vibration The project will generate temporary construction noise. The noisiest event would likely be site preparation when heavy equipment would be used. The project applicant anticipates the use of a 315 excavator and a 953 track loader along with haul trucks to export earth material. These pieces of equipment are diesel fueled and therefore generate noise above ambient levels. They can also generate ground borne vibration, though the magnitude of vibration anticipated from these machines is less than earth moving equipment and other machinery that would be required for larger projects. Construction activities that produce extremely high levels of noise or vibration, such as jackhammers and pile driving, would not be used. The site preparation phase is expected to last 4 weeks, during which approximately 1,000 to 1,750 cubic yards of earth material would Landscape 5% (1,001.88 sq. ft.) 3,658 sq.ft. AThe project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act. Page 250 of 764 7 be excavated and exported from the site. The export of soil will require from 70 to 130 truckloads over the four-week period. Haul trucks and construction worker vehicles will add to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity on First Street and on other local and regional roadways as vehicles come and go from the site. However, this temporary increase in roadway noise will not be great enough to significantly increase ambient roadway noise levels over current levels which are less than 60 dB CNEL (Plan Hermosa, Figure 6.9, Existing Noise Contours) During the remaining 10 months of the construction period the subsequent construction activities will generate noise temporarily at various levels depending on the activity. Projected Construction Noise Location Phase Construction Noise Level Adjacent Residential Properties Demolition 85.1 Grading 83.0 Building 82.1 Paving 75.0 Architectural Coatings 72.4 Source: MDA, 2025a. The magnitude of noise generated by these actions is not great enough to violate local standards, provided such activity complies with the workday and work hour restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Noise standards applied to land use and development projects consider the duration of noise (averaging the noise level over time) along with the volume of the noise event. The short duration of noise events reduces the overall effect of noise on the environment. Although there are residences immediately adjacent to the site to the east and north and other residences in the immediate neighborhood on First Street, the noise impact of the construction phase would affect these sensitive land uses temporarily for a brief period of time. The City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 8.24.050) limits construction and demolition hours to 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project’s conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any significant adverse impacts related to noise during the construction phase. The City’s General Plan identifies noise levels compatible for residential land use. The project site is well within the acceptable range of ambient noise (See PLAN Hermosa Table 6.4 and Figures 6.9 and 6.10). Under existing conditions, the site is subject to noise from traffic on First Street. However, traffic noise is not significant enough to adversely impact the proposed land use. This is true for current traffic levels as well as for future traffic conditions. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project is very small and not great enough to result in a measurable increase in roadway noise (see traffic discussion above). An increase in traffic volumes of at least 26 percent is necessary to cause a 1 dB increase in noise. (An increase of 1 dB is well below the level of increase in noise detectable by the human ear; a 3 dB increase is usually applied as the threshold level at which noise might be considered to have an impact. Page 251 of 764 8 (MDA, May 2025a)) The project’s estimated increase in traffic volumes of 89 trips per day would not approach a 26 percent increase over current traffic volumes. The proposed residential and commercial uses will have no long-term effect that would increase the exposure of persons using the site to adverse noise. The project would not result in any significant effects related to noise. The use of some diesel-powered equipment (excavator, loader and haul trucks) during site preparation has the potential to generate ground borne vibration on-site. A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.5 in/sec is considered to be the threshold level for risk of damage to the residential structures adjacent to the project site. Based on the distance to neighboring structures and the type of heavy equipment that might be used, the worst-case level of vibration occurring during construction at the project site is estimated to be 0.471, considerably below the risk threshold of 0.5. None of the construction activities or equipment that will be used on-site are expected to generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.5 threshold. The project will not result in any significant effects related to ground borne vibration. (MDA, May 2025) Air Quality Due to the project’s relatively small scale the project would not generate sufficient air pollutant emissions to result in a significant impact related to regional air quality thresholds, local significance thresholds, or greenhouse gas emissions, during either the construction phase, the operational (post-construction) phase, or from both phases combined. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land use Designation (and therefore the Southern California Air Quality Management Plan) and other plans applicable to regional planning of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Projected construction and operational emissions of the project are presented in the tables on the following page (MDA, 2025b.) Projected Construction Emissions and Thresholds Page 252 of 764 9 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Site2 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 1.19 0.30 Off-Site3 0.05 1.07 0.97 0.01 0.35 0.10 Total 0.52 5.40 6.62 0.02 0.20 0.06 Grading On-Site2 1.09 10.10 10.00 0.02 2.56 1.44 Off-Site3 0.16 11.04 4.62 0.06 2.53 0.76 Total 1.25 21.14 14.62 0.08 5.09 2.20 Building Construction On-Site2 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 Off-Site3 0.04 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.03 Total 0.56 5.23 7.47 0.01 0.34 0.23 Paving On-Site2 0.65 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 0.16 Off-Site3 0.06 0.26 1.05 0.00 0.28 0.06 Total 0.71 4.50 6.35 0.01 0.46 0.22 Architectural Coating On-Site2 26.02 0.86 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 Off-Site3 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total 26.03 0.87 1.23 0.00 0.04 0.03 Total of overlapping phases4 26.74 5.37 7.58 0.01 0.50 0.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. Projected Operational Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.53 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources4 0.31 0.24 2.50 0.01 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.84 0.32 3.21 0.01 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. The project would not have a significant effect on air quality. (MDA, April 2025) Water Quality Page 253 of 764 10 The project would comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements through its compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which in turn implement the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit. The LID Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15-1351 codifed as Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.44 Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations) requires the project to “control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area” and by “controlling runoff through infiltration, bio retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. Project plans include a storm water mitigation plan (SWMP) to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. All BMPs would meet performance standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. These requirements not only ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, they also are effective in mitigating the project’s water quality impacts to a level that is less than a significant impact. The redeveloped site would consist of 17,667 square feet of impervious surface, comprising 88 percent of the site. Under current conditions the site is nearly 100% impermeable surfaces. The project would provide 2,632 square feet of permeable surface area in the form of landscaping and vegetation, resulting in an increase in permeable surface area over existing conditions. The water quality management plan proposes the onsite stormwater will be collected and treated by 27 tanks in addition to the 2,471 square feet of pervious surface. The project’s LID Plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that it complies with the LID Ordinance and other applicable requirements. The project will have no significant effect on water quality. (e) The site can be served by all required utilities and public services. The site can be readily served by all required utilities and public services (police, fire, schools), due to the history of its prior use and its urban setting. The project site is in an urbanized location, surrounded by development. The site was previously occupied by single-family residences from approximately 1927 until 1966 when the residential structures were demolished, and a parking lot was developed (Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). The site is currently developed with two parking lots. The 12-unit project is of a relatively small scale and therefore would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities except for minor connections to the site from existing local facilities which would not result in significant environmental effects. Exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Section 15300.2) None of the exceptions identified in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. (a) Location The project is not in a particularly sensitive environment, nor would it have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern that is designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact There are no successive projects of the same type in the same place, which over time would result in a significant cumulative impact. (c) Significant Effect Page 254 of 764 11 There are no unusual circumstances that would result in a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. (d) Scenic Highways The project is not within or near a State Scenic Highway. (e) Hazardous Waste Site The project site is not a hazardous waste site and is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code (See Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). (f) Historical Resources There are no historical resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. References Fehr & Peers, April 17, 2025. 911 1st Street Condominium Project Class 32 Exemption Transportation Evaluation Leymaster Environmental Consulting, November 2016. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report. MDA, May 2025a. Letter report. 911 First Street, Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. MDA, May 2025b. Letter report. 911 First Street, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Assessment. OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Page 255 of 764 100 Oceangate | Suite 1425 | Long Beach, CA 90802 | (562) 294-5848 | www.fehrandpeers.com Draft Memorandum Date: April 17, 2025 To: Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach From: Michael Kennedy, AICP, Fehr & Peers Subject: 911 1st Street Condominium Project Class 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation LB25-0142 Project Description The proposed Project is located on 911 1st Street within the City of Hermosa Beach, mid-block between Pacific Coast Highway and Barney Court. The site is currently developed as surface parking and is adjacent to multi-family residential uses immediately to the north, east, and south. The parcel immediately to the west is zoned Commercial. Vehicle access is provided from 1st Street. The project proposes a small office component of 245 square feet and 12 dwelling units. Each attached townhome would have two garaged parking spaces (24 total). A total of seven additional surface parking spaces would be provided for guest parking, with a total of 31 off- street parking spaces provided within the proposed Project. Class 32 Exemption Criteria The proposed Project is characterized as in-fill development and is seeking a Class 32 categorical exemption as identified in CEQA Guideline Section 15332. This exemption is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas by streamlining environmental review for projects that are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements and do not result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. The Project must meet all the following criteria to demonstrate the applicability of Class 32 exemptions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Page 256 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 2 of 5 (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Of the above criteria, only Criterion D, marked in bold above, is applicable to traffic and transportation and is evaluated in detail below. Evaluation of Transportation Related Criterion d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. In order to evaluate the potential traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project, a daily and peak hour trip generation estimate was prepared using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Given that the proposed Project consists of attached townhome units, the Single-Family Attached Housing ITE land use category was determined to be the most applicable. The 245 square feet ancillary commercial space is envisioned to be used as General Office and so was analyzed using that ITE land use category. As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 89 daily trips, seven AM peak hour trips, and eight PM peak hour trips. In order to evaluate whether this modest level of vehicle trips would result in a significant effect related to traffic/transportation, the proposed Project trip generation estimates for the proposed Project was qualitatively evaluated based on the impact findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in August 2017. The PLAN Hermosa EIR applied the threshold of significance for transportation impacts based on project-related change in volume to capacity (v/c) or delay, and intersection level of service (LOS), which were the CEQA transportation impact metrics in effect at the time that EIR was prepared. A total of 13 study intersections were analyzed using peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. The closest study intersection to the proposed Project that was analyzed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR is Pacific Coast Highway & 2nd Street. That intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C in 20401. The addition of the proposed Project peak hour trips to this intersection (no more than eight peak hour trips, likely less because that would require 100% of proposed Project traffic to always travel northbound on Pacific Coast Highway), would not cause the intersection to operate worse than LOS C, and would have a negligible effect on traffic at that location. Further from that intersection, proposed Project trips would further dissipate, as they are distributed 1 City of Hermosa Beach, PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2016, Page 4.14-35. Accessed 4/17/25 from https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/community-development/plan- hermosa/review-the-latest-documents Page 257 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 3 of 5 through the roadway network, and would have little to no effect on traffic conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project meets this criterion and is considered eligible for the Class 32 exemption. The PLAN Hermosa EIR included an analysis of VMT for informational purposes but did not determine the significance of transportation impacts because it was not required at the time. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the State Resources Agency added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. It states that vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA effective July 1, 2020. While not used for the determination of impact significance for PLAN Hermosa, VMT is discussed below as it is related to Cumulative Impacts. Evaluation of Potential Exceptions Related to Transportation In addition to the eligibility criteria, the Class 32 exemption also identifies potential exceptions for a project to be able to utilize a Class 32 exemption relevant to traffic. They are discussed in the following section: (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. After the adoption of PLAN Hermosa and the certification of its EIR, the City prepared an updated Housing Element and determined that rezoning would be necessary to accommodate the City’s allocated housing units under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. An addendum to the PLAN Hermosa EIR was prepared in 2023 (“Addendum Project”) which evaluated the rezoning changes to implement the RHNA, and determined that there were no new or substantially more severe transportation impacts due to the rezoning based on the methodologies and thresholds of significance from the PLAN Hermosa EIR. While the Addendum Project resulted in minor changes to forecast traffic volumes, the addition of the proposed Project traffic with the addition of development associated with the Addendum Project would not be expected to contribute to a cumulative impact. The PLAN Hermosa EIR included an analysis of VMT for informational purposes but did not determine the significance of transportation impacts on that basis because it was not required at the time. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the State Resources Agency added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. It states that vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA effective July 1, 2020. As an additional confirmation of the eligibility of the proposed Project to qualify for the Class 32 exemption, Fehr & Peers reviewed the travel demand model land use inputs used for the PLAN Hermosa Addendum Project to determine whether the proposed Project would fit within the analyzed citywide growth. With the buildout of the Addendum Project in 2040, the City is estimated to have a population of approximately 21,000, a growth of 3,000 from the 2015 Page 258 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 4 of 5 baseline used for the PLAN Hermosa EIR2. Using the average household size for the City of Hermosa Beach of 2.15 persons per household3 from the United States Census, the 12 dwelling units of the proposed Project would result in a population of approximately 26 people. Adding the proposed General Office use (likely accommodating only one or two jobs) would add a negligible amount to this increase of jobs and population. Thus, the proposed Project represents less than 1% of the estimated per capita (population+employment) growth within the City and can be considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions for the Addendum Project. Given this limited amount of growth, the proposed Project would have a negligible cumulative effect on VMT per capita. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances related to transportation associated with the proposed Project. It is primarily residential with a small general office use, both of which are typical land uses within the City. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. There are no designated California State Scenic Highways within the City of Hermosa Beach, and the proposed Project would have no effect on highways other than for generating a negligible amount of vehicle traffic on roadways. Conclusion The proposed Project meets the criterion related to traffic to be considered eligible for a Class 32 categorial exemption in that it would not have a significant effect related to traffic. Additionally, the traffic-related potential exceptions to this determination listed for Class 32 are not applicable to the proposed Project, so it is considered eligible for Class 32 as it relates to traffic and transportation. 2 Fehr & Peers, Transportation Impact Analysis Consistency Finding for the Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element-Related Rezoning, July, 2023. 3 United States Census, Quick Facts, Hermosa Beach City, California. Accessed 4/17/25 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hermosabeachcitycalifornia/PST045224 Page 259 of 764 Rate % In % Out Rate % In % Out In Out Total In Out TotalSingle Family Attached Housing 215 12DU17.2 0.48 25% 75% 0.57 59% 41% 86246437General Office 710 0.245 KSF 10.84 1.52 88% 12% 1.44 17% 83%310101189347448Daily TripsAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourTable 13. Given the size of the proposed Project's General Office component, with rounding, the resulting peak hour trips would be zero. However for the purposes of a conservative analysis, 1 of the 3 daily trips is assumed to occur in each peak hour.Notes:1. KSF = 1,000 square feet, DUs = Dwelling Units2. Sources: Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) 2021)Project Trips Total911 1st Street Condominium Project, City of Hermosa Beach Trip Generation EstimatesLand UseITE Land CodeQuantity UnitTrip Generation Rates23Estimated Trip GenerationDaily RateAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourPage 260 of 764 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 MD Acoustics, LLC 1 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx www.mdacoustics.com May 6, 2025 Mr. Ed Almanza Ed Almanza & Associates Subject: 911 1st St Hermosa Beach – Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment – City of Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Mr. Almanza: MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a construction noise and vibration impact assessment for the proposed Multi-Family Residential Development project located at 911 1st Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The Project has filed for a Categorical 32 Exemption (Cat32) in which an “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332) exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements. This class is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. It may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, and/or mixed-use projects. This noise assessment intends to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with applicable noise regulations and lack of significant noise impacts. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A. 1.0 Project Description and Assessment Overview Land zoning surrounding the site includes Single-Family Residential to the north, Residential Professional to the east and south, and Specific Plan Area to the west. The Project is not within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. The proposed Project location is in Exhibit A. The Project proposes the construction of a new high-density residential 3-story building containing twelve (12) condominium units and a 245-square-foot general office building on an approximately 0.46-acre site. Each residential unit will include a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The site plan for the proposed Project is in Exhibit B. 2.0 Local Acoustical Requirements and CEQA Guidelines The City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code specifies the following relating to construction noise and vibration requirements within the Noise Ordinance: Section 8.24.030 Prohibited noise – General standard Unless otherwise permitted in this chapter, no person shall make, permit to be made or cause to suffer any noises, sounds or vibrations that in view of the totality of the circumstances are so loud, prolonged and Page 261 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 2 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx harsh as to be physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and to cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity. When considering whether a noise, sound or vibration is unreasonable within the meaning of this section, the following factors shall be taken into consideration: A. The volume and intensity of the noise, particularly as it is experienced within a residence or place of business; B. Whether the noise is prolonged and continuous; C. How the noise contrasts with the ambient noise level; D. The proximity of the noise source to residential and commercial uses; E. The time of day; and F. The anticipated duration of the noise. (Ord. 07-1285 §2, 2007) Section 8.24.050 Construction A. Permissible hours of construction. All construction shall be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except national holidays), and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction activity is prohibited at all other hours and on Sundays and national holidays. For purposes of this section, "construction" or "construction activity" shall include site preparation, demolition, grading, excavation, and the erection, improvement, remodeling or repair of structures, including operation of equipment or machinery and the delivery of materials associated with those activities. B. Special circumstances. The building official may grant an exception to the provisions of this section in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Upon receipt of an application in writing therefore stating the reasons for the request and the facts upon which such reasons are based, the building official may grant such permission if he or she finds that: 1. The work proposed to be done is in the public interest; or 2. Unusual hardship, injustice or unreasonable delay would result from adherence to the hours and days specified above. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the building official may forthwith appeal to the city council. Construction, repair or excavation which qualifies as emergency work and which must be accomplished during prohibited hours during such hours as the offices of the city are closed or where such necessity requires immediate action prior to the time at which it would be possible to obtain the building official approval, may be performed provided that the persons doing such construction, repair or excavation obtain a permit therefor within one day after the office of the building official is first opened subsequent to the making of such construction, repair or excavation C. Utilities exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to construction, repair or excavation by a public utility which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and where such work is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare and where such necessity makes it necessary to construct, repair or excavate during the prohibited hours. D. City exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to public works which are authorized by the City. Page 262 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 3 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx E. Owner exemption. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this section, a property owner may engage in construction activity on his or her own property on Sundays and national holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (Ord. 02-1223 §2, Oct. 2002) According to CEQA guidelines, the Project would have a potential impact if it resulted in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.0 Traffic Noise Impact 3.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Model The traffic noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model, together with several key construction parameters. Key input speed, site conditions, average daily traffic (ADT), and vehicle mix data. The modeling does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Existing traffic counts were taken from the PLAN Hermosa EIR. The closest study intersection to the proposed Project that was analyzed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR is Pacific Coast Highway & 2nd Street. 2nd Street traffic volumes were used to represent existing volumes along 1st Street because of their proximity and similar characteristics. The traffic noise model indicated that the existing noise level due to 1st Street traffic is 56 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline. The calculated traffic noise level excludes any existing or future walls. See Appendix C. 3.2 Traffic Noise Model Projections Traffic noise along 1st Street will be the main source of noise impacting the Project site and the surrounding area. The Project will generate approximately 89 daily trips, per the Project’s trip generation prepared by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix C). It takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear an audible difference, which would occur with a doubling of traffic. The Project is anticipated to increase the existing noise level by 0.1 dB due to an increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 4.0 Construction Noise Impact 4.1 FHWA Construction Noise Model The construction noise analysis utilizes the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model methodology, together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, Page 263 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 4 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. The Project was analyzed based on the different construction phases. The FHWA has compiled data regarding the noise-generated characteristics of typical construction activities and is presented in Table 2. Table 2: RCNM Measured Noise Emission Reference Levels1 Type Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 90 Dozer 82 Grader 85 Tractor 84 Roller 80 Crane 81 Man Lift 75 Concrete Mixer Truck 79 Air Compressor 78 Notes: 1 Referenced Noise Levels from the FHWA RCNM. 4.2 Construction Vibration Model Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller has a vibration impact of 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is likely perceptible but below any risk of architectural damage. The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows: PPVequipment = PPVref (25/Drec)n Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 25ft. Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft. n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provide general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts. 4.3 Construction Noise Projections The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the Project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with construction will vary with the different phases of construction. Table 3 presents the construction noise levels at sensitive receptors (residences to the east). Construction equipment for each phase was estimated using CalEEMod methodology. See Appendix B for calculations. Page 264 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 5 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Table 3: Projected Construction Noise Levels (dBA, Leq)1 Location Phase Construction Noise Level Adjacent Residential Properties Demo 85.1 Grade 83.0 Build 82.1 Pave 75.0 Arch Coat 72.4 As shown in Table 3, construction noise will range from 72 to 85 dBA Leq at the adjacent residences to the east. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 8.24.050(A)). Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Construction is anticipated to occur within the allowable hours, thus, the impact is considered less than significant. 4.4 Construction Vibration Projections Construction equipment is anticipated to operate no closer than 12 feet from the nearest residential buildings to the east. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. At a distance of 12 feet, a vibratory roller would yield a worst-case 0.471 PPV (in/sec), which will be perceptible but will be below any risk of damage (0.5 in/sec PPV is the threshold of new residential structures). The impact is thus less than significant. See Appendix B for calculations. 4.5 Construction Noise and Vibration Reduction Policies Construction operations must follow the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair, or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following policies should be taken: 1. Construction shall occur during the hours of 8AM to 6PM on weekdays and 9AM to 5PM on Saturdays. 2. The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas as far as possible, away from the sensitive receptors. 3. During construction, ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 4. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 5. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. 5.0 Conclusions The Project will be compliant with the City’s noise ordinance and CEQA guidelines. In addition, the Project will not generate a significant noise impact during operation. MD is pleased to provide this noise assessment Page 265 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 6 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx for the proposed Project. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477. Sincerely, MD Acoustics, LLC Bethany Wu Claire Pincock, INCE-USA Acoustical Consultant Sr. Acoustical Consultant Page 266 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 7 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Exhibit A Location Map SITE Page 267 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 8 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Exhibit B Site Plan Page 268 of 764 Appendix A Glossary of Acoustical Terms Page 269 of 764 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. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the 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). 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. 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 corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces. 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, 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...”. Page 270 of 764 Noise Criteria (NC) Method: This metric plots octave band sound levels against a family of reference curves, with the number rating equal to the highest tangent line value as demonstrated in Figure 1. Percent Noise Levels: See L(n). Room Criterion (RC) Method: When sound quality in the space is important, the RC metric provides a diagnostic tool to quantify both the speech interference level and spectral imbalance. 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. 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. Sound Transmission Class (STC): To quantify STC, a Transmission Loss (TL) measurement is performed in a laboratory over a range of 16 third-octave bands between 125 – 4,000 Hertz (Hz). The average human voice creates sound within the 125 – 4,000 Hz 1/3rd octave bands. STC is a single-number rating given to a particular material or assembly. The STC rating measures the ability of a material or an assembly to resist airborne sound transfer over the specified frequencies (see ASTM International Classification E413 and E90). In general, a higher STC rating corresponds with a greater reduction of noise transmitting through a partition. STC is highly dependent on the construction of the partition. The STC of a partition can be increased by: adding mass, increasing or adding air space, and adding absorptive materials within the assembly. The STC rating does not assess low-frequency sound transfer (e.g. sounds less than 125 Hz). Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern has lower frequencies than speech, such as mechanical equipment and or/or music. The STC rating is a lab test that does not take into consideration weak points, penetrations, or flanking paths. Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air-gap, or “flanking path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing, or corridors. Noise will travel between spaces at the weakest points. Typically, there is no reason to spend money or effort to improve the walls until all weak points are controlled first. FIGURE 1: Sample NC Curves and Sample Spectrum Levels Page 271 of 764 Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas). 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. 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. Page 272 of 764 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: 10452402_Report May 8, 2025 Mr. Ed Almanza Ed Almanza & Associates Subject: 911 1st St Hermosa Beach – Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation, City of Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Mr. Almanza: MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation for the proposed Multi-Family Residential Development project located at 911 1st Street 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 Land zoning surrounding the site includes Single-Family Residential to the north, Residential Professional to the east and south, and Specific Plan Area to the west. The proposed Project location is in Exhibit A. The Project proposes the construction of a new high-density residential 3-story building containing twelve (12) condominium units and a 245-square-foot general office building on an approximately 0.46-acre site. Each residential unit will include a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The site plan for the proposed Project is in Exhibit B. 2.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1.1.29) to calculate both the construction and operational emissions from the project site1. Project construction is modeled to commence no earlier than October 2025 and be completed by March 2026. Construction assumes demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in Appendix C. 3.0 Local Ambient Conditions The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA) 32. 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 websites3,4. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)5. 1 https://www.caleemod.com/ 2 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6 3 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year 4 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ 5 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html Page 273 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 2 JN: 10452402_Report 4.0 AQ Analysis 4.1 AQ Significance Thresholds Project emissions were compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for construction and operational emissions of the following pollutants:6,7 • Ozone • Nitrogen Dioxide • Lead • Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) • Carbon Monoxide • Particulate Matter • Sulfur Dioxide See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm for additional information on criteria pollutants and air quality standards. 4.2 Regional Construction Emissions The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level as indicated in Table 1, and therefore the impact would be considered less than significant. Table 1: Regional Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Site2 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 1.19 0.30 Off-Site3 0.05 1.07 0.97 0.01 0.35 0.10 Total 0.52 5.40 6.62 0.02 0.20 0.06 Grading On-Site2 1.09 10.10 10.00 0.02 2.56 1.44 Off-Site3 0.16 11.04 4.62 0.06 2.53 0.76 Total 1.25 21.14 14.62 0.08 5.09 2.20 Building Construction On-Site2 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 Off-Site3 0.04 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.03 Total 0.56 5.23 7.47 0.01 0.34 0.23 Paving On-Site2 0.65 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 0.16 Off-Site3 0.06 0.26 1.05 0.00 0.28 0.06 Total 0.71 4.50 6.35 0.01 0.46 0.22 Architectural Coating On-Site2 26.02 0.86 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 Off-Site3 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total 26.03 0.87 1.23 0.00 0.04 0.03 Total of overlapping phases4 26.74 5.37 7.58 0.01 0.50 0.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No 6 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf 7 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds Page 274 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 3 JN: 10452402_Report Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. 4.3 Localized Construction Emissions Utilizing the construction equipment list and associated acreages per 8-hour day provided in the SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b), the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 1.0 acres during grading (as shown in Table 2 below); however, as the project is less than one acre, the project emissions have been compared to the 1-acre per day localized significance threshold. Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day1 Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres Grading Graders 1 0.5 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5 Total Per Phase 1.0 Notes: 1. Source: CalEEMod output and South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 None of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the LST emission thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors as shown in Table 3, based upon a 25-meter threshold as the nearest sensitive receptor is located adjacent to the north, as shown in the site map in Appendix B. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant from construction. Table 3: Localized Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Phase On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 4.33 5.65 1.19 0.30 Grading 10.10 10.00 2.56 1.44 Building Construction 5.14 6.94 0.22 0.20 Paving 4.24 5.30 0.18 0.16 Architectural Coating 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02 Total for overlapping construction phases 10.24 13.37 0.42 0.38 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)2 91 664 5 3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one-acre (see Table 2), to be conservative, in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA 3). 2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residential uses located adjacent to the north of the project site; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was utilized. 4.4 Regional Operational Emissions The operating emissions were based on year 2026, which is the anticipated opening year for the project. The CalEEMod default project trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) were used. Page 275 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 4 JN: 10452402_Report 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 4. The data in Table 4 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Table 4: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.53 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources4 0.31 0.24 2.50 0.01 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.84 0.32 3.21 0.01 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 4.5 Localized Operational Emissions Table 5 shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with appropriate LSTs. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod software outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 5 include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and 10% of the Project- related new mobile sources.8 This percentage is an estimate of the amount of Project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on-site. Table 5: Localized Significance - Unmitigated Operational Emissions On-Site Emission Source On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 0.24 2.50 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.32 3.21 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)5 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 (see Table 2), to be conservative, in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA 3). 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. 4 On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 65 meters to the south of the property line; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used. 8 The project site is approximately 0.04 miles in length at its longest point; therefore the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/172nd of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 6.9 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site. Page 276 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 5 JN: 10452402_Report 4.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans Consistency with the City’s General Plan The project site is located in the City of Hermosa Beach. The project site has a current land use classification of Community Commercial according to the City’s Land Use/Zoning Map. As the proposed project is a mixed-used project, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the City’s General Plan and Community Plan. The project will be subject to the policies and ordinances pertaining to air quality and climate change in the City’s General Plan. Although the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, these emissions are short-term and not considered to have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, project emissions have demonstrated that they will be below any significant thresholds as outlined by SCAQMD. In addition, as shown below, the project’s GHG impacts have been evaluated by assessing the project’s consistency with applicable statewide, regional, and local GHG reduction plans and strategies. 5.0 Greenhouse Gas Analysis 5.1 GHG Significance Thresholds The project emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses9. 5.2 GHG Emissions Table 6 outlines the construction and operational GHG emissions for the project. The project’s emissions are below (125.12 MTCO2e) the SCAQMD’s draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and; therefore, the impact is less than significant. Table 6: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1 Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area Sources2 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 Energy Usage3 0.00 31.40 31.40 0.00 0.00 31.50 Mobile Sources4 0.00 84.80 84.80 0.00 0.00 86.20 Solid Waste6 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 2.81 Water7 0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 0.00 1.44 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Construction8 0.00 2.91 2.91 0.00 0.00 2.94 Total Emissions 0.94 120.14 121.09 0.09 0.00 125.12 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 9 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2 Page 277 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 6 JN: 10452402_Report 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate. 5.3 Consistency with Applicable Plans Consistency with Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15 Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are orders from the State’s Executive Branch for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. These strategies call for developing more efficient land-use patterns to match population increases, workforce, and socioeconomic needs for the full spectrum of the population. The project includes elements of smart land use as it is well-served by transportation infrastructure and near public transit. Although the project’s emissions level in 2050 cannot be reliably quantified, statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State’s achievement of that goal and it is reasonable to expect the project’s emissions profile to decline as the regulatory initiatives identified by ARB in the First Update are implemented, and other technological innovations occur. As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the project is consistent with the Executive Order’s horizon-year goal. Therefore, the project is consistent with Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15. 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. 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 2020 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 latest, 2020 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of the 2008, 2017, and 2020 Plan are assessed in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies within the Scoping Plan. Page 278 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 7 JN: 10452402_Report Table 7: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long- term climate change goals. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards and will not impede City efforts to increase energy efficiency. Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy- duty vehicle efficiency measures. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. Consistent. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The project will be subject to these mandatory standards. High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will comply with the strategy. Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. Consistent. The state is currently developing a regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341. Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements. 2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Page 279 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 8 JN: 10452402_Report Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero- emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards and will not impede City efforts to increase energy efficiency. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. Consistent. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. The project will be in an urbanized area within a quarter mile of transit. Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California fuel demand Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards. Generate clean electricity Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not interfere with clean energy generation. Decarbonize industrial energy supply Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be residential, therefore would not interfere with this goal. Decarbonize buildings Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards. Reduce non-combustion emissions Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards. Notes: 1Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022) 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 Page 280 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 9 JN: 10452402_Report 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 8 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 8, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Table 8: 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 proposed project is a residential development on a currently vacant site; therefore, it will not displace existing housing. Focus new growth around transit. Local Jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed project is a residential development 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 proposed project is a residential development 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 Communities. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed project would help further jobs/housing balance objectives. The 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 proposed project is a residential development in an existing community 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. Page 281 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 10 JN: 10452402_Report 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 a residential development 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. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the City's Building Code requires the proposed building to provide conduit for on-site electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project is to provide in the proposed parking garage. Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions Consistent. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the City's Building Code requires the proposed building to provide conduit for on-site electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project is to provide in the proposed parking garage. 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. Notes: 1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020. Page 282 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 11 JN: 10452402_Report 6.0 Energy Analysis Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands. Construction Energy Demand Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates Electrical service will be provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)10, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 20,100 square feet of residential development including 12 residential dwelling units over the course of approximately 6 months. Based on Table 9, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $279.79. As shown in Table 9, the total electricity usage from Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 5,087 kWh.11 Table 9: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Power Cost (per 1,000 square foot of building per month of construction) Total Building Size (1,000 Square Foot)1 Construction Duration (months) Total Project Construction Power Cost $2.32 20.1 6 $279.79 Cost per kWh Total Project Construction Electricity Usage (kWh) $0.06 5,087 *Assumes the project will be under the A-1 Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service rate under LADWP. https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-financesandreports/a-fr-electricrates/a-fr-er- stcommindrates?_adf.ctrl-state=4uqberzct_4&_afrLoop=958662023680086 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr/gal.12 As presented in Table 10 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 6,170 gallons of diesel fuel. 10 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 11 LADWP’s Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service (A-1) is approximately $0.06 per kWh of electricity Southern California Edison (SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general-service-&- industrial-rates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS-1_2020.pdf 12 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines: (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf). Page 283 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 12 JN: 10452402_Report Table 10: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase Number of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor HP hrs/day Total Fuel Consumption (gal diesel fuel)1 Demolition 10 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 187 0.41 613 332 10 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 247 0.4 99 53 10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 97 0.37 431 233 Grading 2 Graders 1 6 187 0.41 460 50 2 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 247 0.4 593 64 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37 251 27 Building Construction 100 Cranes 1 4 231 0.29 268 1,448 100 Forklifts 2 6 89 0.2 214 1,155 100 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 574 3,104 Paving 5 Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 9 0.56 121 33 5 Pavers 1 7 130 0.42 382 103 5 Rollers 1 7 80 0.38 213 58 5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37 251 68 Architectural Coating 5 Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 225 61 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 6,170 Notes: 1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Construction Worker Fuel Estimates It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways. With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 19,890 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix C for details). Table 11 shows that an estimated 643 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips. Table 11: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase Number of Days Worker Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 10 18.5 1850 30.95 60 Grading 2 7.5 18.5 278 30.95 9 Building Construction 100 8.64 18.5 15,984 30.95 516 Paving 5 17.5 18.5 1,619 30.95 52 Architectural Coating 5 1.73 18.5 160 30.95 5 Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 643 Notes: 1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Page 284 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 13 JN: 10452402_Report Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates Tables 12 and 13 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 8,861 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.13 Tables 12 and 13 show that an estimated 1,252 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips. Table 12: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Phase Number of Days Vendor Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Grading 2 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Building Construction 100 1.28 10.2 1,306 9.22 142 Paving 5 5 10.2 255 9.22 28 Architectural Coating 5 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 169 Notes: 1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Table 13: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 Phase Number of Days Hauling Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 11.5 20 2300 6.74 341 Grading 2 125 20 5,000 6.74 742 Building Construction 100 0 20 0 6.74 0 Paving 5 0 20 0 6.74 0 Architectural Coating 5 0 20 0 6.74 0 Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,083 Notes: 1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Construction equipment used over the approximately 6-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to 13 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix C for details). Page 285 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 14 JN: 10452402_Report unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards. Construction of the proposed residential development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. Operational Energy Demand Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). 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 Hermosa Beach. Using the defaults VMT estimates from CalEEMod, it is assumed that the average vehicle miles traveled was 8.934 miles for all vehicle categories. As the proposed project is a mixed-use project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 14 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.14 Table 14 shows that an estimated 10,224 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project. Table 14: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix Number of Vehicles Average Trip (miles)1 Daily VMT Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Total Gallons per Day Total Annual Fuel Consumptio n (gallons) Light Auto Automobile 44.7 7.647 342 31.82 10.75 3,922 Light Truck Automobile 4.8 7.647 37 27.16 1.36 495 Light Truck Automobile 15.8 7.647 121 25.6 4.72 1,723 Medium Truck Automobile 15.0 7.647 115 20.81 5.51 2,010 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 3.2 7.647 24 13.81 1.76 643 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 0.8 7.647 6 14.18 0.43 157 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 1.0 7.647 7 9.58 0.78 286 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 2.5 7.647 19 7.14 2.71 988 Total 87.8 -- 671 -- 28.01 -- Total Annual Fuel Consumption 10,224 Notes: 1Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional. 14 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix A for EMFAC output. Page 286 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 15 JN: 10452402_Report Trip generation and VMT generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar mixed-use uses of similar scale and configuration. That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 15. Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year Condo/Townhouse 288,364 Total 288,364 Electricity Demand kWh/year Condo/Townhouse 55,106 Parking Lot 11,448 Total 66,554 Notes: 1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 annual output. As shown in Table 15, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 66,554 kWh per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 23,255 million kWh of electricity.15 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 288,364 kBTU per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 1,122 million therms of gas.16 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area. Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area. Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE and Southern California Gas Company. Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building 15 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 16 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx Page 287 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 16 JN: 10452402_Report commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. 6.0 Conclusions Construction and 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. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. Furthermore, neither construction nor operation of the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. The proposed project does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities and is a mixed- use project that is not proposing any additional features that would require a larger energy demand than other mixed-use projects of similar scale and configuration. The energy demands of the project are anticipated to be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. The Project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CalGreen Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts would be 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 Page 288 of 764 Appendix A Glossary of Terms Page 289 of 764 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 Page 290 of 764 Appendix B Site Plan and Map Page 291 of 764 ADA CommercialSpace SCE SCE (OFFICE - GENERAL) Page 292 of 764 Appendix C CalEEMod Output & EMFAC2017 Data Page 293 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 1 / 43 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated 3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Page 294 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 2 / 43 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Page 295 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 3 / 43 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Page 296 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 4 / 43 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Page 297 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 5 / 43 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Page 298 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 6 / 43 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Page 299 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 7 / 43 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 911 1st St Residences Construction Start Date 10/1/2025 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)3.50 Precipitation (days)20.6 Location 911 1st St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, USA County Los Angeles-South Coast City Hermosa Beach Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 4564 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Condo/Townhouse 12.0 Dwelling Unit 0.16 20,100 0.00 —36.0 — Page 300 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 8 / 43 Parking Lot 0.30 Acre 0.30 0.00 5,000 ——— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.26.0 21.1 14.7 0.07 0.57 4.52 5.09 0.54 1.66 2.20 —10,475 10,475 0.55 1.38 0.53 10,899 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.44 1.00 1.32 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.06 —312 312 0.01 0.01 0.11 317 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.08 0.18 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —51.7 51.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 52.4 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— 2025 1.25 21.1 14.7 0.07 0.57 4.52 5.09 0.54 1.66 2.20 —10,475 10,475 0.55 1.38 0.53 10,899Page 301 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 9 / 43 2026 26.0 4.89 7.40 0.01 0.19 0.27 0.45 0.17 0.07 0.23 —1,455 1,455 0.06 0.04 0.03 1,463 Average Daily ————————————————— 2025 0.10 1.00 1.32 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.06 —312 312 0.01 0.01 0.11 317 2026 0.44 0.73 1.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 —215 215 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 217 Annual ————————————————— 2025 0.02 0.18 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —51.7 51.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 52.4 2026 0.08 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —35.7 35.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 35.9 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.84 0.30 3.21 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 786 792 0.62 0.03 2.13 818 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.78 0.31 2.35 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 760 766 0.62 0.03 0.20 790 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.79 0.29 2.62 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.01 0.12 0.13 5.70 708 714 0.61 0.03 0.91 738 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.14 0.05 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 117 118 0.10 < 0.005 0.15 122 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2ePage 302 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 10 / 43 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.31 0.22 2.50 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —590 590 0.03 0.02 1.98 600 Area 0.53 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.84 0.30 3.21 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 786 792 0.62 0.03 2.13 818 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Area 0.47 ———————————————— Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.78 0.31 2.35 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 760 766 0.62 0.03 0.20 790 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile 0.27 0.22 2.12 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 —512 512 0.03 0.02 0.77 521 Area 0.51 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.25 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.79 0.29 2.62 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.01 0.12 0.13 5.70 708 714 0.61 0.03 0.91 738 Annual ————————————————— Page 303 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 11 / 43 Mobile 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 Area 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 Energy < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.5 Water ——————————0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 < 0.005 —1.44 Waste ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 Refrig.———————————————0.02 0.02 Total 0.14 0.05 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 117 118 0.10 < 0.005 0.15 122 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855 Demoliti on —————1.03 1.03 —0.16 0.16 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4 Demoliti on —————0.03 0.03 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Page 304 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 12 / 43 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.88 Demoliti on —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 —131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 1.02 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 —797 797 0.04 0.12 0.05 835 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.64 3.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.69 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.9 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.79 3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 305 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 13 / 43 Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720 Dust From Material Movement —————2.10 2.10 —1.01 1.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.39 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.42 Dust From Material Movement —————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.55 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.56 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————Page 306 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 14 / 43 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 —98.3 98.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 99.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 11.0 4.18 0.06 0.11 2.32 2.43 0.11 0.63 0.74 —8,663 8,663 0.47 1.36 0.52 9,080 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.5 47.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 49.8 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.86 7.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.24 3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Page 307 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 15 / 43 0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.72 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —184 184 0.01 < 0.005 —184 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.13 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.5 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 —113 113 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 115 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —40.7 40.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 42.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.74 5.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.99 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 308 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 16 / 43 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 —0.19 0.17 —0.17 —1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.65 0.93 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 —176 176 0.01 < 0.005 —177 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —29.2 29.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —29.3 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 —111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 112 Page 309 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 17 / 43 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —40.0 40.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 41.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.40 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.64 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52 2.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.55 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826 Paving 0.16 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.3 Page 310 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 18 / 43 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 —225 225 0.01 0.01 0.02 228 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —156 156 0.01 0.02 0.01 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.12 3.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)Page 311 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 19 / 43 Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architect ural Coatings 25.9 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84 Architect ural Coatings 0.35 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.30 Architect ural Coatings 0.06 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Page 312 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 20 / 43 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 —22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 313 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 21 / 43 6001.980.020.03590590—0.140.13< 0.0050.530.53< 0.0050.012.500.220.31Condo/T ownhous e Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.22 2.50 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —590 590 0.03 0.02 1.98 600 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 314 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 22 / 43 80.6—< 0.005< 0.00580.380.3———————————Condo/T ownhous e Parking Lot ———————————16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.7 Total ———————————97.0 97.0 0.01 < 0.005 —97.4 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —80.6 Parking Lot ———————————16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.7 Total ———————————97.0 97.0 0.01 < 0.005 —97.4 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Parking Lot ———————————2.76 2.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.77 Total ———————————16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.1 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Page 315 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 23 / 43 0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.00Parking Lot Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.43 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Page 316 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 24 / 43 Landsca Equipment 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Total 0.53 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.43 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Total 0.47 ———————————————— Annual ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.08 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.01 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 Total 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 317 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 25 / 43 Condo/T ——————————0.86 4.44 5.29 0.09 < 0.005 —8.13 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54 Total ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.86 4.44 5.29 0.09 < 0.005 —8.13 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54 Total ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.14 0.73 0.88 0.01 < 0.005 —1.35 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.09 Total ——————————0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 < 0.005 —1.44 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Page 318 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 26 / 43 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00——————————Parking Lot Total ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.14 0.14 Total ———————————————0.14 0.14 Page 319 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 27 / 43 —————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.14 0.14 Total ———————————————0.14 0.14 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.02 0.02 Total ———————————————0.02 0.02 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Page 320 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 28 / 43 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Page 321 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 29 / 43 Total ————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual —————————————————Page 322 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 30 / 43 Total ————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Page 323 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 31 / 43 Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 10/18/2025 10/20/2025 5.00 2.00 — Building Construction Building Construction 10/21/2025 3/10/2026 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 3/11/2026 3/18/2026 5.00 5.00 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/19/2026 3/26/2026 5.00 5.00 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Page 324 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 32 / 43 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 125 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ————Page 325 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 33 / 43 Building Construction Worker 8.64 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 1.28 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 1.73 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 40,703 13,568 0.00 0.00 784 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Page 326 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 34 / 43 Acres Paved (acres)Acres Graded (acres)Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000 — Grading —2,000 1.50 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61%61% 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Condo/Townhouse —0% Parking Lot 0.30 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 87.8 97.7 75.4 31,924 672 747 576 244,137 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 327 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 35 / 43 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 40702.5 13,568 0.00 0.00 784 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 55,106 532 0.0330 0.0040 288,364 Parking Lot 11,448 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 447,286 0.00Page 328 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 36 / 43 Parking Lot 0.00 70,123 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Condo/Townhouse 8.99 — Parking Lot 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Page 329 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 37 / 43 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.Page 330 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 38 / 43 Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.58 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. Page 331 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 39 / 43 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 29.9 AQ-PM 73.3 AQ-DPM 51.4 Drinking Water 19.7 Lead Risk Housing 36.5Page 332 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 40 / 43 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 93.7 Traffic 68.1 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 23.5 Groundwater 30.9 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 68.4 Impaired Water Bodies 51.2 Solid Waste 24.8 Sensitive Population — Asthma 2.13 Cardio-vascular 3.64 Low Birth Weights 3.84 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 6.52 Housing 2.26 Linguistic 32.6 Poverty 12.7 Unemployment 57.2 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 90.50429873 Employed 91.37687668 Median HI 97.62607468 Education — Page 333 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 41 / 43 Bachelor's or higher 90.64545105 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 89.1954318 Transportation — Auto Access 70.20402926 Active commuting 16.50198896 Social — 2-parent households 70.38367766 Voting 58.88617991 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 20.72372642 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 90.08084178 Supermarket access 94.25125112 Tree canopy 19.1068908 Housing — Homeownership 55.98614141 Housing habitability 84.44758116 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 92.59591941 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 68.81817015 Uncrowded housing 83.16437829 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 97.11279353 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 98.2 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Page 334 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 42 / 43 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 83.3 Cognitively Disabled 85.7 Physically Disabled 57.4 Heart Attack ER Admissions 93.4 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 67.9 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 47.4 Elderly 48.7 English Speaking 93.6 Foreign-born 12.6 Outdoor Workers 93.6 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 11.3 Traffic Density 46.6 Page 335 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 43 / 43 Traffic Access 55.3 Other Indices — Hardship 6.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 73.0 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)7.00 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)96.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use 12 units on 0.46 acres per site plan Construction: Construction Phases No site preparation required Operations: Hearths No hearthsPage 336 of 764 Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air DistrictRegion: South Coast AQMDCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegionCalendar YearVehicle CategoryModel YearSpeedFuelPopulationVMTTripsFuel ConsumptionFuel ConsumptionTotal Fuel ConsumptionVMTTotal VMTMiles Per GallonVehicle ClassSouth Coast AQMD2023HHDTAggregateAggregateGasoline75.104429368265.0971502.6891.9362861451936.2861451913466.4748265.09713656273.037.14HHDSouth Coast AQMD2023HHDTAggregateAggregateDiesel109818.67531364800811336181911.5301881911530.18813648008South Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateGasoline6635002.2952.53E+08313524777971.244037971244.038020635.6982.53E+08255180358.331.82LDASouth Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateDiesel62492.979582469816297086.649.391668549391.66852469816South Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateElectricity150700.39716237106751566006237106South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateGasoline758467.64812781299635045631023.9130061023913.0061024279.4662781299627821405.0927.16LDT1South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateDiesel360.77991448408.6181256.880.366459477366.45947698408.618South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateElectricity7122.93373303507.535798.1900303507.5South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateGasoline2285150.13985272416107233153338.7983123338798.3123356536.4388527241685922778.3425.60LDT2South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateDiesel15594.68309650362.876635.8317.7381261117738.12611650362.8South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateElectricity28809.63735917592.8145405.400917592.8South Coast AQMD2023LHDT1AggregateAggregateGasoline174910.384762166432605904583.3851736583385.1736811563.1022621664311211395.7913.81LHDT1South Coast AQMD2023LHDT1AggregateAggregateDiesel125545.082249947531579199228.1779285228177.92854994753South Coast AQMD2023LHDT2AggregateAggregateGasoline30102.753241034569448486.2111.5753864111575.3864209423.502510345692969599.00814.18LHDT2South Coast AQMD2023LHDT2AggregateAggregateDiesel50003.131161935030628976.597.8481161897848.116181935030South Coast AQMD2023MCYAggregateAggregateGasoline305044.5141210462461008957.84901857849.01857849.01821046242104623.65736.38MCYSouth Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateGasoline1589862.7035568418873548602693.8835262693883.5262744536.3415568418857109879.7320.81MDVSouth Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateDiesel36128.10191425691176566.950.6528149150652.814911425691South Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateElectricity16376.67653537591.783475.9500537591.7South Coast AQMD2023MHAggregateAggregateGasoline34679.50542330042.93469.33863.2629512363262.9512374893.26955330042.9454344.94366.07MHSouth Coast AQMD2023MHAggregateAggregateDiesel13122.693871243021312.26911.6303183211630.31832124302South Coast AQMD2023MHDTAggregateAggregateGasoline25624.31511363694512691.3265.2060557265206.0557989975.642513636949484317.7689.58MHDTSouth Coast AQMD2023MHDTAggregateAggregateDiesel122124.48881206231221858724.7695868724769.58688120623South Coast AQMD2023OBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline5955.291639245774119153.548.0775068948077.5068986265.88761245774579743.83536.72OBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023OBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel4286.940093333969.841558.2938.1883807238188.38072333969.8South Coast AQMD2023SBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline2783.643068112189.611134.5712.1947469212194.7469239638.85935112189.6323043.52038.15SBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023SBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel6671.825716210853.976991.9427.4441124227444.11242210853.9South Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline957.768618489782.633831.07417.6241632717624.1632717863.6637889782.6391199.25335.11UBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel13.000460951416.62252.001840.239500509239.50050931416.622South Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateElectricity16.116938861320.16364.4677601320.163Page 337 of 764 Page 1 of 5 RES-24-7453 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RESOLUTION NO. RES-24-7453 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-01, RE- ADOPTING THE 2021-2029 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AS CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WHEREAS, the Housing Element is a required part of the City’s General Plan, known as PLAN Hermosa; and WHEREAS, the State of California requires that jurisdictions update the Housing Element at specified internals, with all jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region having a statutory deadline of October 15, 2021, with a 120-day grace period ending February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach received a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 558 units (232 very-low income; 127 low income; 106 moderate income; 93 above-moderate income); and WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element must comply with State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.11), including the Sites Inventory which demonstrates development capacity for the RHNA; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and submitted the document to California Housing and Community Development HCD) for review on August 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City received a comment letter from HCD on October 4, 2021 indicating revisions needed to the Housing Element to comply with required State Housing Element law; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element on December 21, 2021; and Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 338 of 764 Page 2 of 5 RES-24-7453 WHEREAS, the City submitted the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element to HCD for review; and WHEREAS, the City received a comment letter from HCD on March 22, 2022 indicating revisions needed to the 2021-2029 Housing Element to comply with required State Housing Element Law; and WHEREAS, after a detailed analysis of vacant land and potential redevelopment opportunities was prepared as required by State law, it was determined the City’s land inventory based on current zoning is insufficient to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period; and WHEREAS, during the initial adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element on December 21, 2021, the City found that the proposed Housing Element would not approve any development or change any land use designations; therefore, the City determined that it was exempt from California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) per Section 15061, Review for Exemption of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, Section 15061(b)(3) states, in part, that a project is exempt from CEQA if “the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 20, 2023, to consider revisions to the City’s revised adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, and associated Land Use Element amendments, in compliance with the State Housing Element law; and WHEREAS, after considering public input, reviewing the agenda materials, and conducting discussion, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt revisions to the City’s adopted Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period and associated Land Use Element amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2023, to consider revisions to the City’s adopted Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period, in compliance with the State Housing Element law, and associated Land Use Element amendments, during which the City Council Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 339 of 764 Page 3 of 5 RES-24-7453 considered public input, reviewed agenda materials, and conducted discussions on the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, after considering public input, reviewing the agenda materials, and conducting discussion, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 23-7396, adopting the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element and authorizing staff to make non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to respond to HCD comments; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2023, the City submitted the adopted revised 2021-2029 Housing Element to HCD; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 2023, HCD transmitted a letter to the City indicating that more information was needed on various sections of the Housing Element, and that the Housing Element-related Zoning Text amendments must be completed; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023 and January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinances 23-1470, 23-1471, and 24-1474, approving Housing Element- related Zoning Text amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2024, the City submitted to HCD the revised 2021- 2029 Housing Element with non-substantive revisions to respond to HCD comments, along with the completed zoning documents; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, HCD transmitted a letter to the City indicating that more information was needed on sections of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City submitted to HCD the revised 2021- 2029 Housing Element with non-substantive revisions to respond to HCD comments; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2024, HCD transmitted a letter to the City indicating that the City’s Housing Element complied with State law, and that minor several revisions to the Zoning Ordinance were required; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-1481, approving the HCD-requested revisions to the Housing-Element-related zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2024, HCD transmitted a letter to the City indicating Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 340 of 764 Page 4 of 5 RES-24-7453 that the City’s Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State law. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby re- adopts the revised General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element, incorporating all non-substantive revisions since the August 8, 2023 adoption, as included in Exhibits A and B. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby adopts the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt associated amendments to the Land Use Element to ensure consistency with the adopted Housing Element, as included in Exhibit C. SECTION 3. The Housing Element includes programs to ensure that the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Map and Ordinance are amended in order to accommodate programs in the Housing Element and to ensure internal consistency amongst the different elements in PLAN Hermosa; and SECTION 4. Based on the analysis in Appendix B, Sites Inventory, detailing substantial evidence of the likelihood of redevelopment on non-vacant sites with lower-income housing units in the RHNA allocation, with the substantial evidence consisting of physical site criteria, recent development trends, and property owner intent/interest, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence and information provided in the record that the existing uses on the Sites Inventory sites to accommodate the RHNA low-income allocation are likely to be discontinued during the 2021-2029 planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development; and SECTION 5. The City has reviewed the revisions to the 2021 -2029 Housing Element for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City finds that the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element continues to be consistent with the initial finding that the Housing Element is exempt under CEQA per Section 15061. the revised Housing Element is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) requirements per Section 15061, Review for Exemption of the CEQA Guidelines. The Housing Element would not approve any development project Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 341 of 764 Page 5 of 5 RES-24-7453 or change any zoning regulations which control development, and therefore would not cause a significant effect on the environment; and SECTION 6. The City Council authorizes staff to incorporate non-substantial revisions to the Housing Element, including the Sites Inventory, as necessarily for internal consistency, compliance with any HCD comments or requirements, and in conformity with the City Council action. Should HCD comments consist of substantial changes to the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element, staff will present the requested changes to City Council for review and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 10th day of September, 2024. Mayor Dean Francois 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: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 342 of 764 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY PLAN 2021-2029 Adopted December 21, 2021 Re-adopted (with revisions) August 8, 2023 Revisions (January, May, and June 2024) EXHIBIT A Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 343 of 764 This page intentionally left blank Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 344 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 i Contents I.Introduction ................................................................................................................................. I-1 A.Purpose of the Housing Element ...................................................................... I-1 B.Scope and Content of the Housing Element .................................................. I-1 C.Public Participation ........................................................................................... I-2 D.Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan ................................... I-2 II.Housing Policy Plan ................................................................................................................... II-1 A.Housing Element Issues and Policies ............................................................... II-1 B.Housing Programs ............................................................................................. II-4 C.Quantified Objectives .................................................................................... II-19 D.Summary of AFFH Actions .............................................................................. II-19 List of Tables Table II-1 Quantified Objectives 2021-2029 ..................................................................... II-19 Table II-2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Summary Actions ................................ II-199 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 345 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 ii This page intentionally left blank Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 346 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Introduction Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-1 I.INTRODUCTION A.Purpose of the Housing Element The Housing Element describes the City’s needs, goals, policies, programs and objectives regarding the preservation, improvement, and development of housing in Hermosa Beach. The Element reflects community housing needs in terms of affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility. The Element describes the City’s strategies for addressing housing needs over the 2021-2029 period and identifies specific programs to address those needs. The Housing Element is the City’s official municipal response to the State Legislature’s declaration that adequate housing for all economic segments of the community is a matter of statewide importance that must be addressed by all levels of government. The 2021 Housing Element update provides Hermosa Beach with the opportunity to plan for the existing and future housing needs in the community, and identifies strategies and programs to address those needs. B.Scope and Content of the Housing Element The California Legislature has recognized the role of local general plans and particularly the Housing Element in implementing statewide housing goals to provide decent and adequate housing for all persons. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) also has adopted detailed guidelines regarding the scope and content of housing elements, including the following major components: An analysis of demographic and housing characteristics and trends (Technical Report, Chapter I); An evaluation of resources, including land, financial, and administrative resources, available to address the City’s housing goals (Technical Report, Chapter II); A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meeting housing needs (Technical Report, Chapter III); The Housing Policy Plan addressing the City’s identified housing needs, including housing issues, policies, programs and quantified objectives (Chapter II of this document); An evaluation of the appropriateness and effectiveness of previous policies and programs in achieving the City’s objectives, and the progress in implementing Housing Element programs (Technical Report, Appendix A); A parcel-specific inventory of vacant and underutilized suitable sites for additional housing (Technical Report, Appendix B); and A description of the public participation process during the preparation and adoption of the Housing Element (Technical Report, Appendix C). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 347 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Introduction Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-2 C. Public Participation Public participation is an important component of the planning process, and this update to the Housing Element has provided residents and other interested parties numerous opportunities to be involved in the preparation of the element. Public meetings to discuss housing needs and policy options were conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council, and notices of all meetings were published in advance of each meeting. The draft Housing Element was made available for review at City Hall and posted on the City’s website and was also circulated to housing organizations representing the interests of lower-income persons and those with special housing needs. After receiving comments on the draft Housing Element from the State Housing and Community Development Department, a proposed final Housing Element was prepared and made available for public review prior to review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council. Appendix C provides additional information regarding opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of this Housing Element update, as well as a list of persons and organizations who were invited to participate. D. Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan The Housing Element must be consistent with other elements of the General Plan, which was last updated in 2017. Housing Element policies and programs are closely correlated with the development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, and intensity of land uses throughout the city. The Land Use Element determines the number and type of housing units that can be constructed in the various land use districts. Areas designated for commercial and industrial uses create employment opportunities, which in turn, create demand for housing. The Circulation Element establishes the location and scale of streets, highways and other transportation routes that provide access to residential neighborhoods. Because of the requirement for consistency among the various General Plan elements, the 2021 Housing Element update included a review of other General Plan elements to ensure that consistency is maintained. Government Code Section 65302 also specifically requires that the Safety and Conservation Elements be reviewed concurrent with each Housing Element update. SB 1087 of 2005 requires cities to provide a copy of their Housing Elements to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments that include lower-income housing. These agencies have been invited to participate in the Housing Element update process and the Housing Element will be provided to these agencies immediately upon adoption. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 348 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-1 II. HOUSING POLICY PLAN The purpose of this Housing Policy Plan is to identify policies and programs that will help the City in addressing its housing needs during the 2021-2029 planning period. This section includes the following components: Section A identifies the housing issues facing Hermosa Beach and establishes guiding policies for addressing those issues; Section B describe specific program actions the City will take consistent with established policies; Section C establishes quantified objectives for the construction of new housing, rehabilitation of existing housing in need of repair, and the conservation of existing affordable housing. A. Housing Element Issues and Policies This section establishes the City’s housing policy framework. Section 65583(c) of the California Government Code requires that actions and policies included in the Housing Element address five key issue areas: The manner in which the City will assist in the conservation of existing housing resources, particularly affordable housing; The City’s strategy in assisting in the development of new housing opportunities; How the City intends to provide adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing types; How the City proposes to remove governmental constraints that may impact the preservation and development of housing; and, How the City may help to promote equal housing opportunities. Issue Area 1 - Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing The City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and its desirability as a place to live and visit contributes to the high land and housing costs relative to the surrounding region. The City, nevertheless, has been successful in maintaining its more affordable housing through the adoption of ordinances and special land use regulations. The City works proactively to preserve and maintain the existing housing resources in the City, including affordable housing. This commitment is underscored by the policies listed below. Policy 1.1 The City will continue to encourage the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock within the local neighborhoods. Policy 1.2 The City will assist in the preservation and enhancement of the housing supply available to senior citizens. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 349 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-2 Policy 1.3 The City will work to minimize the conversion of existing lower-cost rental housing in multiple-family developments to condominiums. Policy 1.4 The City will investigate potential sources of funding and other incentives that will assist in the preservation and renovation of older housing units. Policy 1.5 The City will continue to implement its current code enforcement procedures as a means to ensure the conservation and maintenance of existing housing resources in the City. Issue Area 2 - New Affordable Housing Development The City’s ability to directly fund the construction of affordable housing is constrained due to budget limitations. In addition, the construction of affordable public housing within the coastal zone would not represent an efficient expenditure of public money, given the high land and development costs. As a result, the City continues to be an active participant in the development of more affordable housing through land use regulations and other incentives. The City of Hermosa Beach will continue to assist in the development of new housing for all income groups through the following policies. Policy 2.1 The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the community. Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Policy 2.5 The City will continue to cooperate with other government agencies, citizen groups, and the private sector, in order to assist in meeting the existing and future demand for housing. Policy 2.6 The City will encourage the addition of ADU and JADU units as a strategy to provide new housing units for low- and moderate-income households. Issue Area 3 - Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing The majority of the city was developed during the early 1900s. More intensive development has continued up to the present time. There are few vacant parcels of land remaining in the city, and the majority of the residential construction that has occurred involved the recycling” of older structures. Nevertheless, the City of Hermosa Beach will continue to Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 350 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-3 explore potential sites for residential development as a means to achieve a variety and diversity of housing types. Policy 3.1 The City will evaluate new development proposals in light of the community's environmental resources, the capacity of public infrastructure to accommodate the projected demand, and the presence of environmental constraints. Policy 3.2 The City will continue to evaluate the General Plan and zoning to ensure residential development standards are adequate to serve future development. Policy 3.3 The City will continue to review current zoning practices for consistency with the General Plan as a way to facilitate new mixed- use development within or near the commercial districts. Issue Area 4 - Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing In previous years, the City has been successful in the conservation of housing, especially affordable housing, through the implementation of land use ordinances and regulations. A key component of the City’s housing policy is to assist in the development of more affordable housing with the use of incentives and other measures. The City of Hermosa Beach will remain committed to the removal of governmental constraints through the following policies. Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of residential development proposals. Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to assist in their understanding of the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the city. Policy 4.3 The City will continue its efforts to educate the community regarding the development standards contained in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, including the ability to provide ADU and JADU units on residential properties. Policy 4.4 The City will continue to evaluate its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and remove governmental constraints related to development standards. These may include, but not be limited to, parking requirements, allowing affordable housing on commercial sites, new standards for mixed-use development, lot consolidation incentives, and senior housing requirements. Issue Area 5 - Equal Housing Opportunity Federal and State laws prohibit housing discrimination based on an individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or other characteristics. Enforcement of fair-housing laws generally occurs through the courts, though persons being discriminated against often lack the Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 351 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-4 resources to obtain the necessary legal protections. As a result, alternative means to obtain assistance must be made available. Towards this end, the City will continue to cooperate with other public agencies and non-profit organizations providing assistance in ensuring equal housing opportunities for all. Policy 5.1 The City will continue to provide information and referral services to regional agencies that counsel people on fair housing and landlord- tenant issues. Policy 5.2 The City will continue to cooperate with the County Housing Authority related to the provision of rental assistance to lower- income households. Policy 5.3 The City will continue to cooperate with other cities and agencies in the area in investigating resources available to provide housing for the area's homeless population. Policy 5.4 The City will support the expansion of shelter programs with adjacent cities and local private interests for the temporary accommodation of the homeless population. Issue Area 6 – Sustainable Housing Development The City works to promote sustainability and energy conservation in a number of ways. Plan Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, establishes a blueprint for sustainability and a low- carbon future, and provides a framework within which City regulations, programs, and projects work in unison to ensure that land use, transportation, and other aspects of City operations support sustainable development and energy conservation goals. Specifically for the residential sector of the community, the issue of energy conservation can be addressed at several levels: community-wide land use and transportation planning, building technology in both new construction and rehabilitation or remodeling of existing structures, and through lifestyle options such as walking and cycling. This is further supported by water conservation and sustainable neighborhood design. Policy 6.1 The City will support sustainable residential development through land use planning, building technology and lifestyle options. B. Housing Programs The programs listed below describe the actions the City intends to take to address the policy issues discussed above. The City’s main challenge in accommodating new residential development is its lack of vacant land. As a result, the vast majority of new housing development must occur through the “recycling” of older structures and redevelopment of underutilized parcels. The lack of financial resources, coupled with high land and development costs, will continue to be a constraint to the development of new affordable housing. As a result, the focus of these programs is on strategies to assist the private market in the development of affordable housing. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 352 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-5 Issue Area 1 - Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing 1. Code Enforcement Program Description: Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code provides for the abatement of safety and nuisance conditions relating to private property. To implement this requirement, the Code Enforcement Program emphasizes the following: The City actively pursues Municipal Code violations on a complaint basis, with particular emphasis being placed on those areas clearly exposed to public view; All necessary steps are taken to ensure that violations are corrected in an expeditious and voluntary manner; Where appropriate, property owners are informed of available assistance programs for lower-income persons who may not be able to afford needed improvements or corrections; and The City utilizes misdemeanor criminal prosecution only when attempts to gain voluntary compliance have failed. The Code Enforcement Program implements those sections of the Municipal Code related to property maintenance, including zoning, property maintenance, illegal units, trash container regulations, construction without permits, and sign regulations. The Code Enforcement Officer assists and makes recommendations to other City departments, such as conducting inspections of business licenses, home occupation offenses, and obstructions in public rights-of-way. Timing: This program is in place and will continue through the planning period. Funding: General Fund. 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing Program Description: This program provides for the ongoing maintenance and conservation of the Marine Land Mobile Home Park located at 531 Pier Avenue. The 60- space park provides housing for extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income households. The Hermosa Court Recreational Vehicle Park with 19 pads at 725 10th Street also provides transitional housing space for those persons or households in transition from an RV to a more permanent home. The City's MHP Zoning District requires Planning Commission approval in order to add or delete spaces in the park, which helps to preserve affordability by discouraging conversion from single- to double-wide spaces. In 2013 the Mobile Home Park received over $111,000 of City funds and $1.2 million through the State’s Mobilehome Park Resident Owner Program (MPROP) and the Marineland Community Association, Inc., the resident association, purchased the park, ensuring the long-term security of this important affordable housing resource. In addition to mobile homes, existing apartments provide an important source of housing at lower cost than ownership housing. To reduce the potential impact of condominium conversions on low- and moderate-income residents of converted condominiums, Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 353 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-6 Chapter 17.22 of the Municipal Code establishes requirements including first right of refusal and relocation assistance for tenants. Timing: To ensure that the amount of relocation assistance remains sufficient, review and update relocation reimbursement requirements annually should condominium conversion become a trend again in the future. (There has not been any condominium conversion in the City for more than a decade.) Funding: General Fund. Issue Area 2 - New Affordable Housing Development 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives Program Description: State law requires cities to grant a density bonus and other incentives for qualifying affordable or senior housing developments. Section 17.42.100 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards and procedures for implementing State Density Bonus Law. In addition to State requirements, the City has adopted additional incentives that allow increased density when small parcels are combined to create a larger residential building site. State density bonus law has been amended from time to time to encourage the development of affordable and senior housing. The City has been implementing the State density bonus law. To provide clarity and help incentivize affordable housing development, the City will revise its density bonus regulations (Municipal Code Sec. 17.42.100) to comport with current State law. In addition, the City will inform developers and contractors of this incentive program through brochures at the public counter and information posted on the City’s website. Timing: As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, revise the City’s Density Bonus regulations by the end of 2023. Continue to make information available on the density bonus program through brochures and the City website throughout the planning period. Funding: City General Fund. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 354 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-7 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance Program Description: This program includes investigation of potential funding sources and administrative support to assist private and non-profit organizations in the development and/or provision of affordable housing. The City will investigate the feasibility of expanding CDBG funding and Section 8 rental vouchers to qualifying households. The Section 8 program is one of the major sources of housing assistance for very-low- and extremely-low- income households. If the City is successful in obtaining increased CDBG funding and/or expanding Section 8 rental vouchers for residents, this information will be posted in the Community Center, on the City’s website, in handouts provided in the information kiosk in the City Hall lobby, and in the local library. Brochures will also be provided to local service clubs including the local “Meals on Wheels” program, local dial-a-ride service, the local recreation center, and emergency shelters in the area. The City will also provide incentives such as priority processing, fee waivers and deferrals, and modified development standards to projects with low- or moderate-income units, and will assist in preparing and processing grant applications for affordable housing projects to support the development of such units. Project sponsors will be encouraged to include units for extremely-low-income households where feasible. As part of the 2021 Housing Element update the City consulted with a variety of housing organizations to identify potential actions the City could take to facilitate the development of affordable housing, including to extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income households. Timing: Annually pursue funding available to expand affordable housing opportunities in the City, especially housing for special needs populations, including extremely low income households. Annually contact developers to explore affordable housing opportunities, especially for developers with experience in special needs housing. As affordable units become available, conduct Affirmative Fair Marketing to agencies and organizations that serve low and moderate income households and special needs populations in the South Bay region. Funding: This program will be financed through the City’s General Fund and grant funds. 5. Facilitate Efficient Use of Sites that Allow High-Density Residential Development Program Description: This program will facilitate affordable housing development on sites that allow high-density residential development including reducing constraints posed by small lot sizes. a. While the City does not rely on small sites to meet its lower income RHNA, the City will continue to facilitate lot consolidation by: Assisting affordable housing developers in identifying opportunities for lot consolidation using the City’s GIS system and property database; Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 355 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-8 Continuing to expedite processing for lot consolidations processed concurrently with planning entitlements; Continuing to provide a graduated density bonus for lower-income housing on small lots consolidated into a single building site according to the following formula (Zoning Ordinance Sec. 17.42.170): Combined Parcel Size Allowable Base Density* b. The City will continue to facilitate affordable housing development by: Facilitating pre-application meetings; Implementing incentives under the Density Bonus law; Reducing property development standards (e.g. reduced setbacks, reduced parking standards) for small developments below the threshold of Density Bonus law when affordable units targeted to the elderly or persons with disabilities are provided; Allowing deferral or waiver of City fees necessary to make the project cost- effective; Facilitating permit processing so that developers can take advantage of funding opportunities; Expediting permit processing through concurrent review through the planning and building processes; Promoting programs on the City’s website and at the Planning Counter and biennially notify affordable housing developers of the City’s housing incentives. Timing: By the end of 2023, publicize the lot consolidation incentives on the City’s website, at the Planning counter, and by notice to affordable housing providers. Annually contact developers to communicate the various city incentives available to facilitate affordable housing development. By the end of 2025, conduct an assessment of the City’s progress in providing affordable housing in the community. If the City is not making meaningful progress in its affordable housing goals, the City will develop additional incentives and strategies to expand affordable housing opportunities by the end of 2026. Additional incentives may include increasing the graduated densities for lot consolidation. Funding: General Fund. Accessory Dwelling Units Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 356 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-9 6. Accessory Dwelling Units Program Description: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide an important source of affordable housing for seniors, young adults, care-givers and other low- and moderate- income segments of the population. In recent years, the State Legislature has adopted extensive changes to ADU law in order to encourage housing production. Among the most significant changes is the requirement for cities to allow one ADU plus one “junior ADU” on single-family residential lots by-right subject to limited development standards. The City further incentivizes ADU development by allowing a second ADU in lieu of the JADU. This flexibility facilitates the development of a range of ADU sizes to accommodate the diverse housing needs in the community. The City will review new legislation each year and update ADU regulations as necessary to ensure conformance with current State law. Timing: Facilitate the development of 95 ADUs over the eight-year planning period, over the RHNA projection of 64 ADUs. Monitor legislation and update City ADU regulations as necessary to maintain consistency with State law by the end of 2023. Provide ADU standards, guidance, and resources on City website by the July 2024. For example, provide links to the California Housing Finance Agency CalFHA) ADU grant program that provides $40,000 in pre-development funds to qualified homeowners. By the end of 2025, develop incentives to facilitate the construction of ADUs. Incentives may include pre-approved plans, expedited review, assigned staff or office hours for ADU review and consultation, and/or reduced fees. By the end of 2025, amend the Zoning Code to allow an additional JADU beyond current allowance under State and local laws) within the existing square footage of larger homes. A survey of completed homes in the past four years revealed an average primary unit size of 3,500 square feet. The City proposes to allow an additional JADU in primary units over 3,000 square feet on single-family (R-1) lots, only when the additional JADU results in a net additional dwelling unit. The City aims to add 15 additional units using this method between 2026 and 2029. Monitor the trend of ADU development every other year beginning in 2025. If by 2027, the ADU activities are not trending to meet the Housing Element goal, develop additional incentives (such as pursuing State funds or partnering with nonprofits) by July 2028 to further facilitate ADU development, or to identify replacement sites or rezoning, if necessary, to address any sites capacity shortfalls. Promote the use of Housing Choice Vouchers for ADUs. Create a Fair Housing Factsheet on landlord responsibility as part of ADU application packet by July 2024. Funding: General Fund and grant funds, if available. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 357 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-10 7. Land Value Recapture Program Description: When land is rezoned to allow higher-intensity uses, the value of that property typicallyincreases. Land value recapture refers to a policy requiring that a portion of the increased value be dedicated to a public benefit, such as affordable housing. The City adopted the Housing Element on December 21, 2021, including the Land Value Recapture Program as Program 7. This Program was introduced early in the Housing Element discussions and has been a part of the Housing Element update since inception. The Program was carried through to the revised adopted Housing Element on August 8, 2023. The Housing Element indicates that the City will perform a feasibility analysis on the Land Value Recapture Program. The premise of the Land Value Recapture Program is that properties that benefit from zoning actions to allow for residential development increase in value. In the South Bay region where Hermosa Beach is located, there is a decreasing desire to redevelop commercial properties and instead an increased desire to redevelop properties into mixed use or all residential. This desire correlates to property values. The Program levies a fee onto any residential development on properties that benefited from a zoning action that expanded their development ability. However, the property is exempt from the fee if the proposed residential development includes 15% very-low-, 15% low-, or 25% moderate- income units. The City worked with a real estate advisory company to evaluate the economic feasibility of Land Value Recapture. The analysis included sample business proformas indicating that the City’s proposed Land Value Recapture fee did not render development infeasible (i.e., that an acceptable return on investment would be possible), and even further that in some cases, construction affordable units and taking advantage of density bonus provisions amplified the return on investment. Timing: Conducted feasibility study concurrent with rezoning in 2023 (see Program 9) and begin implementation in 2024. Funding: General Fund and grant funds, if available. 8. Housing Trust Funds Program Description: Housing trust funds are a dedicated source of financial assistance for affordable housing and can be funded through a variety of mechanisms, such as governmental grants, loans, charitable contributions, development fees, and land value recapture requirements (see also Program 7). The City has joined the South Bay Housing Trust Fund managed by the South Bay Council of Governments (SBayCOG). Specifically, the City has contributed SB 2 funds toward the Trust Fund. Timing: Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 358 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-11 Annually pursue funding to provide for affordable housing, especially funding for special needs populations. As funding permits, continue to participate in the South Bay Housing Trust Fund. Funding: General Fund or grant funds, if available. Issue Area 3 - Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs Program Description: State law requires cities to ensure that their land use plans and development regulations identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate housing needs assigned through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment RHNA) process. The City’s RHNA allocation is described in Section I.H of the Housing Element Technical Report, and an analysis of the City’s potential sites for additional housing is presented in Appendix B of the Technical Report. For the 6th cycle RHNA, the City has been allocated a RHNA of 558 units (232 very low, 127 low, 106 moderate, and 93 above moderate income units). With projected ADUs of 64 units over eight years, the City has a remaining RHNA obligation of 494 units (221 very low, 99 low, 102 moderate, and 72 above moderate income units). These units are being accommodated on sites rezoned or amended to allow mixed use and residential uses. At the State default minimum density of 20 units per acre, up to 24.7 acres of rezoning would be required. However, the City proposes to rezone two one-acre city-owned properties at a minimum density of 34 units per acre, and the majority of identified parcels will be rezoned to a minimum density of 25.1 units per acre. Overall, 23.5 acres of rezoning were identified. The sites analysis concluded that amendments to current land use and zoning designations are necessary in order to fully accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the City identified a number of sites with potential for redevelopment into residential or mixed use residential development. An estimated 302 units can be accommodated on parcels larger than 0.5 acre (151 very low, 76 low, 44 moderate, and 31 above moderate income units). In addition, Sites 1 and 2 (St. Cross), while comprising of multiple parcels, are under common ownership and function as an integral campus. These two sites can accommodate 33 very low and 13 low income units. These large parcels and St. Cross site can accommodate the majority of the City’s remaining lower income RHNA, with 47 units (less than 15 percent) of the remaining lower income units required to be accommodated on consolidated sites. As discussed before, all small sites used for lower income RHNA are contiguous, under common ownership and with no more than two owners. Moderate and above moderate income housing can be developed on small parcels without consolidation. This program describes the actions the City will take to ensure that adequate sites are designated consistent with Government Code Sec. 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2. The City will process General Plan and zoning amendments, including the required CEQA analysis, for the selected sites. The rezoned sites shall include the following components pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65583.2(i): Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 359 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-12 o Permit owner-occupied and rental multi-family uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. o Permit the development of at least 16 units per site. o Permit a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. o Ensure that either: a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very-low- income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses; or b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very-low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed uses, all sites designated for mixed uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential uses occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project. The City will report on the status of this program each year as part of the Annual Progress Report. Timing: In November 2023, the City completed Zoning map and text amendments to provide adequate sites: o Rezone City-owned properties (Sites 10 and 11) from M-1 and O-S to Public Facilities with an allowable residential density of 34-50 units per acre. o Rezone Sites 1 and 2 (St. Cross Church properties) from R-1/R-2 to R-2A with an allowable residential density of 22-25 units per acre. o Amend Zoning Ordinance to add residential and mixed use development as permitted uses to C-2, C-3, SPA-7, SPA-8, and SPA-11 RHNA sites with an allowable residential density of 25.1-33 units per acre. o Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish a formal procedure to monitor for the No Net Loss of capacity for accommodating the RHNA, pursuant to SB 166. o Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish the replacement housing requirements when redevelopment occurs on RHNA sites where existing units occupied by or deed-restricted for lower income households are demolished. In November 2023, the City amended the General Plan land use designation for Sites 1 and 2 in the inventory from Low Density to Medium Density Residential. By the end of July 2024, complete text corrections regarding the rezoning above to ensure compliance with the minimum density of 20 du/ac. Facilitate affordable housing development on City-owned sites: o Develop and release a Request for Proposal by the end of 2024 to solicit a public/private partnership for affordable housing (including housing for special needs populations). If disposition of site(s) is considered, the City will ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 360 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-13 o Complete design work, environmental review and associated approvals by the end of 2025. o Identify affordable housing developer(s) to partner with on affordable housing projects meeting the RHNA allocation of 100 affordable units on the City sites (30 very low, 45 low, and 25 moderate income units) on City-owned sites. o If the City is not successful in pursuing affordable housing on these sites and construction has not started by 2027, the City will pursue alternative actions such as identifying alternative sites) by the end of 2028. Beyond the sites required to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the City also embarked on an effort starting in 2022 to introduce residential development along all major commercial corridors. As of November 2023, the City completed the zoning text changes creating mixed use (residential/ commercial) development standards in C-2 and C-3 zones, and allows mixed use/residential only in the newly created the Housing Element Sites Overlay Sites Inventory sites) with a density range of 25.1 to 33 du/ac. By the end of 2026, the City will create additional mixed use overlays to include other areas in the major commercial corridors, with a minimum density of at least 20 du/ac. The City anticipates this will result in 100 units above the Housing Element Sites Overlay capacity. Funding: General Fund; grant funds. Issue Area 4 - Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs Program Description: The Zoning Ordinance encourages the provision of housing for persons with special needs, including regulations and procedures related to group homes, emergency shelters, transitional/supportive housing and persons with disabilities. The City is in the process of updating the Zoning Ordinance. Specific changes to address special needs housing include: Emergency Shelters: Revise parking standard based on staffing level only. Designate R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) as zone for emergency shelters by right without discretionary review. Expand the definition of emergency shelters to include interim housing options pursuant to State law (AB 2339), including bridge housing, navigation centers, and respite and recuperative care. Review and revise or remove the bed limit based on consultation with service providers. Transitional and Supportive Housing: These uses are currently permitted in all residential zones as similar uses in the same zones. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to similarly permit transitional and supportive housing in all zones that permit residential uses. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 361 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-14 Supportive Housing: Recent changes to State law (AB 2162 of 2018) require that supportive housing (up to 50 units) meeting specific requirements be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses. Furthermore, if the development is located within half-mile from transit, no minimum parking can be required. Residential Care Facilities (for seven or more persons): Revise the CUP review process for large care facilities to an Administrative Permit in all residential zones, with a lower fee, and establish findings for approval that are objective and provide certainty in outcomes similar to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Low Barrier Navigation Center: In 2019 the State Legislature adopted AB 101 establishing requirements related to local regulation of low barrier navigation centers, which are defined as “Housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit low barrier navigation centers meeting specified standards by- right in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Reasonable Accommodation: In the October 2023 Zoning Ordinance amendment, the City removed the public hearing requirement for reasonable accommodation requests and required finding relating to traffic and parking impacts. However, the finding relating to neighborhood character remained. In November 2023, the City adopted the Housing Element Zoning Text Amendment and removed the finding regarding neighborhood character to ensure objectivity. (This action is completed.) Live/Work Housing: The City’s Economic Subcommittee studied the increased need for live/work housing. Develop strategies for providing live/work housing and 15- minute neighborhoods. Timing: Zoning Code amendments by the end of 2024. Develop strategies for live/work housing by 2025. Funding: General Fund and grants 11. Streamline Housing Permit Processing Program Description: As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update the City will evaluate methods to simplify the housing development review process such as eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for multi-family, condominium and mixed-use developments and reviewing the Precise Development Plan (PDP) process including what is reviewed, typical findings and approval procedures by zone and housing type, and impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. Consistent with new transparency laws, zoning, development standards and fees are posted on the City website. The Zoning Ordinance update will also include revisions to streamline PDP process Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 362 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-15 and develop objective standards to minimize constraints on housing supply and affordability. In addition, the City will establish procedures to process SB 35 projects. Timing: Zoning Ordinance update by the end of 2023 to: o Streamline the Precise Development Plan review process as discussed in the Housing Element Technical Report. o Develop object standards for project review. By the end of 2023, establish SB 35 procedures. Annually update City website to provide current information on zoning, development standards and fees. By the end of 2024, update Subdivision Ordinance to address CUP requirement for condominium projects. Funding: General Fund and grants. 12. Remove Governmental Constraints Program Description: As part of this Housing Element update, the City has evaluated the effectiveness of its development standards and procedures in facilitating residential and mixed use developments. Specifically, the City’s parking standards for multi-family housing does not support a variety of unit types and sizes. Subsequent to the adoption of the Housing Element, the City will review any Coastal Land Use Plan policies that must be updated and submit to the California Coastal Commission for certification. The timeline will be more apparent once the amendments have been submitted. Timing: As part of comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update by the end of 2023, revise parking standards to facilitate a variety of unit sizes and types, such as smaller units, senior units, and mixed use developments, and offer alternative options such as shared parking arrangements for mixed use development. (This task has already been completed as part of the October 2023 Zoning Ordinance update. Parking for small units (zero to one-bedroom) has been reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. Transitional and supportive housing, which is usually smaller in size, the parking requirements mirror that of regular residential uses, except when such housing is located within one-half mile of transit. In that case, no parking is required.) By the end of 2024, the City will revise the parking standards to remove the guest parking requirements. The currently adopted parking standards will remain but will be indicated as inclusive of guest parking. By 2024, submit updated Coastal Land Use Policies to the CCC for certification. Funding: General Fund and grants. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 363 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-16 Issue Area 5 - Equal Housing Opportunity 13. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program Description: As a participating city in the Los Angeles County CDBG program, Hermosa Beach has access to services for fair housing outreach, education, and counseling on housing discrimination complaints. The City will continue to advertise the fair housing program through placement of fair housing service brochures at the public counter, at the Senior Center, through the City's newsletter, and on the City website. Apartment owners and managers are provided with current information about fair housing issues, rights and responsibilities. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles conducts seminars on State, Federal and local Fair Housing laws and compliance issues. In addition, the City will: Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement requirements. Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the applicable development regulations. Work with the County to implement the regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and HUD Consolidated Plan. Facilitate public education and outreach by posting informational flyers on fair housing and housing resources at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website and at Senior Center. Expand the City’s outreach efforts to reach a broader audience by: o Advertising housing-related initiatives and programs in newspapers that have broader circulation beyond city limits (such as the Daily Breeze. o Making hard copies of documents to assist the technology challenged. o Expanding notifications to agencies and organizations that serve residents in the South Bay region. Conduct at least one public meeting annually to discuss housing-related issues. Conduct public meetings at suitable times, accessible to persons with disabilities, and near public transit. The utilizes multi-media platforms to outreach to lower and moderate income populations and persons with special needs. The City partners with community agencies for outreach at community events on weekends and at public locations. For community workshops and meetings, the City offers to the degree possible hybrid attendance depending on the setting. Usually, this includes a minimum of two (2) methods of attendance consisting of in-person and one other method. Resources will be invested to provide interpretation and translation services when requested at public meetings when feasible. Encourage community and stakeholder engagement during development decisions. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 364 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-17 Collaborate with home share programs and promote programs to residents. Home share programs available to South Bay residents include: o Home Share South Bay, a program offered by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), is a community solution that matches homeowners with renters seeking affordable housing in the South Bay. o Affordable Living for the Aging (ALA) offers a home share program. ALA screens, matches, and monitors two people to share a home based on living preferences and compatibility. Arrangements may be rent or a combination of rent and daily living support such as cleaning, cooking, or transportation. Timing: This program is ongoing and will continue through the planning period. Funding: General Fund. 14. Neighborhood Improvement Given the City’s compact size, the City’s strategies for AFFH Placed-Based Strategies for neighborhood improvements are focused on ensuring that every area in the City receives systematic investment while also ensuring that every area in the City is connected to amenities, such as services, businesses, and recreation across the City as well as regionally. Certain programs are available for senior and disabled residents as well. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The City uses CDBG funds to further mobility across all areas of the City by retrofitting existing intersections for disabled-accessible crosswalks and ramps. Safe Routes to School The City, in concert with the Hermosa Beach City School District, has a Safe Routes to School program. The Program includes educational materials, outreach, and a reporting system to ensure that routes to school are safe. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/city-departments/police/programs- tips/safe-routes-to-school Aging in Place The City of Hermosa Beach offers a tax rebate and certain exemptions (sewer, lighting assessment, utility user tax) for income-qualified elderly or disabled residents. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/finance-department/finance- administration/rebates The City offers a House Check program for senior citizens, including those with Alzheimer’s to ensure that these residents are safe. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our- government/police-department/not-alone-program-alzheimer-checklist-vacation-house- checks Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) has a Care Management Program to ensure senior receive services they need to continue living in their home. BCHD also pairs volunteers up with senior to assist them on errands so they can continue to live in their homes. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 365 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-18 Maintenance of Property Senior Grant Program – Los Angeles County Development Authority – senior homeowners for $15,000. Examples are livability and age in place, including deferred maintenance repairs. BCHD’s Senior Resources includes assisting seniors with mental health issues that may affect an individual’s ability to maintain and upkeep their home. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The City’s CIP projects which are under currently construction are focused on public amenities that are used by all residents, including repair of the Municipal Pier, accessible beach routes, sidewalk and accessible curb ramps, and repair of City park restrooms. https://hermosabeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=d4 f16ff6c37544a0b8bd0dc0a725452f The City’s 5-year CIP includes repair of a wide variety of public amenities. https://hermosabeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=d4f16ff6c3754 4a0b8bd0dc0a725452f Clean-up Events The City benefits from clean-up events through sponsoring and also in partnership with many organizations. The City of Hermosa Beach, Friends of the Parks-Hermosa Beach, the Surfrider Foundation, are some examples. These clean-up events restore public amenities for residents. Recent events headed by the Mayor of Hermosa Beach included a painting of classrooms in a park facility, new landscaping at park facilities, and beach clean-ups. Timing: Annually during budgeting process, prioritize improvements and services that have the most urgent need. Funding: General Fund and grant funds. Issue Area 6 – Sustainable Housing Development 15. Sustainable Housing Development Program Description: In 2017 the City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan (PLAN Hermosa). One of the primary themes of the new General Plan is community sustainability. Chapter 4: Sustainability + Conservation establishes state-of-the-art policies to improve sustainability and energy conservation in residential development. Those policies will continue to guide City decision-making in land use decisions and the development review process. Funding: General Fund. Timing: Throughout the planning period. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 366 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-19 C. Quantified Objectives Table II-1 describes the City’s quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation and conservation during the planning period. Table II-1 Quantified Objectives 2021-2029 New construction 116 116 127 106 93 558 Rehabilitation 10 10 Conservation (1) 60 60 1. Mobile homes D. Summary of AFFH Actions The table below summarizes the City’s actions to affirmatively further fair housing. This table supplements the descriptions, actions, and timing for citywide programs with targeted actions for AFFH. Implementation of the housing programs and detailed shown in the table below are both considered commitments of the City of Hermosa Beach. Table II-2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Summary Actions Program Specific Commitment Contributing Factors: Lack of fair housing service records Lack of fair housing testing Lack of monitoring Affordable Housing Development and Outreach affordable housing organizations regarding residential organizations serving low and moderate income and special needs households in the South Bay region development of 359 lower income units Marketing as affordable housing become Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 367 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-20 Program Specific Commitment Program 13: AFFH outreach by posting informational flyers on fair housing and housing resources at public counters, libraries, on the City’s website, and social media (FB, Twitter, Instagram, Next Door, and Tik Tok), and paid advertising such as Daily Breeze – engage a more diverse population, especially relying on social media platforms highest resource areas) development of 558 units, including 359 lower income units discuss housing-related issues. Conduct meetings at suitable times, accessible to persons with disabilities, and near public transit. Resources will be invested to provide interpretation and translation services when requested at public meetings year stakeholder engagement during development decisions. during development Marketing as affordable housing units become available. become available organizations serving low and moderate income and special needs households in the South Bay New Opportunities in High Resource Areas – High Priority Contributing Factors: High land, rental, and ownership housing costs Density Bonus and Other Incentives and make information available on the density bonus program through brochures and the City 2023 highest resource areas) construction of 359 lower income units Facilitate Efficient Use of Sites that Allow High-Density Residential affordable housing development through implementation of strategies outlined in Program 5. and mixed use zones consolidation to facilitate development of 100 multi- family units Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 368 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-21 Program Specific Commitment Program 6: ADUs City ADU regulations as necessary to maintain consistency with State 2023 neighborhoods construction of 95 ADUs, including 15 additional JADUsChoiceVouchersforAUDs. Create a fair housing factsheet to additional JADU on R-1 lots if the primary unit is at least 3,000 square feet and the additional JADU will result in a net increase in 2025 Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs amendments to provide adequate sites for RHNA. 2023 commercial corridors e 100% of the shortfall of sites to accommodate the city’s remaining housing need of 359 units for very low and low income Housing Mobility– High Priority Contributing Factors: High land, rental, and ownership housing costs ADUs Choice Vouchers for AUDs. Create a fair housing factsheet to 2023 neighborhoods construction of 95 ADUs additional JADU on R-1 lots if the primary unit is at least 3,000 square feet and the additional JADU will result in a net increase in 2025 Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs Sites Overlay capacity. 2026 corridors development of 100 units along commercial corridors Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 369 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-22 Program Specific Commitment Program 10: Housing for Persons with Special Needs amendments outlined in Program 10 to promote housing for special needs groups. 2023 property and along commercial corridors construction of 100 units for special needs populations, including 50 units of senior housing on City-owned increased need for live/work – develop strategies for live/work housing, co-working space, and 15-minute neighborhood, etc. commercial corridors and in light manufacturing development of 50 live/work units Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing outreach by posting informational flyers on fair housing and housing resources at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website and at Senior Center. Expand the City’s outreach efforts to reach a broader audience by: o Advertising housing-related initiatives and programs in newspapers that have broader circulation beyond city limits such as the Daily Breeze. o Making hard copies of documents to assist the technology challenged. o Expanding notifications to agencies and organizations that serve residents in the South Bay 2024 neighborhoods referrals to services to 20 households, with the goal of reaching a broader population via other media platforms. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 370 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-23 Program Specific Commitment Collaborate with home share programs and promote programs to residents. Home share programs available to South Bay residents include: o Home Share South Bay, a program offered by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments SBCCOG), is a community solution that matches homeowners with renters seeking affordable housing in the South Bay. o Affordable Living for the Aging ALA) offers a home share program. ALA screens, matches, and monitors two people to share a home based on living preferences and compatibility. Arrangements may be rent or a combination of rent and daily living support such as cleaning, Neighborhood Improvements activities and neighborhood improvements: CDBG mobility access improvements at crosswalks and ramps Safe routes to school budgeting process median household income and along commercial corridors and manufacturing areas where future housing improvement projects Affirmative Marketing affordable housing projects or projects with affordable units to implement an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan to outreach to a diverse population, extending outreach to nearby communities in the South Bay, especially to workers in the City who do not live in the City. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers (such as the home share programs) and non- profit housing organizations that serve lower income tenants in the units are developed future occupants of affordable units from outside Hermosa Beach, including those who work but do not live in the City Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 371 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-24 Program Specific Commitment Develop materials for Hermosa Beach residents who may be seeking tenants for their ADUs, which will be provided to ADU applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU permit. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers (such as the home share programs) and non- profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the surrounding region. Interested residents can use these materials to find prospective tenants in a larger market area beyond city limits, including residents of all races, ethnicities, ages, and 2025 neighborhoods and high resource areas citywide) future ADU occupants from outside Hermosa Beach, including those who work but do not live in the City Monitoring and effectiveness in April and include information in annual report to HCD. If the City is not on track to meet its housing mobility goals by 2027, the City will consider alternative land use strategies and make necessary amendments to zoning or other land use documents to facilitate a variety of housing choices, including but not limited to, strategies that encourage missing middle zoning (small-scale multi- unit projects up to four-plexes), adaptive reuse, within six months, if sufficient progress toward this quantified objective is not being April (including 15 additional JADUs) Home match for 20 households Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 372 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-25 Program Specific Commitment Contributing Factors: Unaffordable rental prices Availability of affordable housing Neighborhood Improvements activities and neighborhood improvements: Aging in place services, including tax rebates and exemptions for assessments Promote property maintenance assistance, such as LACDA senior repair grants Capital improvements for budgeting process median household income and along commercial corridors and manufacturing areas where future housing is expected exemptions for seniors and disabled households Conduct 8 neighborhood cleanup events Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement– High Priority Contributing Factors: Lack of fair housing service records Lack of fair housing testing Lack of monitoring Conservation of Existing Affordable reimbursement requirements for relocation assistance. displaced households compensated. Housing Trust Funds provide for affordable housing and as funding permits, continue participation in the South Bay Housing Trust Fund Region the development of 5 affordable housing units in Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 373 of 764 Housing Policy Plan – CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Adopted December 21, 2021/ August 8, 2023 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-26 Program Specific Commitment AFFH: Homelessness Plan Homelessness Plan, including outreach for persons experiencing homelessness: PATH provides dedicated outreach teams for homeless assistance, and also connects individuals with medical and mental healthcare, interim housing, veteran services, employment services and providing benefits enrollment and advocacy. Through PATH, the City has an Outreach Hotline. The LA County MET performs outreach and assessments on individuals with mental health needs, and provides linkages to services. City staff meets quarterly with regional outreach representatives from PATH and Harbor Interfaith Services to share relevant information, assess service connections made, and identify community “hot spots” where additional attention is needed. In partnership with SBCCOG, facilitate landlord outreach/education regarding opportunities for housing individuals at- emphasis on southwest section of the City persons experiencing homelessness through outreach efforts annually. Homelessness Plan to support response efforts and special circumstances. This fund can cover items such as miscellaneous services and materials, motel vouchers, transit vouchers, laundry services, hygiene emphasis on southwest section of the City persons experiencing homelessness annually. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 374 of 764 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT 2021-2029 Adopted December 21, 2021 Re-adopted (with revisions) August 8, 2023 Revisions (January, May, and June 2024) EXHIBIT B Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 375 of 764 This page intentionally left blank Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 376 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 i Contents I. Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................. I-1 A. Population Characteristics................................................................................... I-1 1. Population Growth Trends ........................................................................... I-1 2. Age Characteristics ..................................................................................... I-1 B. Household Characteristics ................................................................................... I-2 1. Household Tenure and Size ......................................................................... I-2 2. Overcrowding .............................................................................................. I-4 3. Income and Overpayment ........................................................................ I-5 C. Employment .......................................................................................................... I-8 D. Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................. I-9 1. Housing Type and Growth Trends ............................................................... I-9 2. Housing Age and Conditions .................................................................... I-10 3. Vacancy ..................................................................................................... I-12 4. Housing Cost .............................................................................................. I-13 E. Special Needs ..................................................................................................... I-14 1. Persons with Disabilities .............................................................................. I-15 2. Elderly .......................................................................................................... I-19 3. Large Households ...................................................................................... I-20 4. Female-Headed Households .................................................................... I-21 5. Farm Workers .............................................................................................. I-23 6. Homeless Persons ....................................................................................... I-23 F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ............................................................. I-27 G. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing in the Coastal Zone ............................ I-27 H. Future Housing Needs ........................................................................................ I-27 1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ........................... I-27 2. Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Needs ............................................. I-28 II. Resources and Opportunities ......................................................................................... II-1 A. Land Resources ................................................................................................... II-1 B. Financial and Administrative Resources ............................................................ II-1 1. State and Federal Resources ..................................................................... II-1 2. Local Resources .......................................................................................... II-2 C. Sustainable Housing Development .................................................................... II-2 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 377 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 ii 1. AB 32 and SB 375 ......................................................................................... II-2 2. Energy Conservation Opportunities........................................................... II-3 III. Constraints ...................................................................................................................... III-1 A. Governmental Constraints ................................................................................. III-1 1. Transparency with Development Regulations ......................................... III-1 2. Land Use Plans and Regulations ............................................................... III-1 3. Development Processing Procedures .................................................... III-15 4. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements .......................... III-17 B. Non-Governmental Constraints ....................................................................... III-19 1. Environmental Constraints ....................................................................... III-19 2. Infrastructure Constraints ......................................................................... III-19 3. Land Costs ................................................................................................ III-20 4. Construction Costs ................................................................................... III-20 5. Cost and Availability of Financing .......................................................... III-21 6. Timing and Density ................................................................................... III-21 Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2014-2021 Housing Element Appendix B – Residential Land Inventory Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Appendix D -- Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 378 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 iii List of Tables Table I-1 Extremely-Low-Income Households by Race and Tenure Hermosa Beach .................. I-5 Table I-2 Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure Hermosa Beach ................................... I-6 Table I-3 Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs – Los Angeles County ................. I-13 Table I-4 Disability by Employment Status – Hermosa Beach ........................................................ I-17 Table I-5 Developmental Disabilities – Hermosa Beach ................................................................. I-18 Table I-6 Agricultural Employment – Hermosa Beach .................................................................... I-23 Table I-7 Regional Housing Needs 2021-2029 – Hermosa Beach .................................................. I-28 Table II-1 Land Inventory Summary ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table III-1 Residential Land Use Categories – Hermosa Beach General Plan ............................... III-2 Table III-2 Residential Development Standards by Zone ................................................................. III-2 Table III-3 Permitted Residential Development by Zone ................................................................. III-4 Table III-4 Residential Parking Requirements ................................................................................... III-10 Table III-5 City of Hermosa Beach Planning & Building Fees ......................................................... III-18 List of Figures Figure I-1 Population Growth 2000-2020 – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region ............................... I-1 Figure I-2 Population by Age and Gender – Hermosa Beach ......................................................... I-2 Figure I-3 Housing Tenure – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region ........................................................ I-3 Figure I-4 Housing Tenure by Age – Hermosa Beach ........................................................................ I-3 Figure I-5 Household Size by Tenure – Hermosa Beach..................................................................... I-4 Figure I-6 Overcrowding by Tenure – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region ....................................... I-4 Figure I-7 Rent as Percentage of Income – Hermosa Beach ........................................................... I-6 Figure I-8 Rent as Percentage of Income by Income Category – Hermosa Beach ..................... I-7 Figure I-9 Mortgage Cost as Percentage of Income by Income Category – Hermosa Beach ..................................................................................................................................... I-7 Figure I-10 Employment by Industry – Hermosa Beach ....................................................................... I-8 Figure I-11 Employment by Occupation – Hermosa Beach ............................................................... I-9 Figure I-12 Housing by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region .................................................... I-10 Figure I-13 Housing Growth Trends by Type – Hermosa Beach ........................................................ I-10 Figure I-14 Housing Units by Year Built – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region ................................... I-11 Figure I-15 Substandard Housing Units – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region .................................. I-12 Figure I-16 Vacant Units by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region ........................................... I-12 Figure I-17 Median Existing Home Prices – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region .............................. I-14 Figure I-18 Disabilities by Type – Hermosa Beach .............................................................................. I-16 Figure I-19 Disabilities by Type for Seniors (65+) – Hermosa Beach .................................................. I-16 Figure I-20 Elderly Households by Income and Tenure – Hermosa Beach ...................................... I-20 Figure I-21 Household Size by Tenure – Hermosa Beach................................................................... I-21 Figure I-22 Female Headed Households – Hermosa Beach ............................................................. I-22 Figure I-23 Female Headed Households by Poverty Status – Hermosa Beach .............................. I-22 Figure I-24 Los Angeles County Homeless Service Planning Areas .................................................. I-26 Figure III-1 Racial Characteristics – Hermosa Beach ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure III-2 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty – Hermosa Beach . Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure III-3 Poverty Status – Hermosa Beach .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure III-4 Population with a Disability – Hermosa Beach .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure III-5 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 379 of 764 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 380 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-1 I. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT This chapter examines general population and household characteristics and trends, such as age, race and ethnicity, employment, household composition and size, household income, and special needs. Characteristics of the existing housing stock (e.g., number of units and type, tenure, age and condition, costs) are also addressed. Finally, the City’s projected housing growth needs based on the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) are examined. The Housing Needs Assessment utilizes the most recent available data from the U.S. Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other relevant sources. Supplemental data were obtained through field surveys and from the California Department of Finance. A. Population Characteristics 1. Population Growth Trends Located 17 miles southwest of Los Angeles at the southern end of Santa Monica Bay, the 1.3-square-mile City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907. The city grew very slowly during the 1990s, having grown less than 2% from 1990 to 2000. Most of the growth that has recently occurred has consisted of density increases on existing parcels, through demolition and replacement of existing homes. Hermosa Beach had a 2020 population of 19,614 according to the California Department of Finance. From 2000 to 2020 Hermosa Beach had an annual growth rate of 0.3% compared to 0.7% for the SCAG region.(see Figure I-1). As an essentially built-out city, there continue to be few opportunities for growth, except through redevelopment/infill on existing parcels. Figure I-1 Population Growth 2000-2020 – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region 2. Age Characteristics Housing needs are influenced by the age characteristics of the population. Different age groups have different housing needs based on lifestyles, family types, income levels, and Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 381 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-2 housing preference. Figure I-2 shows the age distribution of Hermosa Beach residents by gender. The population of Hermosa Beach is 53.7% male and 46.3% female. The share of the population of Hermosa Beach which is under 18 years of age is 17.2%, which is lower than the regional share of 23.4%. Hermosa Beach's seniors (65 and above) make up 11.7% of the population, which is lower than the regional share of 13%. Figure I-2 Population by Age and Gender – Hermosa Beach B. Household Characteristics 1. Household Tenure and Size Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing needed in a city. The Census defines a “household” as all persons occupying a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons sharing a single unit. Persons in group quarters such as dormitories, retirement or convalescent homes, or other group living situations are included in population totals, but are not considered households. Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) is an important indicator of the housing market. An adequate supply of housing units available both for rent and for sale is desirable in order to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes and composition, and lifestyles. Figure I-3 provides recent Census estimates of the number of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units in the city as compared to the SCAG region as a whole. This table reveals a higher proportion of renters in the city, which is not unusual for beach communities. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 382 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-3 Figure I-3 Housing Tenure – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region Figure I-4 shows that tenure varies by age group, with younger residents more likely to rent as compared to those in the 45+ age groups who are more often homeowners. Figure I-4 Housing Tenure by Age – Hermosa Beach Figure I-5 illustrates the range of household sizes in Hermosa Beach for owners, renters, and overall. The most commonly occurring household size is of two people (37.1%) and the second-most commonly occurring household is of one person (36.7%). Hermosa Beach has a higher share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (36.7% vs. 23.4%) and very few large households with more than 5 persons. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 383 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-4 Figure I-5 Household Size by Tenure – Hermosa Beach 2. Overcrowding Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, with severe overcrowding when there are more than 1.5 residents per room. Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of affordable housing (see Section D.4 starting on page I-13 below for a detailed definition of “affordable” housing). Figure I-6 summarizes recent overcrowding data for Hermosa Beach and the SCAG region as a whole. Figure I-6 Overcrowding by Tenure – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 384 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-5 Based on U.S. Census standards, Hermosa Beach residents live in less crowded housing conditions than the region as a whole. In Hermosa Beach, 20 owner-occupied and 109 renter-occupied households had more than 1.0 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for overcrowding. No owner-occupied households and 88 renter-occupied households had more than 1.5 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for severe overcrowding. 3. Income and Overpayment Extremely-low-income households are defined as those with incomes of 30% or less of areawide median income (AMI). Table I-1 shows the number of extremely-low-income households in Hermosa Beach by race and tenure. Table I-1 Extremely-Low-Income Households by Race and Tenure Hermosa Beach According to State housing policy, overpaying (or “cost burden”) occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of gross household income. Table I-2 displays recent HUD estimates for overpayment by income category and tenure for Hermosa Beach residents. As shown in this table, extremely-low-income and very-low-income households experienced the highest rates of overpayment. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 385 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-6 Table I-2 Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure Hermosa Beach Across Hermosa Beach's 4,608 renter households, 1,306 (28.3%) spend 30% or more of gross income on housing compared to 55.3% in the SCAG region. Additionally, 704 renter households in Hermosa Beach (15.3%) spend 50% or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 28.9% in the SCAG region (Figure I-7). Figure I-7 Rent as Percentage of Income – Hermosa Beach While the previous table breaks down cost burden by area-relative income, Figure I-8 shows percentage of income spent on rent by income category. As one might expect, the general trend is that lower-income households spend a higher share of income on Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 386 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-7 housing (often more than 50%) while high-income households are more likely to spend under 20% of income on housing. Figure I-8 Rent as Percentage of Income by Income Category – Hermosa Beach Figure I-9 shows the percentage of income spent on mortgage costs for Hermosa Beach homeowners by income category. As one might expect, the general trend is that lower- income households spend a higher share of income on housing costs, while high-income households may spend a lower share of income on housing. Figure I-9 Mortgage Cost as Percentage of Income by Income Category – Hermosa Beach Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 387 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-8 C. Employment Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs available in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and size of housing residents can afford. Hermosa Beach has 12,290 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. Figure I-10 shows that the most prevalent industry is Professional Services with 2,327 employees (18.9% of total) and the second most prevalent industry is Education Social Services with 1,968 employees (16% of total). Figure I-10 Employment by Industry – Hermosa Beach In addition to understanding the industries in which the residents of Hermosa Beach work, Figure I-11 shows the types of jobs they hold. The most prevalent occupational category in Hermosa Beach is Management, in which 7,580 (61.7% of total) employees work. The second-most prevalent type of work is in Sales, which employs 2,966 (24.1% of total) in Hermosa Beach. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 388 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-9 Figure I-11 Employment by Occupation – Hermosa Beach D. Housing Stock Characteristics This section presents an evaluation of the characteristics of the community’s housing stock and helps in identifying and prioritizing needs. A housing unit is defined by the Census Bureau as a house, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms, occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. 1. Housing Type and Growth Trends Figure I-12 shows detailed information on the housing stock in Hermosa Beach. The most prevalent housing type in Hermosa Beach is single-family detached with 43.8% of all units in the city. The share of all single-family units in Hermosa Beach is 52%, which is lower than the 61.7% share in the SCAG region. Out of the total housing units in Hermosa Beach, there are 9,565 occupied-units, which equates to a 5.2% total vacancy rate. The average household size (as expressed by the population to housing unit ratio) is 2.049. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 389 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-10 Figure I-12 Housing by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region Over the past two decades there has been more construction of single-family residential units than multi-family residential units in Hermosa Beach. During the period 2000 to 2020, single-family units increased by 231 while the number of multi-family units decreased by 114. Mobile and manufactured homes increased by 135 during this period. Figure I-13 Housing Growth Trends by Type – Hermosa Beach 2. Housing Age and Conditions Housing age is often an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built prior to 1978 before stringent limits on the amount of lead in paint were imposed may have interior or exterior building components coated with lead-based paint. Housing units built before 1970 are the most likely to need rehabilitation and to have lead-based paint in deteriorated condition. Lead-based paint becomes hazardous to children under age six and to pregnant women when it peels off walls or is pulverized by windows and doors opening and closing. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 390 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-11 Figure I-14 shows the age distribution of the housing stock in Hermosa Beach compared to the SCAG region as a whole as reported in recent Census data. Figure I-14 Housing Units by Year Built – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region This chart shows that more than half of the housing units in Hermosa Beach were constructed prior to 1970. These findings suggest that there may be a need for maintenance and rehabilitation, including remediation of lead-based paint, for a large percentage of the city’s housing stock. However, due to the city’s relatively high household incomes, market forces would be expected to encourage more private maintenance, rehabilitation, and lead paint remediation, as compared to lower-income communities. Figure I-15 shows recent Census data regarding conditions that may indicate substandard housing conditions. In Hermosa Beach and the region as a whole, the lack of telephone service, plumbing facilities and complete kitchen facilities are rare, and could be indicative of surveys being conducted while remodeling is being done rather than permanent conditions. With regard to telephone service, the availability of cell phones has made landline telephones unnecessary; therefore, this may not be a reliable indicator of substandard housing conditions. Based upon a windshield survey by Building Inspectors and Code Enforcement Officers, it is estimated that approximately 10 properties in the city are in need of rehabilitation or replacement. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 391 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-12 Figure I-15 Substandard Housing Units – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region 3. Vacancy Housing vacancy characteristics for Hermosa Beach and the SCAG region as reported by recent Census data are shown in Figure I-16. The largest category of vacant units in both the city and the region as a whole was those held for seasonal use. Figure I-16 Vacant Units by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 392 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-13 4. Housing Cost a. Housing Affordability Criteria State law establishes five income categories for purposes of housing programs based on the area (i.e., county) median income (“AMI”): Extremely-Low (30% or less of AMI), Very-Low (31-50% of AMI), Low (51-80% of AMI), Moderate (81-120% of AMI), and Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI). Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and housing expenses. According to HUD and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, housing is considered “affordable” if the monthly payment is no more than 30% of a household’s gross income. In some areas, these income limits may be increased to adjust for high housing costs. Table I-3 shows 2020 affordable rent levels and estimated affordable purchase prices for housing in Los Angeles County by income category. Based on State-adopted standards for 4-person households, the maximum affordable monthly rent for extremely-low-income households is $845, while the maximum affordable rent for very-low-income households is 1,407. The maximum affordable rent for low-income households is $2,252, while the maximum for moderate-income households is $2,319. Maximum purchase prices are more difficult to determine due to variations in mortgage interest rates and qualifying procedures, down payments, special tax assessments, homeowner association fees, property insurance rates, etc. With this caveat, the maximum home purchase prices by income category shown in Table I-3 have been estimated based on typical conditions. Table I-3 Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs – Los Angeles County Income Limits Affordable Rent Affordable Price (est.) Extremely Low (<30%) $33,800 $845 * Very Low (31-50%) $56,300 $1,407 * Low (51-80%) $90,100 $2,252 * Moderate (81-120%) $92,750 $2,319 $375,000 Above moderate (120%+) Over $92,750 Over $2,319 Over $375,000 Assumptions: Based on a family of 4 and 2020 income limits 30% of gross income for rent or principal, interest, taxes and insurance plus utility allowance 10% down payment, 3.75% interest, 1.25% taxes & insurance, $300 HOA dues Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 393 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-14 b. For-Sale Housing Housing sales price statistics reported by Core Logic/DataQuick (Figure I-17) show that between 2000 and 2018, median home sales prices in Hermosa Beach increased 219% while prices in the SCAG region increased 151%. As of 2018, the median home sales price in Hermosa Beach was $1,617,500 compared to about $600,000 for the SCAG region as a whole. Based on the estimated affordable purchase prices shown in Table I-3, it is unlikely that any market rate homes would be affordable to lower- or moderate-income residents. These data illustrate the fact that in beach communities, very large public subsidies are generally required to reduce sales prices to a level that is affordable to low- and moderate-income buyers. Figure I-17 Median Existing Home Prices – Hermosa Beach vs. SCAG Region c. Rental Housing Based on a recent rental survey, typical rents for 2-bedroom units are more than $2,300 per month. As would be expected in a desirable beach community in Southern California, when market rents are compared to the amounts households can afford to pay (Table I- 3, page I-13), it is clear that very-low- and extremely-low-income households have a very difficult time finding housing without overpaying. At a rent of $2,300 per month, the gap between market rent and affordable rent at the very-low-income level is at least $900 per month, while the gap at the extremely-low-income level is approximately $1,500 per month. E. Special Needs Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances that may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. As a result, some Hermosa Beach residents may experience a higher prevalence of overpayment, overcrowding, or other housing problems. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 394 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-15 State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include persons with disabilities, the elderly, large households, female-headed households with children, homeless people, and farm workers. This section contains a discussion of the characteristics and housing needs facing each of these groups. 1. Persons with Disabilities Federal laws define a person with a disability as “any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.” In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and intellectual disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities into the following categories: Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs Self-care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping The Housing Element must analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of disabilities and include programs for the removal of such constraints or provide reasonable accommodation for housing designed for persons with disabilities. Disability status does not necessarily indicate a need for special need/supportive housing, and data on the total number of disabled persons needing supportive housing in the City is not available. Using the national standard of one to three percent of the disabled population needing supportive housing, it can be estimated that the City has approximately 196 to 588 disabled individuals in need of supportive housing. Individuals with disabilities can often have difficulties participating in the labor force or finding employment, whether because of an inability to leave one’s home, an inability to meet the physical requirements of the job, discrimination on the part of prospective employers, or other factors. Figure I-18 shows recent Census data regarding the types of disabilities experienced by Hermosa Beach residents while disability data for seniors in Hermosa Beach compared to the SCAG region are shown in Figure I-19. The most common types of disabilities for those in Hermosa Beach were cognitive and ambulatory. Compared to the entire SCAG region, Hermosa Beach seniors were less likely to have a disability in all categories except for Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 395 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-16 hearing impairment. Housing opportunities for those with disabilities can be maximized through housing assistance programs and providing universal design features such as widened doorways, ramps, lowered countertops, single-level units and ground floor units. The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of persons with disabilities including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives, 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 6. Accessory Dwelling Units, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Figure I-18 Disabilities by Type – Hermosa Beach Figure I-19 Disabilities by Type for Seniors (65+) – Hermosa Beach Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 396 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-17 Understanding the employment status of people with disabilities may also be an important component in evaluating specialized housing needs. In Hermosa Beach, 68.2% of the population with a disability is employed, compared to 84.9% of the non-disabled population (Table I-4). Table I-4 Disability by Employment Status – Hermosa Beach Developmental Disabilities As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that: Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; Is manifested before the individual attains age 22; Is likely to continue indefinitely; Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. The Census does not record developmental disabilities as a separate category of disability. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 397 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-18 within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The Westside Regional Center (WRC) located in Culver City http://www.westsiderc.org/) provides services for people with developmental disabilities in Hermosa Beach. The WRC is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Recent DDS data (Table I-5) reported 206 persons in Hermosa Beach with developmental disabilities. Table I-5 Developmental Disabilities – Hermosa Beach There is no charge for diagnosis and assessment for eligibility. Once eligibility is determined, most services are free regardless of age or income. There is a requirement for parents to share the cost of 24-hour out-of-home placements for children under age 18. This share depends on the parents' ability to pay. There may also be a co-payment requirement for other selected services. Regional centers are required by law to provide services in the most cost-effective way possible. They must use all other resources, including generic resources, before using any regional center funds. A generic resource is a service provided by an agency that has a legal responsibility to provide services to the general public and receives public funds for providing those services. Some generic agencies may include the local school district, Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 398 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-19 county social services department, Medi-Cal, Social Security Administration, Department of Rehabilitation and others. Other resources may include natural supports. This is help that disabled persons may get from family, friends or others at little or no cost. Special housing needs for persons with disabilities fall into two general categories: physical design to address mobility impairments and in-home social, educational, and medical support to address developmental and mental impairments. According to California Department of Social Services records, 2 State-licensed community care facilities operate in Hermosa Beach. These facilities have a total capacity of 194 persons. There are four types of facilities within Hermosa Beach: Adult Day Care: Serves seniors and developmentally disabled adults who are able to live at home but require a certain level of care during the day. Some adult day care facilities provide health care services, while others provide non-medical care in the form of personal hygiene and meals (one in Hermosa Beach with capacity to serve 52 persons). Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly: Provide care and supervision for persons aged 60 and above and assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical services under special care plans (one in Hermosa Beach with capacity to serve (142 persons).The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives, 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 6. Accessory Dwelling Units, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. 2. Elderly Seniors or the elderly (persons aged 65 and older) are persons with special needs. Special needs for the elderly stem from three different sources: (1) relatively low fixed incomes; (2) high health care costs; and (3) physical disabilities. A low fixed income makes it difficult for many of the elderly to obtain adequate housing. This is further compounded by rising health care costs, which are a product of health problems associated with aging. If an elderly person is disabled, health care costs may be even higher, and housing may be more difficult to find due to accessibility issues. Other special needs relevant to this demographic group include transportation and home modification such as wheelchair ramps, enlarged doorways, modified bathrooms and kitchens. Federal housing data define a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Figure I-20 shows recent HUD income estimates for elderly Hermosa Beach owners and renters. Of Hermosa Beach's 1,759 senior households, 10.5% earn less than 30% of the surrounding area income, (compared to 24.2% in the SCAG region), 19.8% earn less than 50% of the surrounding area income (compared to 30.9% in the SCAG region). The housing needs of this group can be addressed through smaller units, accessory dwelling units on lots with existing homes, shared living arrangements, congregate or assisted living and housing assistance programs. The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of the elderly including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives, 4. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 399 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-20 Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 6. Accessory Dwelling Units, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Figure I-20 Elderly Households by Income and Tenure – Hermosa Beach According to the California Department of Social Services, as of May 2023 there is one residential elderly care facility with a capacity to serve 142 residents within the City. In addition, the Hermosa Five-O Senior Activity Center located at 710 Pier Avenue provides services to the elderly population. The Center is open to all South Bay Residents who are over the age of 50. The Center programs a variety of activities to help residents live a balanced life; physically, emotionally and mentally. The City also operates the bus passes and dial-a-taxi program, Access, and the WAVE, providing transportation and discounts for seniors. 3. Large Households Large households are defined as those with five or more members. These households are usually families with two or more children or multi-generational families. It can also include multiple families living in one housing unit. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is limited. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, lower- and moderate-income large households may reside in smaller units, resulting in overcrowding. Household size is an indicator of need for large units. Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Figure I-21 illustrates the range of household sizes in Hermosa Beach for owners, renters, and overall. The most commonly occurring household size is of two people (37.1%) while the second-most commonly occurring household is of one person (36.7%). Hermosa Beach has a higher share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (36.7% vs. 23.4%) and a lower share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall (0% vs. 3.1%). This chart suggests that the need for large units with four or more bedrooms is expected to be much less than for smaller units. The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of large families including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 400 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-21 Incentives, 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Figure I-21 Household Size by Tenure – Hermosa Beach According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, of the 8,596 occupied housing units in Hermosa Beach, only 210 have five or more bedrooms (2.4%). All of these housing units are owner- occupied units. There are no renter-occupied units with five or more bedrooms in the City. Large households in Hermosa Beach can also benefit from general programs and services for lower-and moderate-income persons, including Housing Choice Vouchers, and various community and social services provided by non-profit organizations in the region. 4. Female-Headed Households Female-headed households, especially single parent households, typically have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing. In addition, these households can have needs for items such as accessible day care and health care, as well as other supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by female-headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. Of Hermosa Beach's 8,979 total households, 3.9% are female-headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region), 2.4% are female-headed and with children (compared to 6.6% in the SCAG region), and 0.8% are female-headed and with children under 6 (compared to 1.0% in the SCAG region). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 401 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-22 Figure I-22 Female Headed Households – Hermosa Beach As shown in Figure I-23, recent Census data estimated that 108 households in Hermosa Beach were at poverty level (1.2 percent of all Hermosa Beach households) compared to 7.9 percent of households in the SCAG region. Of those, nearly half were female-headed households. The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of female headed households including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives, 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 6. Accessory Dwelling Units, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Figure I-23 Female Headed Households by Poverty Status – Hermosa Beach Assistance for female-headed households includes childcare services are also provided in licensed private Family Child Care Homes within the City. There are two school age day care centers in Hermosa Beach with a capacity to serve 280 children and three licensed day care centers with a capacity to serve 108 children. There is also one family day care home in the City(capacity to serve 14). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 402 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-23 Female heads of households in Hermosa Beach can also benefit from general programs and services for lower-and moderate-income households, including the Housing Choice Voucher program, and various community and social services provided by non-profit organizations in the region. 5. Farm Workers Farm worker households are considered as a special needs group due to their transient nature and the lower incomes typically earned by these households. Migrant workers, and their places of residence, are generally located in close proximity to agricultural areas providing employment. Although agriculture is a large industry in Los Angeles County, no major agricultural activities are located in Hermosa Beach. As shown in Table I-6, recent Census estimates reported 88 Hermosa Beach residents working in farming, fishing and forestry occupations but none of those were full-time jobs. The Housing Plan includes several programs to directly address the housing needs of lower income persons that may include farmworkers including Program 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing, 3. Density Bonus and Other Incentives, 4. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance, 6. Accessory Dwelling Units, 9. Adequate Sites to Accommodate Housing Needs, 10. Housing for Persons with Special Needs and 12. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Table I-6 Agricultural Employment – Hermosa Beach 6. Homeless Persons The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the term homeless” as the state of a person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence, or a person who has a primary night time residency that is: A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.1 1 Stewart B. McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. §11301, et seq. (1994) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 403 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-24 Although there are myriad causes of homelessness, among the most common are: Substance abuse and alcohol Domestic violence Mental illness Homeless individuals and families have differing housing needs. Both groups are in crisis and need food, clothing and shelter. Long-term transitional shelters, however, have different emphases for individuals and families. An individual would do well in transitional housing such as cooperative or single-room occupancy facilities. Families require more housing amenities to accommodate their size and diverse age-related needs; thus, lower income reentry housing such as single or multi-family units are more appropriate. Both groups require supportive housing and social services. The needs of homeless families are more complicated than those of homeless individuals. Childcare, pediatric care, and education are additional to basic health, mental health, employment, and other supportive social and housing needs. Hermosa Beach is located within the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s (LAHSA) Service Planning Area (SPA) 8 – South Bay (see Figure I-24). The 2020 homeless count found 28 unsheltered homeless persons in Hermosa Beach 2 and 4,560 homeless persons within SPA 8 as a whole. The 2020 homeless count was slightly higher than prior years, which reported between 17 and 23 homeless persons in Hermosa Beach during 2015 to 2019. Of the unsheltered homeless enumerated in 2020, more than two-thirds were reported as living in cars, vans, or other vehicles. Shelter and service needs of the homeless population are significantly different depending on the population subgroup. Los Angeles County’s Continuum of Care approach to homelessness is a coordinated and systematic local approach to meet the needs of homeless individuals and families within these subgroups, including: Chronic Homeless Persons; Episodic Homeless Persons; and Persons at Risk of Becoming Homeless For many years Hermosa Beach has been actively engaged in efforts to address the problems of homelessness. In 2015, the City Council adopted an initial Homeless Strategy and Action Plan, establishing and committing to a list of preliminary steps toward addressing homeless issues locally and as part of a broader effort to meet growing demands at the regional level. Since that time, Hermosa Beach has taken significant steps to implement the Action Plan, including: Leadership in hosting a beach cities deployment site and organizing local volunteers for the annual Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, conducted each January in partnership with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA); 2 https://www.lahsa.org/data?id=45-2020-homeless-count-by-community-city Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 404 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-25 Participation of the Hermosa Beach Police Department in collaborative outreach and response with Manhattan Beach PD, Redondo Beach PD, and a mental health clinician assigned by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH); Collaboration with other South Bay cities in deployment of dedicated outreach teams from PATH (People Assisting The Homeless) under the leadership of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG); Participation in Los Angeles County’s efforts to develop a set of regional strategies for combating homelessness, which were ultimately adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Collaboration with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and South Bay Coalition to End Homelessness (SBCEH) on policy initiatives to identify additional resources for our region; Participation in South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) bi-monthly Homeless Services Task Force meetings to learn about County and regional homelessness programs, services, policy updates, and opportunities; and Building a relationship with Harbor Interfaith Services, the lead agency for the Service Planning Area 8 Coordinated Entry System (CES), to access services and support for people who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness in Hermosa Beach. In 2018 the City Council adopted a Five-Year Homelessness Plan 3 incorporating these and other actions designed to address the problems of homelessness in Hermosa Beach. Additional information regarding the City’s efforts to address the problems of homelessness is provided in Chapter II, and Program 10 in the Housing Policy Plan describes actions the City intends to take during the 2021-2029 planning period related to homelessness. 3 https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showdocument?id=11049 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 405 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-26 Figure I-24 Los Angeles County Homeless Service Planning Areas Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 406 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-27 F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion As part of the Housing Element update, State law requires jurisdictions to identify assisted units that are at risk of conversion to market rate housing during the 10-year period 2021- 2031. According to the Southern California Association of Governments and the California Housing Partnership Corporation, there are no units at risk in Hermosa Beach. G. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing in the Coastal Zone The majority of Hermosa Beach west of Valley Drive is within the Coastal Zone. California Government Code §65590 et seq. prohibits conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by low- or moderate-income persons or families unless provision has been made for the replacement in the same city or county of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low- or moderate-income (excludes structures with less than 3 units, or less than 10 units for projects with more than one structure, among other exclusions). Section 65590(d) further requires new housing development in the coastal zone to provide housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, or if not feasible, to provide such units at another location within the same city or county, within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. Due to the exemptions noted above, no documented affordable units have been constructed in the Coastal Zone. No deed-restricted affordable units have been demolished or converted within the Coastal Zone since 1982. The Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) addresses three primary issue areas: access, planning for new development, and the preservation of marine-related resources. The LUP contains policies that may impede the construction of new housing development within the designated coastal zone of the City. These include policies related to the preservation of beach access, adequate parking and controlling the types and densities of residential development within the coastal zone. Coastal policies and standards controlling mass, height and bulk discourage “mansionization.” Policies do not prevent residential units above ground floor commercial as allowed in the C-1 zoning district. H. Future Housing Needs 1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction for the 2021 to 2029 period, also referred to as the “6th cycle” in reference to the six RHNA cycles that have occurred since the comprehensive revision of State Housing Element law in 1980. Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments SCAG) in March 2021. The need for housing is determined by the forecasted growth in households in a community as well as existing needs such as overpayment and overcrowding. The housing need for new households is adjusted to maintain a desirable Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 407 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 I-28 level of vacancy to promote housing choice and mobility. An adjustment is also made to account for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses. Total housing need is then distributed among four income categories on the basis of the county’s income distribution, with adjustments to avoid an over- concentration of lower-income households in any community. Additional detail regarding SCAG’s methodology used to prepare the RHNA can be reviewed on SCAG’s website at https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. 2. Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Needs The share of regional housing need for the City of Hermosa Beach as determined by SCAG for the 2021-2029 planning period is 558 units, distributed by income category as shown in Table I-7. Pursuant to Government Code §65583(a)(1) it is assumed that the need for extremely-low-income households is half of the very-low-income need. A discussion of how the City will accommodate this housing need is provided in the Land Resources section of Chapter II. Table I-7 Regional Housing Needs 2021-2029 – Hermosa Beach Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 232* 127 106 93 558 41.6% 22.8% 19.0% 16.7% 100% Source: SCAG 2021 116 of these areallocated to the extremely-low-income category Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 408 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element II Resources and Opportunities Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-1 II. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES A. Land Resources Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government Code requires Housing Elements to contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” A detailed analysis of vacant land and potential redevelopment opportunities has been prepared and is described in Appendix B. The results of this analysis are summarized in the table below. The City’s land inventory based on current zoning is insufficient to accommodate the RHNA allocation for this planning period; therefore, amendments to General Plan and zoning designations are necessary pursuant to State requirements (see Program 9 in the Housing Policy Plan). Table II-1 Land Inventory Summary vs. RHNA Income Category TotalVLLowModAbove RHNA (2021-2029) 232 127 106 93 558 Accessory dwelling units 11 28 4 21 64 Remaining RHNA 221 99 102 72 494 Sites Inventory (Table B-4) 353 171 80 604 Buffer Above Remaining RHNA 10% 68% 11% 22% Source: Hermosa Beach Community Development Dept., 2023 A discussion of public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve future development is contained in Section III.B, Non-Governmental Constraints. There are currently no known service limitations that would preclude the level of development allocated in the RHNA, although developers will be required to pay fees or construct public improvements prior to or concurrent with development. B. Financial and Administrative Resources 1. State and Federal Resources Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - Federal funding for housing programs is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). During the previous planning period the City received approximately $68,000 per year, however the latest grant for FY20-21 was about $63,000 and future years are unknown. In recent years, the City has used CDBG funds for ADA compliance retrofits for sidewalk handicap ramps, which is expected to continue during the planning period. In FY 20-21 a one-time grant program for eligible businesses with low- and moderate-income employees to assist with recovery from pandemic used $37,479 CDBG CARES ACT funds and $72,571 unspent funds from prior years’ allocations. The City does not currently participate in other HUD programs such as HOME, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 409 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element II Resources and Opportunities Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-2 Section 8 Rental Assistance – The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) assists very-low-income senior citizens, families and the disabled with the cost of rental housing. Generally, a tenant pays 30% of his or her adjusted income towards the rent and the Section 8 program pays the balance directly to the landlord. Unfortunately, the need for rental assistance is greater than available resources. 2. Local Resources As a very small jurisdiction, Hermosa Beach has extremely limited resources for housing assistance. The only locally-generated source of housing revenue is the Condominium Conversion fund, which is an "infrastructure fee toward the physical and service structure of the community from which the development benefits" (Municipal Code Section 17.22.270). C. Sustainable Housing Development The City of Hermosa Beach is working to be a leader in sustainability. The three elements of sustainability, environment, and economy are related to the objectives of this housing element in several ways. Strong, sustainable communities connect housing, transportation, jobs and equity. They reduce transportation costs for families, maximize resource efficiency, improve housing affordability, save energy, and increase access to housing and employment opportunities. This nurtures healthier, more inclusive communities and housing opportunities. Hermosa Beach can use sustainable communities strategies and techniques to invest in healthy, safe and inclusive neighborhoods. Strategies to increase sustainability are multidisciplinary and are integrated throughout all elements of the City’s new General Plan, which was adopted in 2017. The General Plan focuses on sustainability and a low-carbon future. 1. AB 32 and SB 375 In 2006, the Legislature passed AB 32—The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,—which requires the State of California to reduce “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020. Passenger vehicles account for 31 percent of the state’s total emissions. In 1990 greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks were 108 million metric tons, but by 2004 these emissions had increased to 135 million metric tons. SB 375 asserts that “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375, passed in 2008, builds on the existing regional transportation planning process which is overseen by local officials with land use responsibilities) to connect the reduction of GHG emissions from cars and light trucks to land use and transportation policy. SB 375 has three goals: (1) to use the regional transportation planning process to help achieve AB 32 goals; (2) to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects that help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GHG emissions; and (3) to coordinate the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation planning process. SB 375 requires consistency between the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Housing Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 410 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element II Resources and Opportunities Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-3 Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is accomplished through using an “integrated” growth forecast for use in both of these policy documents. 2. Energy Conservation Opportunities Given the built-out nature of Hermosa Beach, attention should be focused on redevelopment, rehabilitation and retrofits. As residential energy costs rise, the subsequent increasing utility costs also reduce housing affordability. Although the City is fully developed, new infill development, rehabilitation and retrofits provide opportunities to enhance community sustainability and directly affect energy use within its jurisdiction. State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The most recent update to State Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted in 2019. Building Energy Efficiency Standards have saved Californians billions of dollars in reduced electricity bills. They conserve nonrenewable resources, such as natural gas, and ensure renewable resources are extended as far as possible so power plants do not need to be built.4 Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e., no more than 3 stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building inspection processes. In addition to state-mandated Title 24 requirements, Hermosa Beach is participating in a coalition to collaboratively tackle the issue of energy conservation.5 The South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC 6) is educating residents, business owners and public agencies and hosting or making available information about the energy conservation programs, retrofits and incentives available in the community and how to incorporate more energy-saving practices into everyday life. Established through funding from the California Public Utilities Commission, the SBESC includes the 15 cities that comprise the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), and is associated with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company. 4 California Energy Commission (https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building- energy-efficiency-standards) 5 http://www.imakenews.com/priorityfocus/e_article001104271.cfm?x=bcHNgMg,b7M8B89t 6 www.sbesc.com Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 411 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element II Resources and Opportunities Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 II-4 The City of Hermosa Beach has adopted solar energy and wind energy ordinances to facilitate their use, and has reduced building permit fees for solar energy systems and waived the planning fee for wind energy systems. The City has adopted a water conservation ordinance and a water efficient landscape ordinance that is significantly more restrictive than required by state law in that demonstration of drought-tolerant landscaping is required for all new landscaping in connection with all projects regardless of size or tenancy. Issue Area No. 6 and Program 9 in the Housing Plan describe the City’s policies and objectives for identifying these and other opportunities for more sustainable development as part of the General Plan update. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 412 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-1 III. CONSTRAINTS A. Governmental Constraints 1. Transparency with Development Regulations To increase transparency and certainty in the development application process as required by law, the City provides a range of information online for ease of access, some of which is as follows: General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Plan: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/community- development/programs-projects-plans Applications, Forms, Handouts, and Fee Schedule: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/community- development/applications-forms-handouts Current Development Projects: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/quick-links/city- projects/development-projects 2. Land Use Plans and Regulations a. General Plan Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide its future. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the basic land uses and density of development within the various areas of the city. Under State law, the General Plan elements must be internally consistent and the City’s development regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the land use plan must provide suitable locations and densities to implement the policies of the Housing Element. The Hermosa Beach General Plan – or PLAN Hermosa - was comprehensively updated in 2017. Land Use + Design Element of the General Plan includes four residential land use designations with allowable densities ranging from 2 to 33 units per acre, as shown in Table III-1. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 413 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-2 Table III-1 Residential Land Use Categories – Hermosa Beach General Plan Designation Definition Low Density Single-family residential (attached or detached) 2.0 – 13.0 Medium Density Single-family residential and small-scale multi-family residential duplex, triplex, condominium) 13.1 – 25.0 High Density Medium (8-20 unit buildings) and large-scale (20+ unit buildings) multi-family residential 25.1 – 33.0 Mobile Home Mobile home parks, where lots are owned, rented or leased to accommodate mobile homes for human habitation 2.0 – 13.0 As noted previously in Section II.A, amendments to General Plan and zoning designations are necessary to ensure adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA pursuant to State law see Program 9 in the Housing Policy Plan). With those amendments, the General Plan will not pose a constraint to implementation of Housing Element policies and objectives. b. Zoning Regulations The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through the Municipal Code. Zoning regulations serve to implement the General Plan and are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The Municipal Code also helps to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The Municipal Code sets forth residential development standards for each zone district. In 2017 the City adopted a new General Plan and is currently in the process of updating zoning regulations to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance update is expected to be completed in 2023. The following discussion describes current regulations, some of which will be revised as part of the new Zoning Ordinance. There are currently five residential zones in Hermosa Beach: R-1 Single Family Residential (R-1A: Two Dwelling Units per Lot) R-2 Two-Family Residential (R-2B: Limited Multiple Family Residential) R-3 Multiple-Family Residential R-P Residential Professional MHP Mobile Home Park In addition to these zones, residential uses are also permitted above ground floor commercial within the C-1 “Limited Business and Residential Zone” (see Table III-2). A summary of the development standards for these zones is provided in the table below. Residential Development Standards by Zone Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 414 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-3 Development Standard R-P R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2B R-3 C-1 Minimum Lot Area (sq.ft.) per DU 1,320 4,000 3,350 1,750 1,750 1,320 1,320 Equivalent Density 33 10.9 13 24.9 24.9 33 33 Minimum Front Yard (ft.) n/a 10% of lot depth 10% of lot depth 10% of lot depth 10% of lot depth Per zoning map 0 Minimum Side Yard (ft.) 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 5' Minimum Rear Yard (ft.) 5 5 3 if alley) 5 3 if alley) 5 3 if alley) 5 3 if alley) 5 if alley 5' Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30 25 25 30 30 30 30 Source: Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, http://www.hermosabch.org/departments/cityclerk/code/zoning.html Minimum lot area per unit ranges from 1,320 square feet in the R-P, R-3 and C-1 zones to 4,000 square feet in the R-1 zone. The R-P zone provides for mixed-use commercial/ residential development with varying densities depending on lot area and dimensions. Density bonuses would permit more units than allowed by the underlying zone pursuant to State law and the implementing ordinance adopted by the City in 2004. The densities within mobile home parks are regulated by Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, subject to a use permit. A summary of the uses permitted in the City’s residential zoning districts is provided in Table III-2. Although a range of residential densities are allowed by-right in residential zones, a discretionary precise development plan (PDP) is required when more than one unit is developed per lot to ensure site design is compatible with the Code and adjacent development. In 2013 the Zoning Code was amended to clarify that the PDP is a site design tool, rather than providing a means of evaluating whether the type of use should be allowed on a particular site. The City also has adopted nine specific plan areas (SPAs), in many cases to accommodate specific commercial or residential development projects. Residential use is either not allowed in these specific plan areas or the specific plan area was adopted to specifically accommodate a development project which has been constructed. SPA-7 and SPA-8 provide a significant number of parcels for commercial development fronting Pacific Coast Highway. As part of this Housing Element update, the City proposes to add residential and mixed use as permitted uses in the C-2, C-3, SPA- 7, SPA-8, SPA-11, and M-1 zones for RHNA sites. A residential density of 25.1-33.0 units per acre, consistent with the R-3 zone’s allowable density, will be available to RHNA sites in C-2, C-3 SPA-7, Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 415 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-4 SPA-8, and SPA-11 zones. A density of 34-50 units per acre will be available to RHNA sites in the M-1 zone. Table III-2 Permitted Residential Development by Zone Housing Type Permitted R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2B R-3 MHP R-P C-1 C-3 SF Detached P P P P P P 4 Single-Family Attached P* P* P* P* P* 4 Multi-Family P* P* P* C Mobile Home P P P P P P P Second Units P3 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 Emergency Shelters P Transitional, Supportive, Group Housing 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Single-Room Occupancy P Care Facility (6 or fewer) P P P P P P Care Facility (7+) C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 Assisted Living5 Source: Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance P = Permitted P* = Permitted subject to approval of a precise development plan to evaluate site design (excluding development of small second unit in R-1 zone) C = Conditional Use Permit 1 Senior units only 2 Accessory to a single-family detached dwelling; for child care purpose 3 Administrative Permit subject to limitation on size 4 Residential uses are allowed above ground floor commercial uses 5 A specific plan area was created to accommodate a senior assisted living center. Zoning for Lower-Income Housing Lower-income housing can be accommodated in all zones permitting residential use in Hermosa Beach. These may include accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, multi- family apartments in the R-3 zone, and residential or commercial/residential mixed-use developments within the C-1 and R-P Zones. Under State law, the “default density” presumed to be adequate to facilitate lower-income housing is 20 units/acre in Hermosa Beach. As noted in before, the R-2, R-2B, R-3, R-P and C-1 zones all permit development at greater than 20 units/acre and therefore are considered suitable for lower-income housing under state law.7 Review of development trends confirms that actual densities in these zones are typically greater than 20 units per acre. 7 Assembly Bill 2348 of 2004 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 416 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-5 Hermosa Beach is one of the most densely developed and populated cities in Los Angeles County and is essentially built-out. About 75% of the city is residentially zoned, with about 35% of this area zoned for high-density R-2 and R-3 development. Approximately 11% of the city has commercial zoning, and just 1% is industrially zoned. The balance of the city is zoned for open space, most of which is the beach area. As part of this Housing Element update, the City proposes to add residential and mixed use as permitted uses to RHNA sites in the C-2, C-3, SPA-7, SPA-8, and SPA-11, with a residential density of 25.1-33.0 units per acre, consistent with the R-3 zone’s allowable density. Residential and mixed use will also be added as permitted uses to RHNA sites in the M-1 zone with a residential density of 25.1-33 units per acre. Special Needs Housing Under State law, persons with special needs include those in residential care facilities, persons with disabilities, farm workers, persons needing emergency shelter, transitional or supportive housing, and low-cost single-room-occupancy units. The City’s regulations regarding these housing types are discussed below. Housing for Persons with Disabilities State requirements. Health and Safety Code §§1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08 require local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other single-family residential uses. “Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed care facilities in any area zoned for residential use, and may not require licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings. The Zoning Ordinance includes definitions and standards in conformance with State law. Group homes and residential care facilities for up to six persons are a permitted use in any residential zone. Large residential care facilities are conditionally permitted in most residential zones (Table III-2). In consideration of the City’s small lots and densely-populated residential neighborhoods, the conditional use permit requirement is reasonable to ensure that the operational characteristics of such facilities do not generate conflicts with surrounding residential uses. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the City will revise the CUP review process for large care facilities to an Administrative Permit in all residential zones, with a lower fee, and Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 417 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-6 establish findings for approval that are objective and provide certainty in outcomes (Housing Program 10). Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Building Code requires that new residential construction comply with Title 24 accessibility standards. These standards include requirements for a minimum percentage of fully accessible units in new multi-family developments. In addition, Section 17.42.120 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes procedures for the review of requests for reasonable accommodation pursuant to State law. The reviewing authority shall approve the request for a reasonable accommodation if, based upon all of the evidence presented, the following findings can be made: 1. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with disabilities protected under Fair Housing Laws; 2. The requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to make housing available to an individual with disabilities protected under the Fair Housing Laws; 3. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as defined in the Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law; and 4. The requested accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city’s zoning or building laws, policies and/or procedures, as defined in the Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city’s zoning or building program: a. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood; and b. Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city’s general plan or an applicable specific plan. These regulations are consistent with fair housing law and do not pose a constraint on persons with disabilities. The City approved two Reasonable Accommodation applications in recent years. In October 2023, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to remove the public hearing requirement for the approval of Reasonable Accommodation requests. This change to the Reasonable Accommodation procedures is aimed at facilitating housing for persons with disabilities. However, the finding relating to neighborhood character remains. The Housing Element includes an action to address this finding as a constraint to housing for persons with disabilities. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 418 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-7 Definition of “Family”. The Zoning Ordinance defines "Family" as “two or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, sharing common cooking facilities, and possessing the character of a relatively permanent single bona fide housekeeping unit in a domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitment to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, club, dormitory, fraternity, hotel, lodging house, motel, rehabilitation center, rest home or sorority.” This definition is consistent with State law. Maximum concentration requirements. There are no concentration or separation requirements for residential care facilities or group homes in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning requirements. There are no special site planning requirements other than parking, height, and setbacks) for residential care facilities or group homes in the Zoning Ordinance. Parking requirements. Off-street parking requirements for residential care facilities and group homes are the same as for single-family dwellings, which is two spaces plus one guest space. This requirement does not pose an unreasonable constraint to such facilities. Farm Worker Housing The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use. However, as discussed in Chapter II, no agricultural activities are found within Hermosa Beach or in the surrounding communities. Therefore there is no demand for farm worker housing in Hermosa Beach. Emergency Shelters, Transitional/Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers Emergency shelters are facilities that provide a safe alternative to acute homelessness either in a shelter facility, or through the use of motel vouchers. Emergency shelter is short-term, usually for 30 days or less. Senate Bill 2 of 2007 requires that unless adequate shelter facilities are available to meet a jurisdiction’s needs, emergency shelters must be allowed by-right (i.e., without discretionary review such as a conditional use permit) in at least one zoning district, but may include specific development standards. AB 2339 (2022) requires that the zone(s) designated for by-right shelters to be zones that also permit residential uses. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code allows emergency shelters by-right in the C-3, SPA-7 and SPA-8 zones, with a ten- bed limit per shelter and a 300-foot separation from another shelter. The City will redesignate the R-3 zone (Multi-Family Residential) for emergency shelters by right. While the ten-bed limit may appear to be a constraint to development of emergency shelters, the lack of funding for such facilities may preclude the development of larger facilities. Both State and Federal policy directions have moved from providing emergency/transitory housing to rapid rehousing to permanent supportive housing. Nevertheless, this Housing Element includes a Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 419 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-8 program to review and revise the bed limit based on consultation with service providers. The City has an unsheltered homeless of 28 persons according to the 2020 Point- in-Time Count. At appropriately 200 square feet per person (AB 2339 guidance), a building space of 5,600 square feet would be needed. Given the costs of new construction and the small size of the City’s unsheltered homeless population, adaptive reuse of existing buildings may be a more feasible option than new construction. The R-3 zone contains 1,034 parcels totaling 88 acres. While there are virtually no vacant parcels in the City, including the R-3 zone, opportunities exist for adaptive reuse of single-family homes, duplexes, or small apartments as shelters. As of fall 2023, the City had 297 R-3 parcels developed with single-family homes. The home sizes range from 298 square feet to just over 7,000 square feet. The smaller homes R-3 lots are feasible for redevelopment given the obvious underutilization of the land or adaptive reuse into small shelters. AB 139 also requires that the City establishes parking standard for emergency shelters based on staffing level only. Transitional housing is longer-term housing, typically up to two years. Transitional housing generally requires that residents participate in a structured program to work toward established goals so that they can move on to permanent housing. Residents are often provided with an array of supportive services to assist them in meeting goals. Under SB 2 transitional and supportive housing is deemed to be a residential use subject only to the same requirements and standards that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Current City definitions for transitional and supportive housing are in compliance with this requirement. In 2018 AB 2162 amended State law to require that supportive housing be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. Program 10 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to process an amendment to the Municipal Code in compliance with this requirement. In 2019 the State Legislature adopted AB 101 establishing requirements related to local regulation of low barrier navigation centers, which are defined as Housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low barrier means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to: 1) The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth 2) Accommodation of residents’ pets 3) The storage of possessions Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 420 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-9 4) Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms Low barrier navigation centers meeting specified standards must be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Program 7 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to process an amendment to the Zoning Code in compliance with this requirement. Single Room Occupancy Single-room-occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-type units that rent in the low-, very-low- or extremely-low-income category. SROs with up to six units are permitted administratively within the R-3 district while SROs with seven or more units are conditionally permitted in the R-3, C-3, SPA-7 and SPA-8 districts. There is no density limit for SRO developments and the allowable unit size is 150 to 400 square feet. An affordability covenant is required for all SRO units except the manager’s unit. c. Off-Street Parking Requirements The City’s parking requirements for residential zones vary by residential type and housing product (Table III-3). Two off-street parking spaces plus one guest space are required for single-family, duplex or two-family dwellings. Multiple dwellings (three or more units) are also required to have two off-street spaces, plus one guest space for each two dwelling units. Mobile homes are required to have two spaces per unit. The City adopted a reduced parking standard for Specific Plan Area No. 6 in conjunction with approval of a senior assisted living facility, and shared and reduced parking may be approved by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law reduced parking standards apply to affordable housing developments. Under the current parking requirements, two off-street parking spaces plus one guest space are required for single-family, duplex or two-family dwellings. Multiple dwellings three or more units) are also required to have two off-street spaces, plus one guest space for each two dwelling units. These parking requirements do not support a variety of housing types, limit design options, result in residential street frontages dominated by parking and garages, and can preclude achievement of maximum allowed density, especially on the City’s smaller residential lots. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update currently underway the City will revise the parking requirements to facilitate a variety of housing types, such as smaller units, and mixed use development that can take advantage of shared parking. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 421 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-10 Table III-3 Residential Parking Requirements Type of Unit Minimum Parking Space Required Single family residence 2 spaces plus 1 guest space Mobile home park 2 spaces Duplex or two-family dwelling 2 spaces plus 1 guest space Multiple dwellings (3+ units) 2 spaces plus 1 guest space for each 2 dwelling units Detached servant’s quarters or guest houses 1 space Multi-family lower-income and senior restricted housing, multi-family housing restricted to disabled persons, and single-room-occupancy Ordinance, Chapter 17.44 d. Cumulative Impacts of Development Standards Future multi-family residential development is likely to take place as mixed use developments along the City’s commercial corridors. The City’s existing mixed use standards available to the C-1 zone only requires a minimum of 30-foot average depth of space. There is no requirement for a full-ground floor commercial space. In many cases, the ground floor will also be utilized for parking entry, circulation, common areas, lobbies, etc. Residential units can also be located on the ground floor. Therefore, mixed use development can accommodate two floors above ground floor while maintaining the height limit. Multi-floors of residential then exist behind or above that height. The graphic of a mixed-use building that had a very tall commercial space (>21 feet tall) that has units behind and beyond, as well as above. Because the commercial spaces are most effective at the corner, the corner ends up being double height while the other frontages of the building can be two-level uses. Overall, the City’s flexibility with commercial component in a mixed use building, proposed revisions to the parking standards, will allow developments to achieve the maximum allowable density. e. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide an important source of affordable housing for seniors, young adults, care-givers and other low- and moderate-income segments of the population. In recent years, the State Legislature has adopted extensive changes to ADU law in order to encourage housing production. Among the most significant changes is the Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 422 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-11 requirement for cities to allow one ADU plus one “junior ADU” on single-family residential lots by-right subject to limited development standards. Program 6 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to monitor legislation annually and update City ADU regulations as necessary to maintain consistency with State law. f. Density Bonus Under State law cities and counties must provide a density increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan and other incentives when builders agree to construct housing developments with units affordable to low- or moderate-income households or housing developments restricted to seniors. Section 17.42.100 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards and procedures for implementing State Density Bonus Law. In order to further encourage affordable housing development, in 2013 the City adopted enhanced density bonus standards (Sec. 17.42.170) to incentivize consolidation of small lots into larger building sites according to the following formula. Combined Parcel Size Allowable Base Density* AB 2345 of 2019 amended State law to revise density bonus incentives that are available for affordable housing developments. Program 3 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to update City density bonus regulations to reflect these changes to State law. g. Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing There is often an economy of scale in manufacturing homes in a factory rather than on site, thereby reducing cost. State law precludes local governments from prohibiting the installation of mobile or manufactured homes on permanent foundations on single-family lots. It also declares a mobile home park to be a permitted land use on any land planned and zoned for residential use, and prohibits requiring the average density in a new mobile home park to be less than that permitted by the Municipal Code. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 423 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-12 Mobile and manufactured homes are permitted in each of the residential zones, thereby facilitating the construction of this type of housing. One mobile home park is located in Hermosa Beach (Marine Land Mobile Home Park), which is owned by a private, non-profit corporation. In addition, the adjacent "State RV Park" is occupied by very-low- income households and persons in transition to permanent residency. The City committed to retaining the Marine Land Mobile Home Park by designating it within the General Plan and Zoning Code as a Mobile Home Park (MHP) Zone and in 2008 the City Council allocated over $111,000 from the Condominium Conversion Fund to assist residents with their acquisition of the Marine Land Mobile Home Park. In 2008 the project was awarded $1,200,000 subject to conditions under the State’s Mobilehome Park Resident Owner Program (see Program 2 in the Housing Policy Plan). h. Condominium Conversions In order to reduce the impacts of condominium conversions on residents of rental housing and to maintain a supply of rental housing for low- and moderate-income persons, the City's Municipal Code provides for a tenant assistance plan that includes the following: a. An option to first purchase units, including tenant purchase discounts. For those who choose not to purchase a unit, the subdivider must provide a method by which tenants will be assisted in finding comparable replacement rental housing within the area of the conversion, including professional relocation assistance. b. A statement of the method by which the subdivider will comply with the requirements of Section 66427.1 of the State Subdivision Map Act. Such method must provide that no tenant shall be required to move from his or her apartment due to the proposed conversion until the expiration of the two-month period for exercise of his or her right of first refusal. c. Reimbursement for moving costs incurred, not to exceed $500. d. Extension of tenancy to complete a school term, if necessary. Because of these requirements, the potential impact of condominium conversions is not a significant constraint on the preservation of affordable rental housing. However, the reimbursement amounts for moving and for rent differentials should be reviewed to ensure costs have not outpaced reimbursements. This review is incorporated into Program 2 in the Housing Policy Plan. More importantly, condominium conversion has not been a trend in California for more than a decade and is not likely to become a significant trend again due to the viability of the rental housing market and the costs of conversion. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 424 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-13 i. Short-Term Rentals Short-term rentals of less than 30 days are prohibited in all residential zones citywide. j. Nonconforming Uses and Buildings The Zoning Code allows residential uses to be rebuilt in the case of destruction or damage beyond the owner's control provided the nonconformity is not increased. Nonconforming buildings may expand 100 percent in floor area (existing prior to October 26, 1989, up to 3,000 square feet per unit or 5,000 square feet of total floor area for the building site). Nonconforming portions of a building with a nonconforming residential use may be partially modified or altered to the extent necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Specific rules pertaining to nonconforming parking apply. Building sites with three or more dwelling units cannot be expanded in floor area unless two parking spaces per unit plus one guest space for every two units are provided. The Zoning Code also allows the Planning Commission to validate as legal nonconforming residential units that can be shown to have been used for residential occupancy more or less continuously since January 1, 1959 when City records and actual property use conflict. In 2013 the City evaluated whether to relax provisions governing validation of residential units that contribute to the supply of affordable rental housing when the use is demonstrated to have existed for a shorter period of time (to be determined as part of the city's consideration) than is currently required under the code, provided the units are improved so as to not be substandard and parking adequate for the occupancy can be provided and determined to maintain the existing regulations due to density, parking and issues that would be associated with administration of such a program. k. Building Codes State law establishes building standards and prohibits the imposition of standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic or topographic conditions and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such charges to the Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that the change is needed. The City’s Building Codes incorporate State Codes. These are necessary to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. The City’s building standards include some amendments to the State Building Code that exceed state standards; however, these amendments are all relatively inexpensive, and Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 425 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-14 most of the revisions are related to fire alarms, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, drainage, increased demolition diversion, and increased energy efficiency. These modifications were determined to not substantially increase project costs. l. Coastal Zone The City of Hermosa Beach includes nearly two miles of shoreline and varies in width between one-half mile and approximately one mile inland. Approximately 43% of the total land area in Hermosa Beach is located within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act. The Coastal Zone in Hermosa Beach spans the entire length of the City from north to south, and extends from the mean high tide line inland to Ardmore Avenue with two exclusions: The area from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive between Longfellow Avenue and 31st Place; and the area east of Park Avenue or Loma Drive between 25th Street and 16th Street. While a substantial portion of the City is in the Coastal zone, the character of land uses within the Coastal zone areas of the City is widely varied. The commercial area concentrated around the pier and shoreline includes lodging, restaurants (early morning and late night), snack shops, retail, recreation, and services that serve visitors and residents alike. As distance increases from this concentrated area, development begins to include mixed use and small-scale residential. Many areas of the Coastal zone in the City are primarily residential (single- and multi- family) but interspersed with local commercial uses. The City’s General Plan, PLANHermosa, adopted in 2017, recognizes this and assigns different land use designations within the Coastal zone that reflect the purpose of these areas. Recreational Commercial (RC) is designated for the primarily visitor-serving area near the Pier; Downtown (DT) is designated the retail and service core that includes mixed use and residential uses. The City proposes sites within the DT area on the Sites Inventory to further the development of housing in the coastal zone in a manner that is consistent with existing development patterns. This is similar to the manner in which the City already allows mixed-use development in the C1 zones. Meanwhile, the City is not proposing sites in the Recreational Commercial, as the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan recognizes this as a primarily visitor serving area. The City of Hermosa Beach is currently working with the California Coastal Commission CCC) to obtain approval of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Land Use Plan LUP). On October 25, 2021, the City submitted the Mobility Element amendment for review and approval to the CCC, which is the City’s first step for an updated LCP. The City implements State laws such as SB 330 and SB 9 to ensure housing development opportunities are available within the Coastal Zone. The City received comments from the CCC in 2022 and will be addressing their comments along with any subsequent need to update the Coastal Land Use Plan to accommodate the RHNA. Affordable housing projects in the Coastal Zone are processed pursuant to State Law. The City is also in the process of updating the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which will address permitting requirements for multifamily developments. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 426 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-15 Subsequent to the adoption of the Housing Element, the City will review any Coastal Land Use Plan policies that must be updated and submit to the California Coastal Commission for certification. The timeline will be more apparent once the amendments have been submitted. 3. Development Processing Procedures a. Residential Permit Processing State Requirements. State Planning and Zoning Law establishes permit processing requirements for residential development. Within the framework of State requirements, the City has structured its development review process in order to minimize the time required to obtain permits while ensuring that projects comply with applicable regulations. Developer Assistance. Hermosa Beach has prepared permit processing guidelines to assist builders in applying for development permits for residential developments and subdivisions. The guides are comprehensive in nature, and address the steps to be followed. Early consultation with City staff is encouraged to identify issues as soon as possible and reduce processing time. This consultation (at no cost to applicants) allows applicants to become acquainted with the application materials and fees required by each department and agency. Preliminary site and architectural plans are also reviewed for consistency with City standards. This conference allows the applicant to assess the feasibility of the project and make adjustments during the preliminary planning stages to minimize costs and permit processing time. Permit Approval Procedures and Timing. Simultaneous processing of required entitlements e.g., subdivisions and planned development permits) is also provided as a means of expediting the review process. Most projects under the purview of the Planning Commission are acted upon within six weeks of filing; a subsequent process requiring Planning Commission actions to be reported to the City Council and the appeal period typically requires about 30 days. Therefore, the process is typically completed within three months from application filing. Single-Family Detached Units – Applications are reviewed by the Planning Division for zoning clearance, and subsequently by the Building Division. Processing time is typically three to four weeks. Condominiums – A conditional use permit, precise development permit PDP) design review, and tentative subdivision map must be approved by the Planning Commission; this process is usually completed within three months from the date a complete application is received. Once Planning Commission approval is obtained, the building permit application can be simultaneously reviewed by the planning and building divisions. Multi-Family Projects – A precise development plan (PDP) design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. If a conditional use permit is also required, it is reviewed by the Planning Commission concurrently. Such review is usually completed within three months from the date a complete application is received. Once Planning Commission approval is obtained, the building permit application can be simultaneously reviewed by the Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 427 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-16 planning and building divisions. A structural plan check is performed by an outside contractor. Mixed-Use Projects – A precise development plan (PDP) design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. If a conditional use permit is required by the Zoning Code, concurrent Planning Commission review is usually completed within three months from the date a complete application is received. Building Plan Check - Plan check for the processing of residential building permits is generally four to six weeks, depending on the City’s workload. Building codes are applied to new construction, and projects are monitored and inspected under the building permit process. In 2021 the City initiated a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. One of the major objectives of the update is to simplify the development review process. Specifically, the City is proposing to revamp the PDP requirements. Program 11 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to this revision. Also, in the pending Subdivision Ordinance update, the City will be addressing the CUP requirement for condominium projects. The City proposes to revise the PDP process by project size. The scope of PDP review will be limited on physical characteristics as they apply to the design of the sites plan, structures, landscaping, and other physical features of the proposed project, including: 1. Building proportions, massing, and architectural details. 2. Site design, orientation, location, and architectural design of buildings relative to existing structures on or adjacent to the property, topography, and other physical features of the natural and built environment; 3. Size, location, design, development, and arrangement of on-site parking and other paved areas; 4. Height, materials, and design of fences, walls, and screen plantings; 5. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials, and design of hardscape; and 6. Size, location, design, color, lighting, and materials of all signs. Applicability and Review Authority Single- family Residential Projects with 2-4 dwelling units; 5 or more dwelling units Exceptions Application Type Ministerial PDP PDP Housing projects with >= 20% affordable units, senior units, or with a staff level PDPBodyStaffCommissionCommission Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 428 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-17 The review authority must make all of the following findings to approve or conditionally approve a Precise Development Plan application: A. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; B. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project is consistent with the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan or design guidelines; and C. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zone, unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Title. The City will be developing objective standards for the PDP review as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. b. Environmental Review Environmental review is required for all discretionary development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Most projects in Hermosa Beach are either Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Developments that have the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be mitigated require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The Negative Declaration process typically requires about three to four weeks. Categorically Exempt developments such as ADUs require a minimal amount of time. Although environmental review adds to the time and cost of development, it is mandated by State law. 4. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro-rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Table III-4 shows fees associated with new development within Hermosa Beach. As can be seen from the table, Park and Recreation and Building Permit fees represent the largest development fees, although since many projects replace units, credits can be obtained. For a typical 2,000-square-foot single-family dwelling (excluding any demolition or entitlement cost), current (2021) permit fees are estimated at approximately $30,000 per unit or $15,000 if the new unit replaced a 1,500-square-foot house. Fees for a 2,000-square- foot condominium unit (part of a typical two-unit project) that replaced a 1,500-square- foot dwelling would be about $30,000, or $45,000 if no replacement is involved. Nearly all multi-family projects are small condominium projects, which allow owners to maximize investment on small lots. The City periodically evaluates the actual cost of processing the development permits when revising its fee schedule. The last review was 2020. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 429 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-18 In addition to City fees, development fees levied by the school districts and special districts include the following as of 2021: School Fees: $4.79 per square foot L.A. County Sewer Connection Fee: $4,610 (single-family home) Aside from parkland fees, no other impact fees have been adopted. Table III-4 City of Hermosa Beach Planning & Building Fees Planning Fees/Building Fees Fee Amount Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $5,900 CUP for Condominium (cost/2 units) $6,127 CUP for Condominium (per unit over 2 units) $227 CUP/Parking Plan/PDP (amendment) $5,197 Negative Declaration/Initial Study $4,125 / At cost Extension (tentative map, final map, CUP) $1,196 Final Map $851 General Plan Amendment Map/Text $4,673 / $6,290 / At Cost Zone Change $4,917 Parking Plan $5,444 Precise Development Plan $6,127 Subdivision – Tentative Map $5,677 Variance $4,547 Parks and Recreation Fees (condos excluded)** $9,148/unit Parks and Recreation Fees, in lieu (condos only)** $14,096/unit Building Permit Averages for 3-bedroom, 2 bath single-family home. Credits available if existing square footage is demolished or dwelling units are replaced. The City requires developers to provide on-site and off-site improvements necessary to serve their projects. Such improvements may include water, sewer and other utility extensions, street improvements and traffic control devices that are reasonably related to the project. Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a project for rights- of-way, transit facilities, recreational facilities and school sites, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements, including street improvements and other public works projects, to facilitate continued development according to the City’s General Plan. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with private development. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 430 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-19 Although development fees and improvement requirements increase the cost of housing, cities have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements. B. Non-Governmental Constraints 1. Environmental Constraints Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, geological hazards, floodplains, or sensitive biological habitat. In many cases, development in these areas is constrained by State and Federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Act, State Fish and Game Code and the Alquist-Priolo Act). The City’s Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan have been designed to protect sensitive areas from development and to protect public safety, as required by State and Federal law. Environmentally sensitive areas are generally zoned and protected as parklands. However, a significant portion of the city is within the Coastal Zone wherein impacts to coastal resources are always of concern. In addition, portions of the city are located on moderately steep hillsides and some areas are subject to liquefaction. While policies constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public policies. 2. Infrastructure Constraints With about 20,000 people living within its 1.3 square miles and virtually no vacant land, the City’s growth is limited to redevelopment and replacement of existing structures. This section discusses potential infrastructure constraints on such development. Water and Wastewater. Water and wastewater systems are generally able to serve existing demands. Most new development will continue to be replacement of existing structures, and water and sewer capacities are projected to be sufficient to accommodate this replacement during the planning period. However, significant deficiencies in the sewer system exist and rehabilitation is necessary, and new development may require offsite improvements. The City Council approved Sewer System Master and Management Plans identifying the cost to repair the 80-year-old system at $9 million over 10 years, which is incorporated in the annual City budget. The City also has adopted a Storm Drain Master Plan, with annual storm drain improvements included in the annual City budget. Water infrastructure is replaced and developer improvements are in accordance with the schedules and requirements of the service providers. Streets and Parking. One of the primary infrastructure issues associated with the current level of development is the limited capacity of on-street parking. As a dense beach city inundated by tourists throughout the summer months, there can sometimes be a shortage of adequate parking in many areas. The City addresses this constraint incrementally by ensuring that all new developments, both residential and commercial, provide adequate off-street parking so they do not need to rely on on-street parking. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 431 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-20 Streets in Hermosa Beach are subject to high levels of traffic, which are further impacted by new development. The great majority of the traffic, especially during the summer months, consists of through-traffic over which the City has no control. Because of the city’s location in relation to the regional freeway system, access to the surrounding region is limited to the arterial roadways. The many thousands of visitors to the local beaches also affect parking and other services. Drainage. Urban storm water run-off is a challenging issue because Hermosa Beach is an oceanfront community with over 90% impermeable ground surface. In addition to best management practices (BMPs) implemented through its regional storm water discharge permit, the City also requires infiltration basins, when appropriate, with new developments. The City has adopted rules to allow and encourage pervious surfaces and also adopted Cal-Green building standards in 2019 exceeding State requirements by requiring increased permeability or infiltration in connection with new development. The City has installed an award-winning infiltration project in the downtown area, which should serve as a model for other areas. Additionally, the City adopted Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects (Municipal Code Sec. 8.44.095). Dry utilities. Dry utilities such as electricity, telephone and cable are provided by private companies and are currently available in the areas where future residential development is planned. When new development is proposed the applicant coordinates with utility companies to arrange for the extension of service. There are no known service limitations that would restrict planned development during the planning period. 3. Land Costs Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and the downturn in the housing market following the 2008 mortgage crisis had a negative effect on property values. In recent years real estate values have increased significantly. Per-unit land cost is directly affected by density – higher density allows the land cost to be spread across more units, reducing the total price. Most new residential development in the city consists of one to two units per lot, and recent trends indicate redevelopment projects have been maximizing density. However, no land was available for sale during the writing of this Housing Element. 4. Construction Costs Residential construction costs are estimated by the Community Development Department at $500 per square foot and higher, usually due to the type of construction and amenities desired by developers. Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards, and general market conditions. The City has no influence over materials and labor costs, and the building codes and development standards in Hermosa Beach are not substantially different from other cities in the South Bay area. Since most development consists of private redevelopment where impact fees and major infrastructure or offsite improvements are typically not required, it is likely that costs are lower than in many cities. The City’s building code amendments do not add substantial cost. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 432 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element III Constraints Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 III-21 5. Cost and Availability of Financing Hermosa Beach is similar to most other California communities with regard to private sector home financing programs. Although the mortgage crisis that began in 2008 affected the availability of real estate loans, interest rates are at historic low levels. For buyers with good credit, the current low interest rates significantly reduce the cost of housing. Under State law, it is illegal for real estate lending institutions to discriminate against entire neighborhoods in lending practices because of the physical or economic conditions in the area (“redlining”). In monitoring new construction sales, resales of existing homes, and permits for remodeling, it does not appear that redlining is practiced in any area of the city. 6. Timing and Density Due to very high land cost and limited available sites, development projects typically maximize the allowable density. Furthermore, to accommodate the City’s 6th cycle RHNA, much of the new housing is anticipated in the high density residential and commercial districts where mixed use and residential uses are permitted at a density range of 25.1 to 33.0 units per acre. The timeline of development projects from project approval to building permit application can vary from project to project depending on multiple factors unrelated to City requirements, and may be impacted by the availability of financing, contractors, labor, and materials. In reviewing the most recent residential development projects during the last four years, the average time between project approval and building permit application is about 118 days, with a median of 93 days. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 433 of 764 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 434 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-1 Appendix A Evaluation of the 2014-2021 Housing Element Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. The Housing Element update included a review the housing goals, policies, and programs of the prior Housing Element, and evaluated the degree to which those programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. The Housing Element update also included an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. The findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City’s Housing Implementation Program for the 2021-2029 planning period. Table A-1 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for future policies and actions. Table A-2 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the previous Housing Element. The City has limited funding to address housing needs. However over the past cycle, the City accomplished the following for special needs populations: Approved two reasonable accommodation requests to address the housing needs of persons with disabilities. The City also recently removed the public hearing requirement for Reasonable Accommodation requests. Promoted the ADU development in the community, which benefits elderly and lower income households. ADU activities increased significantly in 2021 and 2022. Preserved the affordability of Marine Land Mobile Home Park by facilitating the conversion of the park into resident ownership. Provided rental assistance to at-risk homeless through the PLHA funds administered by LACDA. Began discussions with St. Cross Church regarding its intent to develop affordable housing on site. The 2013-2021 Hermosa Beach Housing Element did not include specific goals, policy, or action to address the housing needs of households with special needs. The only action included in the previous Housing Element was related to zoning code amendments, which the City was able to accomplish. The 6th cycle Housing Element includes additional commitments to address special housing needs. These include: Program 4: Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance – Conduct affirmative fair marketing to agencies and organizations that serve low and moderate income households and special needs populations. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 435 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-2 Program 10: Housing for Persons with Special Needs – Amend Zoning Ordinance to facilitate a range of housing options for person with special needs and amend strategies for live/work housing and 15-minute neighborhoods. Program 12: Remove Governmental Constraints – Amend Zoning Ordinance to revise parking standards, such as for senior units. Program 13: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing – Facilitate public education and outreach on fair housing and promote home sharing opportunities. Program 14: Neighborhood Improvement - Offer a tax rebate and certain exemptions (sewer, lighting assessment, utility user tax) for income qualified elderly or disabled residents. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 436 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-3 Table A-1 Housing Element Program Effectiveness Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach 2014-2021 Name of Program Objective Status of Program Implementation Continued Appropriatene ogram 1 Density nus. density bonus program through brochures and the City website throughout the planning period. for density bonus were submitted. Most new units in Hermosa Beach are typically small 1-4 replacement units. For the 6th cycle 2021-2029, larger sites identified for housing are along the City’s commercial corridors, including small parcels under the same ownership that could be consolidated. The City has a lot consolidation program that Housing Element. available to accommodate its new housing need for the 2014-2021 planning period, and continue to maintain its comprehensive land use database as means to identify suitable sites for new residential development. This database provides zoning and other information for every parcel in the City, and includes information regarding underdeveloped and undeveloped parcels. to accommodate housing needs. This program should be revised to reflect the 6th cycle sites inventory. The City receives occasional inquiries from developers for some older, underutilized commercial sites. To be more proactive and encourage new residential development along the corridors, the program should provide a dedicated webpage with opportunity sites information and contacts to make the information more accessible to interested developers for 2021-2029 6th Cycle. dedicated webpage with contacts in July 2023. conservation of the Marine Land Mobile Home Park located at 531 Pier Avenue. The 60-space park provides housing for extremely-low-, very- low- and low-income households. The Hermosa Court Recreational Vehicle Park with 19 pads at 725 10th Street also provides transitional housing space for those persons or households in transition from an RV to apartment or home. The Mobile Home Park has obtained state funding to convert to a resident owned park. resident ownership was completed in 2013. This program should be continued. Income limits are verified for new buyers according to extremely-low, very-low and low-income restrictions and reviewed and approved for conformance by the Homeowners Board prior to purchase to maintain these affordable for-sale units. review. for enforcing those sections of the Municipal Code related to property maintenance, including zoning, property maintenance, illegal units, trash container regulations, construction without permits, and sign regulations. The Code Enforcement Officer assists and makes recommendations to other City departments, such as conducting inspections of business licenses, home occupation offenses, and obstructions in public right-of-way program is effective and should be continued with a change in description. This description was provided before the program was implemented. The Program description should be revised to reflect actual activities and should specifically include housing stock preservation through nuisance maintenance cases and neighborhood preservation through response to neighbor complaints, in addition to response to residents asking about Fair Housing. Code Enforcement housing preservation activities. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 437 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-4 ame of Program Objective Status of Program Implementation Continued Appropriateness funding and Section 8 rental vouchers to qualifying households. If the City is successful in obtaining increased CDBG funding and/or expanding Section 8 rental vouchers for residents, this information will be posted in the Community Center, on the City’s website, in handouts provided in the information kiosk in the City Hall lobby, and in the local library. Brochures will also be provided to local service clubs including the local “Meals on Wheels” program, local dial-a-ride service, the local recreation center, and emergency shelters in the area. CDBG and Section 8 programs. No developers have expressed interest in pursuing affordable housing development. Hermosa Beach receives CDBG fund distribution through Los Angeles County Community Development Authority LACDA) since it is a small city with a population of 19,614. During the 2013-2021 5th Cycle period the City has designated its $60,000-$63,000 annual funding for residential neighborhood sidewalks replacement. The City intends to continue use of CDBG funds for this neighborhood preservation purpose. This program should be continued and expanded to add Section 8 information to the City’s website with information for property owners to encourage participation and information for residents seeking properties available through Section 8 housing vouchers. It should be noted that new Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, also distributed through LACDA, have been designated for Rental Assistance programs to help LA County residents, including Hermosa Beach residents, stay in their homes and avoid becoming at-risk of July 2023. organizations to address complaints regarding housing discrimination within the City and provide counseling in landlord/tenant disputes. should be continued, revised and expanded to address Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) policies and the City’s AFFH analysis. The City should include Fair Housing information on its website, including the LA County LACDA and non-profit Housing Rights Center. Easy Fair Housing information and access will assist residents and allow City Staff, not just Code Enforcement, July 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 438 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-5 Name of Program Objective Status of Program Implementation Continued Appropriatene ogram 7 Zoning for ecial Needs and ordable Housing. regarding regulations related to persons with special needs and affordable housing. needs and affordable housing. New state laws will be addressed for special needs and affordable housing as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code update underway, expected to be considered for approval in July 2023. State laws incorporated for Element rezoning and Density sites that allow high-density residential development including reducing constraints posed by small lot sizes. development; however, no applications have been submitted. This program is expanded through allowance of residential in commercial zones for mixed-use and 100% residential with affordable housing as part of the 6th cycle rezoning program and Comprehensive Zoning Code update underway and expected to be considered for approval in with introduction of mixed- and 100% residential with affordable housing through byCity Council in July 2023. update to the General Plan. One of the primary themes of the new General Plan will be community sustainability. As part of the General Plan update, state-of-the-art options to improve sustainability and energy conservation will be reviewed, and those that are appropriate for Hermosa Beach will be pursued. New initiatives related to residential development will be incorporated into the Housing Element, as appropriate. program should be continued. This program description should be revised to include the General Plan Amendments underway, including the Housing Element, Safety Element, and Comprehensive Zoning Code update underway including necessary rezonings to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and expected to be considered in July 2023. Sustainability is prioritized throughout the 2017 General Plan and will be continued in the General Plan Amendments. The City also implements the State’s Green Building Code. EV charger and solar panel permits also are expedited for processing. General Plan Amendments underway with prioritized sustainability throughout, Safety Element, and update underway including City’s RHNA allocation and approval in July 2023. Table A-2 Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives City of Hermosa Beach 2014-2021 Program Category Quantified Objective Progress New Construction1 Extremely Low 1 - Very Low - - Low 1 - Moderate - 15 Above Moderate - 10 Total 2 25 Rehabilitation2 Extremely Low 10 10 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 439 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 A-6 Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate - Total 10 Conservation3 Extremely Low 60 60 2 Private repairs Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 440 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-1 Appendix B Residential Land Inventory 1. Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) State law requires each city to include in its Housing Element an inventory of vacant parcels having the potential for residential development, or “underutilized” parcels with potential for additional development or redevelopment. The purpose of this inventory is to evaluate whether there is sufficient capacity, based on the General Plan, zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s assigned share of regional growth needs as identified in the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). This analysis represents an assessment of the City’s realistic development potential. Actual development will depend on the intentions of each property owner, market conditions and other factors. The methodology and assumptions for the residential land inventory are provided below. The City has been allocated a need of 558 units during the 2021-2029 projection period, which are distributed among the following income categories: Very-low income 232 units Low income 127 units Moderate income 106 units Above-moderate income 93 units Projected ADUs Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Hermosa Beach had a slow start with ADU construction with the changes in State law. However construction of ADUs significantly increased over the last two years. The City’s five-year ADU records are: 2018 – 1 unit 2019 – 1 unit 2020 - 1 unit 2021 – 16 units 2022 – 14 units 2023 – 13 units Based on this data, the City has an average of 6.6 ADUs annually over the past five years. However, given the sharp rise in ADU activities in the last three years at the beginning of this RHNA cycle, the City anticipates an average of eight ADUs annually for 64 units over eight years. This projection assumes some tapering off of interest in later years. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 441 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-2 SCAG conducted a regional analysis of existing ADU rents in April and June 2020. The analysis broke down Los Angeles County into two survey areas. The City of Hermosa Beach is located within in the LA County I study area. The analysis resulted in affordability assumptions for jurisdictions in this study area, that allocated 15 percent to extremely low income, 2 percent to very low income, 43 percent to low income households, 6 percent to moderate income, and 34 percent to above moderate income households. Based on the ADU rent survey conducted by SCAG, of the 64 ADUs projected to be built, 10 units will be for extremely low income households, one unit for very low income households, 28 for low income households, four for moderate income households and 21 units for above moderate income households. Remaining RHNA Accounting for the projected ADUs, the City has a remaining RHNA of 494 units. The City must identify adequate sites with appropriate density and development standards to accommodate this remaining RHNA. Table B-1 RHNA Status RHNA ADU Projection Remaining RHNA Extremely Low (<30%) 116 10 106 Very Low (31-50%) 116 1 115 Low (51-80%) 127 28 99 Moderate (81-120%) 106 4 102 Above moderate (120%+) 93 21 72 Total 558 64 494 Note: While RHNA does not separately identify an allocation for extremely low income households, State law required jurisdictions toestimate the projected housing needs of this incomegroup. The acceptable methodology is to assume 50% of the very low income RHNA as extremely low income. 2. Availability of Sites For potential new units in a city’s land inventory, State law establishes affordability assumptions based on density. The “default” density for small metropolitan jurisdictions, including Hermosa Beach, is 20 units per acre8. This means that if the General Plan and zoning allow development at 20 units per acre or greater, these sites are deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. In Hermosa Beach, the following residential zoning districts allow multi-family development at densities greater than 20 units/acre: District Allowable Density R-2 24.9 units/acre R-2B 24.9 units/acre R-3 33 units/acre 8 Government Code §65583.2(c)(3)(B) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 442 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-3 R-P 33 units/acre Also the C-1 commercial district allows mixed-use development at a density of 33 units/acre. The allowable densities in all of these districts are significantly greater than the state default density of 20 units/acre; therefore, they are considered suitable for accommodating the City’s lower-income housing need. However, the City has few vacant or underutilized sites in these districts to accommodate new housing. As a strategy to meeting the City’s RHNA obligations, the City proposes to allow residential and mixed use development in the C-2, C-3, SPA-7, SPA-8, SPA-11, and M- 1 zones. A residential density of 25.1-33.0 units per acre will be permitted. 3. Redevelopment Trends in South Bay Throughout the South Bay region, redevelopment of existing underutilized commercial properties into residential and mixed use projects has become a significant trend. The impacts of COVID (such as accelerated trends of online shopping and remote working) have resulted in increased redevelopment of commercial properties into residential/mixed use projects. Table B-2 below provides a sample of recycling underutilized commercial properties in the South Bay region. These uses being redeveloped in the South Bay region are similar to the existing uses of sites with redevelopment potential in Hermosa Beach selection Criteria: d). Table B-2 Redevelopment Trends in South Bay Community Location/Project Prior Uses Redevelopment Redondo Beach South Bay Galleria Shopping mall Redondo Beach Alcast Foundry RV parking and truck storage for development of 36 Rolling Hills Estates 927 Deep Valley Drive Medical office Rolling Hills Estates Peninsula Pointe Office building into an 80-unit El Segundo Pacific Coast Commons Fairfield Inn and Suites 263 units and 11252 square feet of retail Hermosa Beach 2700 Manhattan Ave Manhattan Beach Verandas 79 housing units Manhattan Beach 1701-1707 Artesia 14 housing units Torrance 18045 Western Avenue Torrance 24 townhomes Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 443 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-4 Lomita 2457 Lomita Blvd. Equipment rental yard Prior to the rezoning in October 2023, limited opportunities existed in Hermosa Beach for multi-family and mixed use development. Therefore, the City was not able to use built projects to demonstrate the characteristics of sites with redevelopment potential. However, as the City was going through the public outreach process for the rezoning, multiple property owners/developers have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties. The characteristics of these properties can be used as proxies for selecting other sites with near-term redevelopment potential. Specifically, characteristics of sites with existing are presented in Table B-3. Table B-3 Characteristics of Sites with Development Interests Parcel Existing Use Property Owner FAR ILR 4186-026-804 4186-026-806 4186-026-801 4186-026-805 4186-026-800 Utility switching station/commercial parking Adaptive reuse of existing buildings to incorporate residential units 1.0 NA NA 2 4185-017-015 4185-017-014 Multi-tenant commercial and commercial parking incorporate 1.0 0.34 1964 1 4183-016-029 4183-016-040 4183-016-033 4182-019-001 4182-019-002 4182-019-003 4183-016-011 4183-016-012 4183-016-035 4183-016-036 4183-016-037 4183-016-038 4183-016-039 Religious facility, existing residential units, and parking Infilling site to incorporate additional residential units 0.5 0.56 1923-1968 Average 1 4183-018-013 4183-018-015 Multi-tenant commercial redevelopment into 0.6 0.57 1957-1963 1 and 2 4183-018-003 Multi-tenant commercial residential units into 0.6 0.38 1955 1 4183-018-002 Personal services residential units into 0.5 0.42 1945 2 4186-012-014 Abandoned auto repair redevelopment into 0.4 0.28 1945 1 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 444 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-5 Parcel Existing Use Property Owner FAR ILR 4186-031-001 4186-031-002 4186-031-003 Auto-related use Complete redevelopment into residential uses 1.03 0.15 1955 Mostly parking 4185-002-007 4185-002-014 Retail redevelopment into 0.14 0.29 1952 1 and 2 Range 0.14 – 1.03 0.15-0.57 1923-1968 1-2 4. Identification of Parcels The City has been in discussions with several property owners who have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties for residential or mixed use development. In addition, the City has identified sites that are underutilized and possess characteristics that are consistent with sites where owners have expressed interest in redevelopment or with sites that have been redeveloped or proposed for redevelopment in the South Bay region. These properties are described in detail in Table B-5 (Sites Identified for Rezoning). Sites are included in the inventory if they meet a, b, OR c: a. Owner or developer interest b. Vacant land c. Vacated building or high vacancy For sites not meeting any of the factors above, they are included in the inventory if they meet at least three of the following five factors: d. Uses are consistent with uses that are being redeveloped in the region, as shown in Table B-2. These uses include: retail, office, auto-related uses, parking lots, etc. Regionally, these uses are being redeveloped as, or infilled to incorporate residential uses. e. Existing FAR: Minimal structures or improvements on site, such as parking lots, typically have low floor area ratios. However, among the properties with developer/property owner interest for redevelopment, the existing site average FAR can be as high as 1.03, with an average FAR of 0.64. This analysis uses a threshold of 0.70 (see Table B-3). f. Low improvement to land ratio (ILR): Among properties with developer/owner interest for redevelopment, the site average ILRs range from 0.15 to 0.57, with an average of 0.37. The threshold used in this analysis is 0.40. g. Age of structures: Because the City has not seen any commercial development during the last few decades, there are few post-1990 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 445 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-6 commercial properties in the City. Hermosa Beach sites inventory parcels with property owner and developer interests show a wide range of age. The majority of sites identified for the RHNA were built between 1940 and 1980, only seven parcels have structures built in the 1980s. In fact, five parcels were built in 1981. This analysis uses a threshold year of 1990 for several reasons: 1. Buildings constructed prior to 1990 are typically not compliant with accessibility/ADA requirements. An important fact is that virtually no properties have gone through substantial improvements that would trigger a building permit and therefore reassessment post 1990. This means the majority of these properties are at least 40-50 years of age with outdated systems and infrastructure. Any major renovation would require the buildings be brought up to code, which may be cost prohibitive and physically not feasible. 2. Buildings constructed prior to 1990 may contain asbestos and buildings constructed prior to 1980 may contain lead-based paint. Abatement of these toxic substances can be costly and may defer significant property renovations. 3. For commercial uses, especially retail, 20 years of age is considered outdated as retail is volatile and often reflects market trends. 4. In the nearby City of Manhattan Beach, properties with structures as young as 10 years old (e.g. the Residence Inn site) have developer interest for redevelopment. Similarly in the City of Redondo Beach, the North Kingsdale site where the developer actively acquired commercial properties for consolidation and redevelopment, existing buildings were all constructed during the 1980s and 1990s. Another site in Redondo Beach with developer interest in the Vons site, which was constructed in 1993. h. Height: Most parcels are developed with single-story structures or used as surface parking. The City’s height limits are 30-35 feet (depending on zones), which can accommodate a three-story building. Many commercial and residential buildings in the City along Pacific Coast Highway are three-story buildings. In the City’s SPA-11 and M1, however, the height limit was restricted to two stories. This restriction has been removed as part of the October 2023 Zoning Ordinance update. Therefore, the majority of the parcels in the sites inventory can significantly intensify with redevelopment. Among properties with expressed developer/ property owner interests, many contain two-story structures. These include 555 Pier, 411 Pier, 700 PCH, and 1706 PCH. The majority of the properties contain surface parking and a combination of single-story and two-story structures. In most cases, the two-story structures occupy only a very small footprint of the site. Therefore, the existing height being mostly single-story is used as a factor for potential redevelopment. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 446 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-7 Table B-5 provides values for existing FAR, improvement to land value ratio (ILR), age of structure, and height of structures. For parcels that belong to the same grouping, these values are averaged for the group. Only one site – Site #7 – with a capacity for four moderate income units, does not meet at least three factors. It is included in the sites inventory because it is located in a stretch of the commercial corridor that is experiencing transition and the existing use (office) can be converted or redeveloped to incorporate a mixed use development. However, this site is not critical to the City’s ability in meeting its RHNA. While it is included in the sites inventory and has been rezoned, it is excluded in the summary of capacity for meeting the RHNA. 2. Sites Inventory Table B-4 summarizes the City’s inventory of sites compared to the RHNA, while potential vacant and underutilized sites for residential development are listed in Tables B-2 and B-3, respectively. The City’s current inventory of sites does not have adequate capacity to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation for the planning period. Therefore, as required by State law9 Program 9 in the Housing Policy Plan includes a commitment to process zoning amendments for sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall. Sites to be rezoned are identified in Table B-5. Figure B-1 illustrates the location of these parcels identified for rezoning. Table B-4 Land Inventory Summary vs. RHNA Income Category TotalVLLowModAbove RHNA (2021-2029) 232 127 106 93 558 Accessory dwelling units 11 28 4 21 64 Remaining RHNA 221 99 102 72 494 Sites Inventory (Table B-5) 353 171 80 604 Buffer Above Remaining RHNA 10% 68% 11% 22% Source: Hermosa Beach Community Development Dept., 2023 Small Parcels vs. Small Sites Parcels are identified by the site/area number. Many parcels are contiguous and owned by the same owners. These parcels are grouped into sites. No small sites (less than 0.5 acre) are used to meet the City’s lower income RHNA. Only contiguous parcels that are owned by no more than two property owners and can consolidate into a site larger than 0.5 acre and more than 16 units based on minimum density) are used to fulfill lower income RHNA obligations. These parcels are considered a site because they are generally in the same condition and developed with similar intensity and uses. Combining these parcels will allow for improved site planning given the site shape and access. 9 Government Code Sec. 65583.2(h) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 447 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-8 Discussions with developers in the region indicate consolidation of parcels involving two to three property owners are typical given the urbanized character and historical subdivision patterns in Southern California. Contiguous parcels with multiple owners are grouped but not used for lower income RHNA. These parcels can be developed individually; lot consolidation is not necessary to develop market-rate housing. These parcels are grouped because they can form regularly shaped lots that can offer potential for improved site planning and access. For example, Site 28 is comprised of six parcels owned by two property owners, with one owning just one parcel. But even this parcel (0.46 acre) is adequate to accommodate a small to medium size townhome project. It does not require consolidating to achieve the allowable number of units or be feasible for a market rate project. The City received expressions of interest from property owners in being involved in the City’s Housing Element. One particular area is in the City’s Upper Pier area, a two-block stretch of the downtown. Sites 3 through 9 are located in this area. All include contiguous parcels between 0.7 acre and 0.23 acre. Site 3 includes 1 parcel Site 4 includes 12 parcels Site 5 includes 2 parcels Site 6 includes 2 parcels Site 7 includes 1 parcel Site 8 includes 3 parcels These sites are located in the SPA-11 zoning area, which is intended to maintain a downtown scale and feel. Through the City’s Economic Development efforts, the property owners identified this area as being ripe for redevelopment into a mixed-use area. This contemplates retaining ground floor storefronts, but adding residential units to commercial properties to form mixed use developments. The Sites Inventory took this into consideration when identifying this area as contributing towards the Moderate and Above-Moderate RHNA. These properties are developable individually or as part of a lot consolidation. Furthermore, many property owners in this area have collaborative relationships given their common experiences with operating property downtown. This increases the potential for lot consolidation as compared to many other areas. Realistic Capacity Hermosa Beach is completely developed; there are no recent examples of large-scale housing or mixed-use development in the city. There is virtually no vacant multi-family land remaining. Until 2023, mixed-use development is only allowed in the C-1 zone. Given the limited opportunities, no development application for any type of development was filed between 2019 and 2023. In October 2023, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow housing and mixed-use development in portions of C-2, C-3, SPA-7, SPA-8, SPA-11, M-1 and PF zones via an Overlay to implement the Housing Element RHNA sites. The rezoning covers an area that is larger than the RHNA sites to avoid spot zoning. Development interests expressed on these RHNA sites are all for housing and mixed use only. Based on the lack Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 448 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-9 of 100% nonresidential development over the past three to four years, the City expects the new opportunities offered by the rezoning will begin to convert commercial uses into housing/mixed use development, such as in the neighboring Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Lawndale. The densities are allowed on rezoned sites (maximum density at 33 and 50 units/acre) would create a substantial financial incentive for redevelopment. Due to extremely high land values, developers are likely to maximize yields on these properties. Also, the trend of redevelopment in the South Bay area is robust, introducing residential uses into existing commercial corridors. However, as a conservative strategy, other than the City-owned properties, capacity at all identified parcels are estimated based on minimum density of 25.1 units per acre for RH or 22 units per acre for the new R2A. Infrastructure (including sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities) for affordable housing development is not a constraint. City-owned Sites City-owned sites are expected to be long-term leases for housing rental properties. If any City-owned site is sold, it will be in compliance of the Surplus Lands Act. The City is in an early stage of analyzing of the City-owned property for potential redevelopment. Upon City Council approval, a Request For Proposals (RFP) would be issued for a development partner for a public-private partnership to creatively redevelop city-owned properties to better meet the City’s needs and achieve affordable multi-family and senior housing. It is anticipated that the City would develop the public-private partnership RFP in 2024, complete design work, environmental review, and associated approvals in 2024/2025, with construction to begin in the 2026/2027 period. Existing Uses as Impediments to Redevelopment The properties included in the sites inventory are mostly independently owned. There are no major anchor stores included in the sites inventory. Therefore, redevelopment of properties in the sites inventory typically would not involve corporate strategic planning. Typically, commercial properties have leases that are at least one year but many are medium length between three and five years. Therefore, leases are not likely to constitute a major impediment to redevelopment during the eight-year planning period. Only larger tenants may have longer lease terms (five to ten years). However, no major tenants are included in the sites inventory. Ten of the 28 sites identified have expressed interest for redevelopment, indicating existing uses on these sites are not likely to impede redevelopment. In addition, three sites (Sites 12, 13, and 23) have high vacancies in recent years. The Overlay created as part of this Housing Element update is presenting the property owners a financially viable alternative that was not available to them before. Furthermore, several sites with expressed interest for redevelopment are contemplating adaptive reuse and infilling parking space or open areas on site with residential uses. These development concepts can replace the nonviable uses on site without displacing the existing uses. Throughout California, many commercial and shopping centers are being reimagined utilizing such strategies. Therefore, existing uses are not expected to impede the introduction of residential units on site. A nearby example is South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach. The shopping center has already been approved for reconfiguration of Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 449 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-10 existing buildings and uses to add residential units on site. Therefore, existing uses on these sites are not expected to impede the incorporation of housing on these sites. Site 13 can be reimagined with infill housing on site. All the sites included in the inventory are developed with existing uses that are experiencing redevelopment in region. These include retail, office, auto-related, parking, and warehousing/storage uses. A self-storage facility in Carson is being marketed for sale with the potential for housing. This can be similar to Site 26 in this Housing Element. St. Cross Sites The St. Cross church site consists of 15 parcels comprising approximately 2.2 acres developed with a church sanctuary and administrative offices, education building, 18 residential units, and surface parking lots. The church seeks to add housing units on site. The church has rented units to homeless veterans, refugees, and formerly to a women’s shelter, and accommodated workforce housing. St. Cross Church wrote a letter of support for Housing Element. The Housing Element evaluated existing uses on proposed properties for the Sites Inventory. The church expressed interest in furthering the existing mission of providing affordable housing to members of the community in need. The feasibility of development is supported by the owner of St. Cross, who has expressed the desire to add to the existing housing uses on the property. The City has evaluated the property and determined that existing uses will not impede the development of housing, and that existing uses have already set the stage for additional similar uses. The St. Cross church site is located in an established residential neighborhood with single- and multi-family homes. The neighborhood includes properties occupied by long-tenured residents and properties recently acquired for redevelopment. Due to its potential for ocean views, the neighborhood is highly desirable from a real estate standpoint. The trend in the neighborhood has been demolition of smaller homes for large single-family homes, often on R-2-zoned lots. The inclusion of the St. Cross church in the City’s Housing Element, and rezoning to accommodate the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation, raised substantial neighborhood concerns. The City received a multitude of comments during the Housing Element adoption process, and altered the plan for the St. Cross site, lowering the RHNA densities from 33 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 25 du/ac, with a minimum of 22 dwelling units per acre. The 22 du/ac supports the Sites Inventory indication that the St. Cross site, can be developed with 44 units. The 15 parcels comprising the St. Cross church site form Site 1 and 2, separated by a portion of an alley and a one-block length of 19th Street that provides access to both the church site and other properties. The St. Cross church site is developed with a church sanctuary and administrative offices, education building, 18 residential units (with about 7,000 sq. ft. of 2-story construction), and surface parking lots. Assuming that the church sanctuary and administration building is retained, there is approximately 93,500 square feet (2.1 acres) of land area (based on an aerial map measurement). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 450 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-11 Site 1 amounts to approximately 9,500 square feet and Site 2 (deducting the church sanctuary and administrative offices) amounts to approximately 84,000 square feet of land area. The rest of the site is underdeveloped, consisting of a substantial parking lot and small residential structures. Site 1 Site 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 451 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-12 There is potential for consolidating and redeveloping residential projects to the height limit of 30 feet, which allows 2 or 3 stories depending on the roof pitch. While there have not been official development plans submitted, residential development to 22 dwelling units per acre is achievable by the following methods (in no particular order): Building additional residential units on the underdeveloped areas, such as parking lots or redundant driveways Second-story additions or expansions to existing residential structures to accommodate more units. Lot consolidation / reconfiguration of separate parcels to accommodate construction of attached residential uses. Conversion of portions of existing structures, like the education building, to include residential uses. Use of density bonus provisions to accommodate additional units or waivers and concessions of development standards. There have been many townhome developments of similar density per acre in the region developed on parking lots or portions of underutilized sites. There are examples of residential developments that can be accommodated on the available land area using the above- mentioned methodology. Some include the following. 1) Example: A 3-story, 32-unit project (all two- or three-bedroom units, ranging from 1,000 square feet to 1,680 square feet) was recently approved in the City of Long Beach on a site of 44,153 square feet (1.01 acre). (This is a slightly larger scale development than the scale found in the St. Cross church site) 2) Example: A 2-story, 24-unit residential townhome project (all two-bedroom units) was approved in January 2021 in the City of Torrance on a site of about 43,560 square feet (1 acre), on the former site of a church. (This is comparable scale to the housing on the St. Cross church site). 3) Example: A 3-story 48-unit market-rate residential development (all three- and four- bedroom units, ranging from 1,724 to 2,252 square feet) is under construction in the City of Torrance on a site of 2.5 acres on a former church parking lot. The project retained the church sanctuary. (This is a larger scale development than the scale found in the St. Cross church site) 4) Example: A 2-story 86-unit senior living facility was approved on a 2.65-acre former parking lot in the City of Long Beach. (This is a larger site than the St. Cross church site, but has smaller units for seniors which is more consistent with the St. Cross church site scale). 5) Example: A 3-story, 22-unit townhome development (studios to 4 bedrooms) was approved in the City of Gardena a 0.72-acre lot, using a density bonus that added 4 units. (This is a smaller site than the St. Cross church site, but would be scalable). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 452 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-13 4. Availability of Infrastructure Water Hermosa Beach is located in the California Water Service Company’s (Cal Water) Hermosa-Redondo District. The PLAN Hermosa EIR evaluated the potential impacts of development on water supply and concluded that there was sufficient capacity to serve this increase in demand. The PLAN Hermosa EIR also concluded that existing water treatment infrastructure was sufficient to accommodate development anticipated under the PLAN Hermosa. Improvements under the proposed projects could require replacement with larger diameter pipes if needed. Potential environmental impacts that could result from pipeline improvements would be project specific and are generally limited to upgrades within the project frontage. New or expanded local water distribution facilities would require permitting and review in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure environmental impacts are disclosed and addressed in the environmental analysis. The Hosing Element program changes would generate approximately 600 additional residents compared to what was evaluated in the PLAN Hermosa, but 1,000 fewer jobs and workers and therefore is similar to the amount of development assumed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR. Moreover, new construction implemented under the Project would be required to implement water conservation components of the Building Code to reduce potable water demand. Therefore, no further impact to these services and facilities are anticipated. Therefore, sufficient water is available to serve the RHNA anticipated units. Sewer The City of Hermosa Beach provides wastewater collection services in the City. The effluent collected by sewer lines is discharged into the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County LACSD) trunk lines. The LACSD trunk lines flow to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant JWPCP), located in Carson. The JWPCP is one of the largest wastewater plants in the world and is the largest of the LACSD wastewater treatment plants. The PLAN Hermosa EIR evaluated the potential impacts of new development on sewer capacity and concluded that there was sufficient capacity to serve this increase in demand. The Housing Element program changes could generate approximately 600 additional residents compared to what was evaluated in the PLAN Hermosa, but 1,000 fewer jobs and workers. Therefore, it is similar to the amount of development assumed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR and no further impact to these services and facilities are anticipated as sufficient sewer service is available to serve the RHNA anticipated units. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 453 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-14 Table B-5 Sites Inventory Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size ( acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 10 552 11th Place 4187-020-907 PF Public Facilities M-1 Light Manufacturing PF Public Facility 34 50 1.00 Self-Storage - 25 25 - 50 ILR: 0 Year Built: NA Height: 1 This city-ownedproperty currently has a month-to-month lease for a public storage facility. It is surrounded on twosides by medium density housing. City is currently working with a realestatedevelopment analysis firmto determine potential public- private-partnership for housingdevelopment, including affordable housing. Proposed General Plan and Public Facility zoning is34-50units per acre, for a total yieldof 50 units. Potential RFP in 2025 and construction in 2026. Y City of HB 11 710 Pier Avenue 4187-024-902 PF Public Facilities O-S Open Space PF Public Facility 34 50 1.00 Community Center 30 20 - - 50 ILR: 0 Year Built: NA Height: Mostly unoccupied land with only 16% of site with a 2-story building This city-owned community center property is currently under study by a real estate development analysis firm to determine potential public-private-partnership for senior affordable housing development ofup to 50 units. This site is ideal for senior housing due to smaller units, reduced parking needs, services offeredat community center, available onsite parkingand proximity to PCH bus transportation andgrocery/drug Y City of HB Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 454 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-15 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal Proposed General Plan and Public Facility zoning will be changed to 34-50 units per acre, for atotal yield of 50 units. Potential RFP in 2024 and construction in 2026 or 2027. The Community Centerbuilding is two stories anddesignated historic, and occupies 0.75 acre of thesite. The rest of the siteis developed withsurface parking, lawn area, and tennis courts that could be reconfigured or redeveloped to accommodate potential residential development. The Sites Inventory list this as one (1) acre, but there are actually 3.75 acres of space that is not currently occupied by any building. 28 911 1st Street 4186-026-047 CC Community SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.46 Commercial Parking - - - 12 12 ILR: 0 Year Built: NA Height: 0 Currently zonedcommercial, this vacant former parking lot siteis surrounded on three sides by low-to-medium density residential. The owner is interested in developing 12 for- sale units, likely atthe moderate and above- moderate income levels. Y 1ST STREET PARTNERS LLC C/O LUIGI SCHIAPPA DEVELOPMENT 28 102 PCH 4186-026-804 CC Community 25.1 33 0.4 - - 5 5 10 ILR: NA Year Built: NA Height: 2 Built in 1975, this telephone/ internet utility structure andsupporting parking lots once Y GTE CALIF INC SBE 201-19- 874B PAR5 6PTS 28 102 PCH 4186-026-806 CC Community 25.1 33 0.2 - - 5 - 5 28 102 PCH 4186-026-801 CC Community 25.1 33 0.1 - - 3 - 3 28 102 PCH 4186-026-805 CC Community 25.1 33 0.09 - - 3 - 3 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 455 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-16 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 28 1stStreet and PCH 4186-026-800 CC Community SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.5 Commercial Parking - - 6 7 13 techniciandesks and large number of phone operator desks. The building currently houses telephone/internet equipment in approximately 20% of thebuilding with only a handful of employees. The owner has recently approached theCity todiscuss adaptive reuse of this Art Deco building, with equipment consolidation and introduction of housing uses. At leasttwo affordable housing developers have expressed interest in workingwith the property owner to convert aportion of the building into residential units. Of 1.49 acres, about 0.62 acre (27,000 sq. ft.) is a surface parking lot. An existing building with a footprint of about 0.85 acres 37,000 sq. ft.) A 20,000 square-foot portion of the building is 2 stories tall and currently vacant. There is potential for conversion to residential use. This building is 80% vacant and only has telecommunications switching equipment inside. 19 1103 Aviation Boulevard 4185-017-015 GC Gateway C-3 General andHighway Commercial 25.1 33 1.3 Multi-tenant Commercial 24 8 - - 32 ILR: 0.34 Year Built: 1964 Height: 0 and 1 Older1975 commercial site with multiple tenant retail. Developer inquired about addingresidential uses to commercial property. Low density residential is adjacent to the rear of theproperty. These parcels arecurrently functioning as an integral site. Y BARA STR BARBARA S KENNARD TRUST AND HOROWITZ,RAL PHTR HOROWITZ 19 1209 Aviation Boulevard 4185-017-014 GC Gateway C-3 General andHighway Commercial 25.1 33 0.5 Commercial Parking 6 5 - - 11 Y SELECTIVE API ONE LLC Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 456 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-17 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal Factors for Selection: a, d, f, g, h 19 1062 AVIATION 4186-001-008 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.12 Retail - Nursery - - 3 - 3 ILR: 0.11 Year Built: 1964 Height: 1 MARIE SOLYMOSI 19 1062 AVIATION 4186-001-007 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.11 Retail - Nursery - - 2 - 2 2 1732 Monterey Boulevard 4183-016-028 Density/ Family Density 22 25 0.07 1 Unit - 1 - - 1 FAR: 0.5 ILR: 0.56 Year Built: 1923-1968 Height: Average 1 (5 0-story, 4 1-story, 6 2- story) The St. Cross church site consists of 15 parcels, developed with a church sanctuary and administrative offices, education building 24,000 sq. ft. footprint), 18 residential units with about 7,000 sq. ft. of 2-story construction), and surface parking lots. The surface parking areas and underdeveloped properties onthe site create potential for additional residential units. These parcels arecurrently functioning as one campus. Leaders at St. Cross Churchreached out the City to exploreways to add additional units to their property portfolio, which includes 15 lots with historicchurch, 18 existing units and parking lots. The church seeksto add housing units forthe dual purpose of providing affordable housing to the community and market rate units to help offsetcosts for affordable units. The church has rented units to homeless veterans, refugees, and formerly toawomen’s shelter. Y RECTOR, WARDENS AND VESTRYMEMBE RSST CROSS PARISH HERMOSA BEACH 2 1736 Monterey Boulevard 4183-016-029 Density/ Family Density 22 25 0.07 1 Unit - 1 - - 1 2 1818 Monterey Boulevard 4183-016-040 Density/ Family Density 22 25 1.2 Religious Institution 27 - - - 27 2 302 19th Street 4183-016-033 Density/ Family Density 22 25 0.07 Wireless Comm. - - - - - 1 1900 Monterey Boulevard 4182-019-001 Density/ Family Density 22 25 0.08 3 Units - - - - - 1 1908 Monterey Boulevard 4182-019-002 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.06 Private Parking Lot 1 1 - - 2 1 1914 Monterey Boulevard 4182-019-003 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.06 2 units - - - - - 2 1718 Loma Drive 4183-016-011 Density/ MD Medium R-2 Two Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.06 2 Units - - - - - 2 1722 Loma Drive 4183-016-012 Density/ MD Medium R-2 Two Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.06 1 Unit - 1 - - 1 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 457 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-18 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 2 1730 Loma Drive 4183-016-035 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.1 1 Unit 1 1 - - 2 add affordable units, including consideration ofSROs or a Planned Unit Development PUD). St. Cross Church wrote a letter of support for Housing Element recommending RHD zoning. Factors for Selection: a, d, e, g, h 2 1734 Loma Drive 4183-016-036 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.1 2 Units - 1 - - 1 2 Loma Drive and 19th Street 4183-016-037 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.09 Private Parking Lot 1 1 - - 2 2 Loma Drive and 19th Street 4183-016-038 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.1 Private Parking Lot 1 2 - - 3 2 1854 Loma Drive 4183-016-039 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.1 Private Parking Lot 1 2 - - 3 2 1902 Loma Drive 4183-023-022 Density/ MD Medium R-1 Single- Family Residential R-2A Medium Density Residential (22) 22 25 0.1 Private Parking Lot 1 2 - - 3 5 4183-018-013 CC Community 25.1 33 0.24 - - 3 3 6 ILR: 0.57 Year Built: 1957-1963 Height: Mostly 1 This 32,000 sq. ft. site is developed with about 16,000 sq. ft. of building footprint. A 7,600 sq. ft. portion (0.037 acre) of the building is currently two stories. Property owner communicated to staff regarding interest in redevelopment. Y 555PIER AVENUE LLC C/O RIVIERA CENTER MGMT CO 5 555 Pier Avenue 4183-018-015 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.49 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 6 6 12 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 458 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-19 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 4 517 Pier Avenue 4183-018-018 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.07 Offices - - - 1 1 ILR: 0.57 Year Built: 1957-1963 Height: 1 WRAY,RICHAR D AND DOLORES TRS WRAY FAMILY TRUST 4 4183-018-017 CC Community 25.1 33 0.07 Offices - - - 1 1 FAR: 0.7 ILR: 0.37 Year Built: 1939-1957 Height: Mostly 1 (8 1-story and 1 2-story) These parcels are all being accessed from Oak Street behind the buildings with no individual driveways. Shared access is conducive to consolidation. Factors for Selection: d, e, f, g, h 4 4183-018-016 CC Community 25.1 33 0.07 - - - 1 1 - WWS PIER LLC 4 4183-018-007 CC Community 25.1 33 0.07 - - - 1 1 REFOUA LLC44183-018-006 CC Community 25.1 33 0.07 - - - 1 1 4 4183-018-005 CC Community 25.1 33 0.07 Restaurant - - - 1 1 4 425 Pier Avenue 4183-018-004 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.07 Multi-tenant Commercial - - - 1 1 - AND LEA TRS D AND L CAPALDI 4 405 Pier Avenue 4183-018-001 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.07 Personal Services - - - 1 1 - MEHDI K AND ROSA TRS DANESHMAND 4 337 Pier Avenue 4183-018-026 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.08 Restaurant - - 2 - 2 - RT H TR SACKLEY 4 321 Pier Avenue 4183-017-025 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.17 ground floor and residential on - - 4 - 4 - HB321 PIER AVE LLC 4 419 Pier Avenue 4183-018-003 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.05 Multi-tenant Commercial - - - 1 1 ILR: 0.38 Year Built: 1955 Height: 1 Y 419PIER AVENUE LLC Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 459 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-20 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal Owner providedpreliminary plans for 4 residential units on 2nd and 3rd floor. Currently zonedcommercial only. Zoning development standards to be determined withresidential standards. 4 411 Pier Avenue 4183-018-002 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.07 Personal Services - - - 1 1 ILR: 0.42 Year Built: 1945 Height: 1 Owner interested in adding small residential units on 2ndand 3rd floors. Y AESTHETIC HORIZONS INC C/O JONATHAN DAVID 7 338 Pier Avenue 4187-011-054 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.17 Office - - 4 - 4 ILR: 1.65 Year Built: 2010 Height: 2 While this parcel appears newer, it is located between blocks of parcels thatexhibit potential for conversion into mixed use development. Office buildings also often have higher FAR and ILR. However, with increased remoting working, this site can present opportunity for redevelopment. This is included only as a RHNA buffer site andis notneeded to accommodate the City’s moderate income RHNA. BLAKE HOLDINGS LLC C/O DAVID MCGOVERN 8 400 Pier Avenue 4187-019-037 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.21 Offices - - 5 - 5 ILR: 0.60 Year Built: 1915-2010 Height: Primarily 1 (2 1-story and 1 2-story) HOLDINGS LLC C/O DAVID 8 4187-019-003 CC Community 25.1 33 0.11 Restaurant - - 2 - 2 - Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 460 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-21 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 8 422 Pier Avenue 4187-019-022 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.23 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 5 - 5 Factors for Selection: d, e, f, g, h PROPERTIES 9 4187-020-020 CC Community 25.1 33 0.1 Offices - - 1 - 1 ILR: 0.27 AgeofStructure: 1925-1966 Height: Average 1 (1 0-story, 1 1-story, 1 2- story) Potential for office conversion. 9 4187-020-032 CC Community 25.1 33 0.1 - - 1 - 1 REDDY, DAMODER P AND SOUMITRI TRS PATI FAMILY TRUST 9 526 Pier Avenue 4187-020-017 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.08 RetailBusiness - - 2 - 2 3 301 Pier Avenue 4183-017-001 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.19 RetailBusiness - - 5 - 5 ILR: 0.87 Year Built: 1959 Height: 1 SANDY FEET LLC C/O DONALD ENGLISH 6 4187-011-012 CC Community 25.1 33 0.09 Retail Business - - 2 - 2 ILR: 1.0 AgeofStructure: 1923-1944 Height: 1 Common ownership; currently functioning as one site. VISION HERMOSA 1 0 LLC6318Pier Avenue 4187-011-013 CC Community SPA-11 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.11 RetailBusiness and Residential - - 2 - 2 18 1214 Owosso Avenue 4185-015-021 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.1 1 Unit - - 3 - 3 ILR: 0.16 Year Built: 1923 Height: 1 Common ownership; currently functioning as one site. CASNER,CRAIG 18 1055 Aviation Boulevard 4185-015-024 CC Community C-3 General andHighway Commercial 25.1 33 0.05 VacantLand - - 1 - 1 26 530 6th Street 4188-018-028 25.1 33 0.33 Self-Storage - 4 4 - 8 - Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 461 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-22 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 26 Cypress (530 4188-018-027 CI Light Industrial M-1 Light Manufacturing 25.1 33 0.12 Self-Storage - 1 2 - 3 Height: 2 2-story warehouse buildingwith self-storage use in residential adjacent neighborhood. This is expected to be developed due to zoning changes now allowing residential development. Warehouse building existed in the1950s when the freight line ranthrough town. The four parcels are under common ownership that function as a cohesive site with shared access. The property is located in the M1 zone where residential has never been permitted. Rezoning to allow residential uses in M1 will increase redevelopment potential. This rezoning is not comparable to past Housing Element programs, since there were no rezoning programs nor were non- residential sites contemplated at that point. As demonstrated in Table B-2 Redevelopment Trends in the South Bay, there are examples of storage facilities (RV parking, truck storage, equipment rental yard, etc) being converted to housing developments. There is currently also a self- storage site in Carson, within the South Bay, marketed for housing. Factors for Selection: d, f, g HUNT TRUST C/O HUNT ENTERPRISES INC264188-018-031 25.1 33 0.17 Self-Storage - 2 2 - 4 26 Valley Drive 530 6thSt.) 4188-018-008 CI Light Industrial M-1 Light Manufacturing 25.1 33 0.05 Self-Storage - - 1 - 1 27 Pacific Coast 4186-025-029 CC Community SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.08 Auto Repair - - 2 - 2 ILR: 0.16 Year Built: 1905-1925 Height: <1 (2 0-story, 21-story) Common ownership; currently functioning as GRAND PROPERTY GROUP LLC274186-025-028 CC Community 25.1 33 0.15 Auto Repair - - 4 - 4 27 4186-025-027 CC Community 25.1 33 0.08 Auto Repair - - 2 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 462 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-23 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 27 Pacific Coast 4186-025-002 CC Community SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.05 Auto Repair - - 1 - 1 Factors for Selection: d, e, f, g, h 25 747 5th Street 4188-030-002 SC Service SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 1 Auto Repair 20 5 - - 25 FAR: 0.4 ILR: 0.29 Year Built: 1923-1978 Height: 1 Factors for Selection: d, e, f, g, h MARDIKIAN, 25 715 5th Street 4188-030-001 SC Service SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.37 Auto Repair/Fitness Center 9 9 - ANDREW AND ELIZABETH AND FISHER, 22 4187-032-027 SC Service 25.1 33 1 Lumber Yard 20 5 - - 25 FAR: 0.2 ILR: 0.04 Year Built: 1988 Height: <1 (5 0-story, 1 1-story) Site 24 is part of Site 22 owned by the same party. Currently, the two sites function as an integral site. Factors for Selection: d, e, f, g, h LEARNED, MICHAEL CO TR LEARNED TRUST 24 709 6th Street 4187-033-022 SC Service 25.1 33 0.06 1 1 - - 2 24 721 6th Street 4187-033-021 SC Service 25.1 33 0.06 1 1 - - 2 24 723 6th Street 4187-033-020 SC Service 25.1 33 0.06 1 1 - - 2 24 Hwy and 6th 4187-033-019 SC Service SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.06 Parking Lot/Lumber Yard 1 1 - - 2 24 725 6th Street 4187-033-018 SC Service 25.1 33 0.06 1 1 - - 2 23 4186-013-019 SC Service 25.1 33 0.36 Auto Repair 6 3 - - 9 ILR: 0.32 Year Built: 1923-1978 Height: Average 1 (1 0-story, 1 1-story, 1 2- story) Site 23 is 0.86 acre, consisting of three parcels with two owners, currently functioning as a cohesive site with shared access, operating as interrelated auto businesses. If consolidated, the site would benefit from theCity’s current lot consolidation allowances. Most of the site is automobile-related uses developed with only SMILE LLC 23 4186-013-018 SC Service 25.1 33 0.14 FitnessStudio 2 2 - - 4 23 620 Pacific Coast Highway 4186-013-064 SC Service SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.36 Car Rental Agency 6 3 - - 9 - NOOR ESTATE LLC Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 463 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-24 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal story automobile-related buildings. There is atwo-story building with two small office suites above. (Atleast one office was vacant as of summer 2023). The two-story portion of thebuilding is approximately 1,400 square feet. 13 1100 Pacific Coast Highway 4185-011-039 GC Gateway and Highway 25.1 33 0.55 Retail Market 10 4 - 14 ILR: 0.65 Year Built: 1977 Height: Average 1 (1 0-story, 1 2-story) This is a 2.8-acre shopping center with one owner and operating as a cohesive site and would need to be consolidated for shared access if redeveloped. About 0.9 acres are occupied by buildings, with the rest (almost two acres) being surface parking lot and undeveloped land. The site is developed with about 40,000 square feet of building area. All buildings are single story with the exception of one 7,500 square foot portion which is two-story. This two-story portion has been partially vacant for overa year. This indicates that thereare no significant second-story encumbrances on the development of the site for mixed use or residential purposes. The 2.8acre center comprises twoparcels. One parcel is 0.55 acre, is coterminous with thefootprint of one building and is entirely nestled (landlocked) inthe 2.27 acre parcel. As such, the entire site already functions as one cohesive site withdriveway access points and internal circulation. Y BACON, STEPHEN F CO TR ROGER E BACON DECD TRUST131100Pacific Coast Highway 4185-011-061 GC Gateway C-3 General andHighway Commercial 25.1 33 2.27 Parking Lot/Pad Shops 30 6 5 16 57 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 464 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-25 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal Factors for Selection: d, e, g, h 12 1601 Pacific Coast Highway 4185-011-061 GC Gateway C-2 Commercial SPA-8 25.1 33 1.92 Personal Services with office space 24 8 8 8 48 ILR: 1.80 Year Built: 1988 Height: 0 Given the high vacancy and the reliance on one anchor (gym), there is a likelihood that residential may be a viable conversion. The building also has similar massing as other nearby multi-family residential buildings (like theadjacent one). Thisproperty has the potential toredevelop through use of internal conversion into residential. 1601 PCH LP C/O SHAOUL LEVY 14 900 AVIATION 4186-003-024 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.15 Retail - - 3 - 3 FAR: 0.8 ILR: 0.39 Year Built: 1940-1981 Height: <1 (6 0-story, 51-story, 12-story) These sites are under common ownership and is about 0.7 acres (30,000 sq ft). About 7,200 square feet of building footprint is two stories. Factors for Selection: d, f, g, h EDDIE TALBOT TRUST 14 916 AVIATION 4186-003-030 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.21 Retail - - 5 - 5 14 950 AVIATION 4186-003-019 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.05 Parking Lot - - 1 - 1 14 950 AVIATION 4186-003-018 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.05 Parking Lot - - 1 - 1 14 950 AVIATION 4186-003-017 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.05 Parking Lot - - 1 - 1 14 950 AVIATION 4186-003-027 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.08 Parking Lot - - 2 - 2 14 950 AVIATION 4186-003-028 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.14 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 3 - 3 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 465 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-26 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 15 1000 AVIATION 4186-002-020 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.07 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 1 - 1 15 1014/1016 AVIAITION 4186-002-013 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.03 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 1 - 1 15 1016 AVIAITION 4186-002-012 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.03 Parking Lot - - 1 - 1 15 1036 AVIATION 4186-002-011 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.03 Parking Lot - - 1 - 1 15 1036 AVIATION 4186-002-021 CC Community and Highway 25.1 33 0.09 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 2 - 2 16 1021 AVIATION 4185-014-015 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.11 Multi-family - - 2 - 2 FAR: 0.4 ILR: 0.57 Year Built: 1947-1962 Height: 1 Factors for Selection: d, e, g, h HBAVIATION LLC161029 AVAITION 4185-014-015 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.11 Multi-family - - 2 - 2 16 1035 AVAIATION 4185-014-001 CC Community andHighway 25.1 33 0.17 Multi-tenant Commercial - - 4 - 4 29 824 1ST STREET 4186-031-102 CC Community SPA-7 Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.13 Abandoned Office Condos - - 3 - 3 ILR: 0.18 Year Built: 1979 Height: 1 KOCHDVPMT LLC 21 700 Pacific Coast Highway 4186-012-014 SC Service C-3 General and Highway Commercial 25.1 33 0.33 Abandoned Auto Repair - - 4 4 8 ILR: 0.28 Year Built: 1945 Height: 1 Owner communicated tostaff regarding interest in redevelopment. Y LOWENSTEIN,J OSEPH R AND GAIL TRS LOWENSTEIN TRUST Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 466 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-27 Site/ Area No. Address APN Existing/ Proposed GP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Min. Den. Max. Den. Parcel Size acres) Existing Use Capacity Based on Minimum Density Factors for Selection Owner/ Developer Interest OwnersLowModTotal 30 4186-031-001 CC Community 25.1 33 0.14 Auto Related 2 2 0 0 4 ILR: 0.15 Year Built: 1955 Height: <1 (3 0-story, 11-story) Owner submitted a letter of interest for redevelopment. Y 900North PCH LLC c/o Peter Nolan 30 No Address 4186-031-002 CC Community 25.1 33 0.14 Auto Related 1 2 0 0 3 30 4186-031-003 CC Community 25.1 33 0.25 Auto Related 3 3 0 0 6 30 26 N PACIFIC COAST HWY 4186-031-036 CC Community Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.21 Auto Related 2 3 0 0 5 31 4185-002-007 CC Community 25.1 33 0.13 Retail 0 0 3 0 3 ILR: 0.29 Year Built: 1952 Height: 1 Only occupied by a 1-story single-family home. Owner submitted a letter of interest for redevelopment. Y Egerer, Joseph J and Egerer, Thomas C311706PACIFIC COAST HWY 4185-002-014 CC Community Specific Plan 25.1 33 0.17 Retail 0 0 4 0 4 Notes: Income level assigned to lower for parcels at least 0.5 ac. and smaller parcels that can be consolidated, or moderate for other small parcels less than 0.5 ac. Site 7 is excluded as a site to meet the RHNA as it only meet two of the five criteria for underutilization. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 467 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 B-28 Figure B-1 Sites Inventory Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 468 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-1 Appendix C Public Participation Summary This Appendix describes opportunities for public involvement along with an explanation of how public comments were incorporated into the Housing Element. In addition, prior to the adoption hearings all interested parties were given the opportunity to review the recommended revisions. 1. Public Participation for the Development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Public participation is an important component of the planning process, and this update to the Housing Element has provided residents and other interested stakeholders, particularly lower-income households and persons with special needs, numerous opportunities for review and comment. Outreach Process Early in the process a dedicated Housing Element update website10 was created and an online survey was posted to solicit comments about housing needs in the city. Public notices of all Housing Element meetings and public hearings were published in advance of each meeting, as well as posting on the City’s website and direct mail to the Housing Element interest list (Table C-1). The draft Housing Element was made available for review at City Hall, posted on the City’s website, as well as at the Public Library. Notice of availability of the draft Housing Element was also provided to housing advocates, mobile home residents, and non-profit organizations representing the interests of lower-income persons and special needs groups. Table C-1 on the following page lists persons and organizations that were notified of public meetings for this Housing Element update. In addition, public hearings are televised on the local cable channel. During the Housing Element update process City Staff conducted interviews with key members of the community listed below to help determine community priorities, housing needs, and goals for housing in Hermosa Beach. Hermosa Beach City School District Manhattan Beach Unified School District Employers (Vons, Lazy Acres Grocery, Beach House Hotel) Commercial property owners (Aviation Blvd. 8/3/21) Churches (Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, St. Cross Episcopal Church, Hope Chapel) Affordable Housing Developers (City Ventures, Lance Libriano) 10 https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/city-departments/community-development/plans- programs/housing-element-update Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 469 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-2 St. Cross Episcopal Church indicated interest in building additional affordable and market-rate units at their properties, and wrote a letter of support for the Housing Element. In addition to public meetings, the City has an email list with over 3,500 parties (expanded from 1,800 parties since the beginning of the Housing Element process) who have requested to be included on items associated with the Housing Element. For every Housing Element event (meeting, posting, revision), the City announces the posting of the Housing Element to that list via email. The City schedules workshops during times outside of business hours due to staffing and to accommodate those with work hours. We also offer hybrid attendance options. The City partners with community agencies for outreach at community events on weekends and at public locations. The City also continues to offer hybrid meetings. After receiving comments on the draft Housing Element from the State Housing and Community Development Department, a proposed final Housing Element was prepared and made available for public review prior to adoption by the City Council. For City Council and Commissions meetings, the public has the following options for attendance and participation: 1) In-Person (viewing live and participation) 2) In-Person with Assistive Listening Device 3) Phone – Toll Free - (listening live and participation) 4) Videoconference (viewing live and participation) 5) Video over City website (viewing live) 6) Video over internet (viewing live or later) 7) Cable television (viewing live or later) The City offers these methods of participation to ensure a variety of methods to the community, including those without internet or ability to operate complex technology. For community workshops and meetings, the City offers to the degree possible hybrid attendance depending on the setting. Usually, this includesa minimum of two (2) methods of attendance consisting of in-person and one other method. The following is a list of opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of this Housing Element update. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 470 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-3 Planning Commission meeting December 15, 2020 Housing Needs Workshop and Study Session February 3, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 2021 City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing November 16, 2021 City Council Public Hearing December 21, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session March 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session March 23, 2023 Presentation at Mayor’s cleanup event April 10, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing June 20, 2023 City Council Study Session July 11, 2023 City Council Public Meeting July 25, 2023 City Council Public Hearing August 8, 2023 The May 2023 Revised Housing Element was posted on the City’s website on May 3, 2024 for ten days. Public Comments Received During and after the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing to consider the revised Housing Element, the City received a significant volume of comments concerning the City’s Sites Inventory to accommodate the RHNA. Residents were concerned about the magnitude of the proposed rezoning at the St. Cross Episcopal church site (Sites 1 and 2). At the July 11, 2023, City Council meeting, the volume of comments increased, with community members recommending alternative strategies for meeting the RHNA, such as adding new sites to the Sites Inventory in place of an affordable housing site at St. Cross. However, there were also comments from the public supporting the rezoning of St. Cross to allow for additional affordable units. Representatives from St. Cross were also present to support their dedication to providing affordable housing in the community and the willingness to work with the neighbors. The City Council responded by encouraging the community members to submit additional sites for consideration and staff to conduct additional research on the any submitted sites and strategies proposed by community members. At its August 8, 2023 meeting, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the revised Housing Element, deliberated on the Sites Inventory, and adopted the revised Housing Element with direction to staff to make adjustments to the sites inventory, including: Retaining the St. Cross site, creating a new zoning district to accommodate medium-high density residential at 22-25 dwelling units per acre. This action was directly in response to public comments regarding increasing density at this site. The City Council created a new medium-high density zoning category that represents a moderation from the proposed rezoning to high density, but still allows additional affordable housing to be added to the site. Adding two new sites to the inventory (Sites 30 (8-26 Pacific Coast Highway) and 31 1706/1734 Pacific Coast Highway) where property owners have expressed interest in development of housing, including affordable housing. These sites will be Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 471 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-4 including in zoning amendments that allow for high density residential uses at 25.1- 33 dwelling units per acre. 2. Public Comments Received by HCD on the Adopted Housing Element HCD transmitted to City staff public comments pertaining to the St. Cross site and the Land Value Recapture program. The City appreciates the opportunity to provide clarifying information and thematic responses to the comments. List of Public Comments received by HCD: 8/2/2023 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 8/7/2023 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 8/9/2023 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 8/10/2023 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 8/10/2023 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 10/17/2023 RezHB St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA 10/19/2023 Jon David Land Value Recapture – barrier to development 10/23/2023 Jon David Inquiry on submitting comments 10/23/2023 Jon David Land Value Recapture – barrier to development 12/19/2023 Jonathan Wicks Land Value Recapture – should apply to single-family units 12/19/2023 Laura Pena, et al. • Land Value Recapture – barrier to development Parking constraints 1/8/2024 Jon David Land Value Recapture – barrier to development 5/11/2024 Tony Higgins St. Cross site – existing uses vs. RHNA Responses to Comments a) St. Cross site (Sites 1 and 2) – existing uses The St. Cross church site consists of 15 parcels comprising approximately 2.2 acres developed with a church sanctuary and administrative offices, education building, 18 residential units, and surface parking lots. The church seeks to add housing units for the dual purpose of providing affordable housing to the community and market rate units to help offset costs for affordable units. The church has rented units to homeless veterans, refugees, and formerly to a women’s shelter, and accommodated workforce housing. St. Cross Church wrote a letter of support for Housing Element. The St. Cross church site is located in an established residential neighborhood with single- and multi-family homes. The neighborhood includes properties occupied by long-tenured residents and properties recently acquired for redevelopment. Due to its potential for ocean views, the neighborhood is highly desirable from a real estate standpoint. The trend in the neighborhood has been demolition of smaller homes for large single-family homes, often on R-2-zoned lots. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 472 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-5 Clarification of Comments The inclusion of the St. Cross church in the City’s Housing Element, with potential rezoning to accommodate the RHNA, raised substantial neighborhood concerns. The City received a multitude of comments during the adoption process, and altered the plan for the St. Cross site, lowering the RHNA densities from 33 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum of 22 dwelling units per acre. The Housing Element evaluated existing uses on proposed properties for the Sites Inventory. As indicated in the Sites Inventory, the existing uses on the St. Cross site already include affordable housing uses made available to homeless veterans, refugees, and women in need. Furthermore, the site is underdeveloped, consisting of a substantial parking lot and small structures. While there has not been an official development plan submitted, residential development to 22 dwelling units per acre is achievable on the underdeveloped areas, second-story additions to existing structures, or conversion of portions of existing structures for residential use. The feasibility of development is further supported by the owner of St. Cross, who has expressed the desire to add to the existing housing uses on the property. In summary, the City has evaluated the property and determined that existing uses will not impede the development of housing, and in fact that existing uses have already set the stage for additional similar uses. Some commenters mention that Sites 1 and 2 are not contiguous. However, the 15 parcels have functioned as one cohesive campus for many decades under common ownership. Functionally, this enables the property to take advantage of joint parking, driveway, and open space facilities, while benefiting from maintenance and operation under one owner. There also are instruments available to ensure in perpetuity that the sites function as part of one cohesive operation, to be discussed when there is an official development proposal. Additionally, Sites 1 and 2 are separated only by a 30-foot-wide segment of City street, which provides access to the parcels comprising Sites 1 and 2. There is no foreseeable change in the use of the City street. The City received an additional comment on the St. Cross site in May of 2024. The comment reiterated the same concerns that have been addressed in the analysis above. b) Land Value Recapture During the development of the Housing Element programs from 2021 through 2023, staff conducted numerous meetings with the community, City Council, and Planning Commission to discuss ways to develop and implement the Housing Element. Specifically, the City discussed strategies to advance the inclusion and construction of affordable housing. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the City’s RHNA is in the affordable income category, as follows: Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 473 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-6 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category—Hermosa Beach Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Prior to 2023, the City had no program in place to require affordable housing. There are currently no affordable units in the City. The City adopted the Housing Element on December 21, 2021, including the Land Value Recapture Program as Program 7. This Program was introduced early in the Housing Element discussions and has been a part of the Housing Element update since inception. The Program was carried through to the revised adopted Housing Element on August 8, 2023. The Housing Element indicates that the City will perform a feasibility analysis on the Land Value Recapture Program. The premise of the Land Value Recapture Program is that properties that benefit from zoning actions to allow for residential development increase in value. In the South Bay region where Hermosa Beach is located, there is a decreasing desire to redevelop commercial properties and instead an increased desire to redevelop properties into mixed use or all residential. This desire correlates to property values. The Program levies a fee onto any residential development on properties that benefited from a zoning action that expanded their development ability. However, the property is exempt from the fee if the proposed residential development includes 15% very-low-, 15% low-, or 25% moderate-income units. Incentivized Affordable Housing. The City’s Land Value Recapture Program is intended to incentivize the construction of affordable housing as part of redevelopment. The City’s intent is not to derive revenue from the Program. Rather, the intent is a result of actual affordable housing that is available for housing. However, should the City collect funds from the program, it would be solely usable to assist in the creation of affordable housing in the future. The City could also contribute to the South Bay Regional Housing Trust Fund. Economic Feasibility. The City worked with a real estate advisory company to evaluate the economic feasibility of Land Value Recapture. The analysis included sample business proformas indicating that the City’s proposed Land Value Recapture fee did not render development infeasible (i.e., that an acceptable return on investment would be possible), and even further that in some cases, construction affordable units and taking advantage of density bonus provisions amplified the return on investment. The City’s analysis is included herein. Clarification of Comments HCD received a series of comments on Land Value Recapture. Five of six communications were sent by the owners of one downtown commercial property who have long expressed Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 474 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-7 a desire to redevelop their property. The comment letters repeatedly raised points that Land Value Recapture was a barrier to development by creating economic disincentive. These commenters insisted that their property was eligible for only one dwelling unit; however, the City’s density regulations allow up to 33 dwelling units per acre, which would allow up to three units on many lots downtown. Including one affordable unit as part of the three units would exempt a downtown property from any fee. In response to public comments about fairness to smaller lots, the City Council created a two-tier Land Value Recapture fee; one for smaller lots (identified as having four or fewer units using minimum density in the Housing Element Sites Inventory) and one for larger lots identified as having five or more units using minimum density in the Housing Element Sites Inventory). This accounts for the eligibility of larger parcels that could take advantage of State density bonus provisions. The comments mention financial disincentives from vacancies during redevelopment. Any property owner choosing to redevelop a property would incur vacancies and “down time” during demolition, substantial remodel or addition, and general construction. These are business decisions that are part of every construction project and not related to Land Value Recapture. The comments mention that the City’s changes do not eliminate other barriers to development, such as parking constraints and development review processes. The City’s zoning changes did revise the parking regulations from a flatparking ratio per dwelling unit to tiered ratios that are more commensurate with unit size. Furthermore, the City reviewed development review processes to ensure that affordable housing projects were afforded a streamlined review, thereby incentivizing affordable housing. Lastly, a comment from a former Planning Commissioner advocated for extending Land Value Recapture to single-family homes. Single-family homes are provided additional options to develop more units, such as accessory dwelling units and units under Senate Bill 9. There is currently not an opportunity to levy an affordable housing fee on single-family homes. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 475 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-8 Table C-1 Housing Element Notification List Hermosa Beach Historical Society Hermosa Beach Education Foundation Beach Cities Health District Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Senior Center Hermosa Beach City School District Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Marineland Mobilehome Park PATH People Assisting the Homeless Hermosa Beach Church of Christ First Church of Christ, Scientist Hope Chapel St. Cross Episcopal Church Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Temple Shalom of the South Bay Hermosa Friends Foundation Sandpipers Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club Hermosa Beach Rotary Club South Bay Association of Realtors South Bay Workforce Investment Board Jewish Community Center Catholic Charities of Los Angeles Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority LA County Department of Military and Veterans South Bay Center for Counseling Salvation Army Stillman Sawyer Family Services The Arc of South Bay Disability Community Resource Center Harbor Regional Center Wellness Community South Bay Cities LA county Department of Children & Family Services Social Vocational Services, Inc. 1736 Family Crisis Center Shelter Partnership Abundant Housing City Ventures Residences South Bay Cities Council of Governments Manhattan Beach Unified School District Redondo Beach Unified School District City of Redondo Beach Community Development City of Torrance Community Development City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of CA Native American Heritage Commission Beach Cities Transit LA Metropolitan Transit Authority Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 476 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-9 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 477 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-10 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 478 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-11 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 479 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-12 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 480 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-13 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 481 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-14 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 482 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-15 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 483 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-16 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 484 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-17 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 485 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-18 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 486 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 C-19 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 487 of 764 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 488 of 764 Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix D – AFFH Housing Element Technical Report D-1 Adopted December 21, 2021/ Re-adopted (with revisions) August 8, 2023 Appendix D Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Please note this Appendix is an entirely new analysis) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 489 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-1 APPENDIX D: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) A. Introduction and Overview State law prohibits discrimination in the development process or in real property transactions, and it is the City’s policy to uphold the law in this regard. Fair housing issues are addressed in Hermosa Beach through coordination with fair housing organizations to process complaints regarding housing discrimination and to provide counseling in landlord/tenant disputes. Anti-discrimination resource materials (e.g., handouts, booklets, and pamphlets) are made available to the public at City Hall, the library, and on the City’s website through links to the Housing Rights Center. Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” There are three parts to this requirement: 1. Include a Program that Affirmatively Furthers Fair Housing and Promotes Housing Opportunities throughout the Community for Protected Classes (applies to housing elements beginning January 1, 2019). 2. Conduct an Assessment of Fair Housing that includes summary of fair housing issues, an analysis of available federal, state, and local data and local knowledge to identify, and an assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues. 3. Prepare the Housing Element Land Inventory and Identification of Sites through the Lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. 1. Analysis Requirements An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities. For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends throughout Los Angeles County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the City of Hermosa Beach. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 490 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-2 2. Sources of Information The City used a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level. These include: U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data Los Angeles County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in March 2018 (2018 AI) California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer Local Knowledge It is important to note that HCD released the HCD Data Viewer 2.0 during the drafting of this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. The 2.0 version of the Data Viewer includes updated data such as the 2017-2021 ACS, 2023 Opportunity Map, and 2020 Census. Much of the regional mapping relies on the original HCD Data Viewer and may not match exactly the 2.0 Data Viewer used for some of the local narrative. However, several components of this Assessment of Fair Housing utilize datasets from various, but similar, time periods based on availability of the data (i.e., 2022 HUD CHAS data based on the 2015-2019 ACS vs. demographics data using the 2016-2020 ACS). The difference between datasets used in this analysis is negligible and does not obstruct the identification of demographic patterns and trends in the City. The tracts shown in Figure D-1 will be referred to throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 491 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-3 Figure D-1: Hermosa Beach Tracts and Populations (2020) Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). B. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues 1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach The fair housing assessment should include a description of state and local fair housing laws and how the City complies with those laws. These laws include the following: California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) FEHA Regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, sections 12005- 12271) Government Code section 65008 covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 492 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-4 For example, a violation under Government Code section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable development as compared to market-rate developments, or multifamily housing as compared to single family homes. Government Code section 65008, subdivision (e), authorizes preferential treatment of affordable housing Government Code §8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Government Code §11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class. Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §65915.) Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.) No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, § 65863) Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1) Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, § 65913.2.) Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, § 65302.8.) Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).) The City of Hermosa Beach ensures compliance with these laws through the City’s daily operations, with any complaints referred to the City Attorney and/or the City Manager for investigation and action, as appropriate. Further analysis of the City’s compliance with fair housing laws is also provided in the Constraints chapter of this Housing Element. Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination based on: race, color, religion, national origin, sex/gender, handicap/disability, and familial status. Specific federal legislation and court rulings include: The Civil Rights Act of 1866- covers only race and was the first legislation of its kind The Federal Fair Housing Act 1968- covers refusal to rent, sell, or finance The Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988- added the protected classes of handicap and familial status The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- covers public accommodations in both businesses and in multi-family housing developments Shelly v. Kramer 1948- made it unconstitutional to use deed restrictions to exclude individuals from housing Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 493 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-5 Jones v. Mayer 1968- made restrictive covenants illegal and unenforceable California state fair housing laws protect the same classes as the federal laws with the addition of marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and arbitrary discrimination. Specific State legislation and regulations include: Unruh Civil Rights Act- extends to businesses and covers age and arbitrary discrimination California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Rumford Act)- covers the area of employment and housing, with the exception of single-family houses with no more than one roomer/boarder California Civil Code Section 53- takes measures against restrictive covenants Department of Real Estate Commissioner’s Regulations 2780-2782- defines disciplinary actions for discrimination, prohibits panic selling and affirms the broker’s duty to supervise Business and Professions Code- covers people who hold licenses, including real estate agents, brokers, and loan officers. The City has committed to complying with applicable federal and State fair housing laws to ensure that housing is available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex as outlined in the 2018 AI. Further, the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) prohibits discrimination in any aspect of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex. As presented in this Housing Element, the City has committed to meaningful actions to promote the development of housing for special needs populations, including lower income housing. Further, this Housing Element includes actions to affirmatively further fair housing through strategies related to housing mobility, new housing opportunities in high resource areas, fair housing enforcement and outreach, place-based strategies for neighborhood improvement, and tenant protection. The City continues to participate in the CDBG Urban County program contracting with the Housing Rights Center to ensure housing discrimination complaints are properly addressed and fair housing resources and services are offered to residents. The following shows applicable fair housing laws and the City’s compliance: Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – see Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA/504 Coordinator and Building Official. American Disabilities Act – the City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 494 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-6 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and FEHA Regulations – the City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols decision making, legal counsel and advisement. Government Code Section 65008 – the City Zoning Code is written to ensure that the City’s actions regarding the development of housing for persons and families of very low, low, moderate, and middle incomes, or emergency shelters for the unhoused, are not discriminatory. Programs are included in this Housing Element to facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and reasonable accommodations). Government Code Section 8899.50 – This section, Appendix D, of this Housing Element documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. Government Code Section 11135 et. seq. – the City complies with anti- discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols. Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – the City implements density bonus provisions in compliance with the Density Bonus Law. Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City has documented compliance with the HAA. No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with no-net-loss via required annual reporting to HCD. Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1) – the City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA. Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2) – the City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code. Limits on growth control (Government Code Section 65302.8) – the City complies as it has no growth control measures. Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) – this Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element Law. The City has complied with all fair housing laws and has not been involved in any fair housing or civil rights legal actions, nor has the City been subject of findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgements related to fair housing or civil rights. Regional Trend According to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) records, 130 housing discrimination cases were filed in Los Angeles County in 2020, compared to 291 in Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 495 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-7 2010. In 2020, a majority of cases were related to disability (66%). Another 21% of cases were related to racial bias. The percent of cases related to disability has increased significantly since 2010, when only 36% of cases reported a disability bias. Public housing buildings, FHEO inquires by City and housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients by tract are shown in Figure D-2. HCVs are most concentrated in the area northeast of Hermosa Beach, near Inglewood, the City of Los Angeles, and in the adjacent unincorporated County areas. Public housing buildings are concentrated in the same area. However, there are many public housing buildings scattered throughout the County. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 496 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-8 Figure D-2: Regional Public Housing Buildings, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVs by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2013-2021), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 497 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-9 During the 2018 AI development process, LACDA implemented a series of outreach efforts including regional discussion groups, three sets of four focus groups each, aimed to address disability and access, education, employment and transportation, and healthy neighborhoods, and a Resident Advisory Board Meetings; community input meetings; and the 2017 Resident Fair Housing Survey. Regional discussions included developer groups, companies, organizations, and agencies, and government groups, including the City of Hermosa Beach. The following topics were covered in the Government Discussion Group meeting: Lack of jurisdictions that have R/ECAP areas Discussion on community meetings Discussion of surveys City of Los Angeles R/ECAP areas Social engineering in the past due to highway, designing of public housing in poor areas by private, federal, and local governments Setting realistic goals and outcomes HRC- protect class different in state verses federal law Mortgages based on disparate impact-census areas Disparate impacts on women Focus group meetings for preparation of the 2018 AI focused on the following contributing factors: Education – Attendees discussed the location of proficient schools, inadequate funding for schools both public and charter, lack of information on the transfer process for parents, and child safety when walking to school. Attendees expressed concern about school of choice and funding for under-performing schools, promotion of educational opportunities to parents, ane safety. Transportation and Jobs – Attendees discussed lack of available clothing for employment, lack of resources and services for working families, stigma of transgender employees, and the prevalence of low skill workers. They expressed concern about the lack reliable transportation, jobs located far from workers, and childcare expenses. Healthy Neighborhoods – This focus group discussed location and access to grocery stores, illegal dumping, poor access to quality healthcare, and general public safety concerns such as safe streets and homeless encampments. There were concerns related to industrial facilities in communities highly burdened by air pollution, proximity to air pollution, bike and pedestrian improvements, and greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Disability and Access – The disability and access focus group discussed availability of accessible housing options, lack of knowledge of the ADA’s Right Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 498 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-10 to Reasonable Accommodation, overlapping needs of people with multiple disabilities, and a long waitlist for accessible and affordable housing. A total of 6,290 responses were recorded from the 2017 Resident Fair Housing Survey. The survey found that most residents thought their neighborhood had adequate access to public transportation, cleanliness, and schools, and that the condition of public spaces and buildings were good, very good, or excellent. More residents reported availability of quality public housing and job opportunities were only fair or poor. The survey also found that households with a person with a disability found it more difficult to get around their neighborhood or apartment complex. Access to opportunities, housing conditions, and populations of persons with disabilities in Hermosa Beach are further discussed below in this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Local Trend The City of Hermosa Beach is a participating jurisdiction in the Los Angeles County CDBG Urban County program. Fair housing services for the City are provided through the Los Angeles County Development Authority’s master agreement with the Housing Rights Center (HRC). HRC investigates and resolves discrimination complaints, conduct, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. They also provide landlord/tenant counseling, which is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection regulations, as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords. The Housing Rights Center has a main office location in downtown Los Angeles. As a participating jurisdiction in the Urban County program, Hermosa Beach does not have direct access to HRC staff or service records. HRC’s contract with the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) also does not include reporting fair housing records by participating jurisdiction. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, based on 2013-2021 HUD records, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) received six inquiries from Hermosa Beach residents during this period. Of the six inquiries, one was related to disability, one to race, one to familial status, one to sex, and two were not related to a specific protected class. Total FHEO inquiries in Hermosa Beach represent 0.3 inquiries per 1,000 people. The rate of inquiries per 1,000 persons in the City is comparable to the adjacent jurisdictions of Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Gardena, but higher than Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo. In 2023, HCD released the AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 which includes fair housing cases submitted to FHEO from January 2013 to November 2022 by City. During this period, four cases were submitted by Hermosa Beach residents. Of the four cases, one was filed on the basis of race, one on the basis of retaliation, and one on the basis of sex. There are no tracts in Hermosa Beach with a substantial population of renters receiving housing choice vouchers (HCVs). To protect the confidentiality of renters receiving HCVs, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this dataset. Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Lawndale, south and east of the City, contain tracts with larger populations of HCV recipients. There are no public housing buildings or subsidized housing units in Hermosa Beach. FEHO Inquiries and the concentration of HCV recipients by tract are shown in Figure D-3. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 499 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-11 As discussed in Appendix C, the City held a series of public meetings during the Housing Element update in an effort to include all segments of the community. Each meeting was publicized on the City’s website and meeting notices were also sent to persons and organizations with expertise in affordable housing and supportive services. Interested parties had the opportunity to interact with City staff throughout the Housing Element update process and provide direct feedback regarding fair housing issues. The City also created a dedicated web page for the Housing Element update https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/city-departments/community- development/plans-programs/housing-element-update) and provided opportunities for interested persons to participate in public meetings remotely, which made it possible for those with disabilities limiting their travel to participate and comment on the Housing Element regardless of their ability to attend the meetings. Public comments related to fair housing focused on the high cost of housing in coastal communities. In the City’s online housing survey (see Appendix C) none of the 25 respondents stated fair housing was an issue in Hermosa Beach. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 500 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-12 Figure D-3: FHEO Inquiries and HCVs by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2013-2021), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 501 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-13 2. Integration and Segregation a. Race and Ethnicity Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”- households with extended family members and non-kin.1 These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).2 To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score above 60, 60% of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index: 40: Low Segregation 40-54: Moderate Segregation 55: High Segregation Regional Trend As presented in Table D-1, Los Angeles County is characterized by a large Hispanic/Latino population, representing 48.3% of the total population. The White population is the second largest population countywide (25.9%), followed by the Asian population (14.6%), and Black/African American population (7.8%). Of the selected jurisdictions in the proximity of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach has the largest White population of 75%. In general, the coastal cities, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach, have larger White populations compared to inland neighboring cities. The Hispanic/Latino population represents the largest proportion of the population in Gardena and Lawndale. Comparatively, only 11.2% of the population in Hermosa Beach is Hispanic or Latino. 1 Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9101102 2 Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J., Mannon, S.E., &. Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. (Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 502 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-14 Table D-1: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Neighboring Cities and County (2020) Race/Ethnicity El Segundo Gardena Lawndale Torrance White 25.9% 75.0% 61.3% 9.0% 14.3% 71.3% 59.2% 34.7% Black/African American 7.8% 0.7% 4.8% 20.8% 8.1% 0.4% 3.6% 2.7% American Indian/ Alaska Native 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% Total Population 10,040,682 19,147 16,575 59,401 32,533 35,064 66,663 144,430 As explained above, dissimilarity indices measure segregation, with higher indices signifying higher segregation. In Los Angeles County, all minority (non-White) residents combined are considered highly segregated from White residents, with an index score of 58.53 in 2020 (Table D-2). Since 1990, segregation between non-White (all non-white residents combined) and White residents has increased slightly, indicating Los Angeles County has become increasingly segregated. Dissimilarity indices between Black and White residents has decreased, while indices increased between Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White residents during the same period. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, Black and White residents are highly segregated, Hispanic and White residents are highly segregated, and Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents are moderately segregated. Table D-2: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends – Los Angeles County (1990-2020) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current Non-White/White 56.66 56.72 56.55 58.53 Black/White 73.04 67.40 64.99 68.24 Hispanic/White 60.88 63.03 63.35 64.33 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 46.13 48.19 47.62 51.59 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Database, 2020. Figure D-4 and Figure D-5 compare racial/ethnic minority populations by block group in the region in 2010 and 2018. Non-White populations in nearly all areas of this section of Los Angeles County have increased since 2010. Racial/ethnic minority populations throughout the central areas of the County have intensified, while block groups in the coastal areas also saw an increase in non-White populations. Figure D-5 shows that most areas in Los Angeles County have high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities. Coastal cities, including Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Palos Verdes Estates generally have smaller non- White populations. Most block groups in the South Bay, San Gabriel Valley, San Fernando Valley and central Los Angeles areas have majority racial/ethnic minority populations. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 503 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-15 Block groups in Hermosa Beach have racial/ethnic minority populations comparable to coastal areas to the north and south, but significantly smaller populations than block groups in jurisdictions to the east. Figure D-6 shows the racial/ethnic majority population by tract in the region surrounding Hermosa Beach. In general, the coastal areas, from Santa Monica to Long Beach, contain tracts that have White majority populations. Tracts to the east, in and around the cities of South Gate, Downey, and parts of Los Angeles have Hispanic majority populations. There are smaller pockets of Black majority populations in and surrounding Inglewood, Carson, and the City of Los Angeles. Asian majority populations occur in a few tracts in jurisdictions east of Hermosa Beach, such as Torrance, Gardena, and West Carson. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 504 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-16 Figure D-4: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations by Block Group (2010) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2010), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 505 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-17 Figure D-5: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations by Block Group (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2018), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 506 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-18 Figure D-6: Regional Racial/Ethnic Majority Populations by Tract (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2018), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 507 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-19 Local Trend As mentioned above, Hermosa Beach is characterized by a White majority population. As presented in Table D-3, 75% of the Hermosa Beach population is White. The Hispanic/Latino population is the second largest population in the City, representing 11.2% of the population. Another 6.2% is two or more races and 6.1% is Asian. Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the White population has decreased citywide. During this period, the American Indian/Alaska Native population, population of some other race, population of two or more races, and Hispanic/Latino population increased. Table D-3: Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2020) Race/Ethnicity White 15,556 80.4% 14,358 75.0% Black/African American 131 0.7% 137 0.7% American Indian/Alaska Native 36 0.2% 89 0.5% Asian 1,274 6.6% 1,167 6.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 19 0.1% 0 0.0% Some other race 5 0.0% 65 0.3% Two or more races 672 3.5% 1,179 6.2% Hispanic/Latino 1,662 8.6% 2,152 11.2% Source: 2006-2010 and 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Because Hermosa Beach is part of the Urban County program, dissimilarity HUD dissimilarity indices are not available for the City alone. HUD provides dissimilarity data for recipients of CDBG funds. The City of Hermosa Beach, as part of the Urban County program, may receive CDBG funds indirectly from LACDA. As shown in Figure D-6 above, all tracts in Hermosa Beach have White majority populations. Figure D-7 and Figure D-8 compare racial/ethnic minority populations in the City between 2010 and 2019. In 2010, all block groups in the City had non-White populations of 20% or smaller. As of 2019, most tracts in Hermosa Beach had non-White populations ranging from 21% to 40%. This is consistent with the citywide trend, where 80.4% of the population was White in 2010 compared to only 75% in 2020. Tract 6210.05 in the northwestern section of the City has a smaller non-White population of 18% compared to all other tracts in Hermosa Beach. However, the other tracts, tracts 6210.01, 6211.02, and 6211.04, also have small non-White populations ranging from 20% to 28%. Racial/ethnic minority populations are comparable citywide. Sites Inventory Sites selected to meet the RHNA are also included in Figure D-8. The distribution of RHNA units by tract-level racial/ethnic minority population is presented in Table D-4. Consistent with the citywide trend, 86% of RHNA units are in tracts where 20% to 40% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. As discussed above, three of the four tracts comprising Hermosa Beach have non-White populations in this range. The remaining 14.2% of RHNA units, including 46 lower income units, 20 moderate income units, and 19 above moderate income units are in the northwestern tract where less than 20% of the population Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 508 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-20 is non-White. The City’s RHNA strategy does not concentrate units of any income level in a single area of Hermosa Beach. It is also relevant to note that tract-level racial/ethnic minority populations are generally comparable citywide, ranging from 18% to 28%. Table D-4: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (2019) Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (Tract) Lower Income Units Total Units 20% 46 13.2% 20 11.2% 19 26.4% 85 14.2% 20-40% 303 86.8% 158 88.8% 53 73.6% 514 85.8% 40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 509 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-21 Figure D-7: Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations by Block Group (2010) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2010), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 510 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-22 Figure D-8: Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 511 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-23 b. Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations associated with their disability. Regional Trend Nearly 11% of the Los Angeles County population experiences one or more disability. As presented in Table D-5, the Black/African American population has the highest disability rate countywide (14.9%), followed by the American Indian/Alaska Native population 13.4%), the non-Hispanic White population (12.7%), and the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population (12.6%). All other racial/ethnic groups have disability rates equal to or less than the countywide average of 10.9%. Aging populations tend to have higher rates of disabilities. Over 50% of the population 75 years and older experiences a disability, compared to 23.3% of the population aged 65 to 74, and 9% of the population aged 35 to 64. Ambulatory difficulties and independent living difficulties are the most common disability types in the County. Approximately 5.8% and 5.6% of the population, respectively, experiences these disabilities. The population of persons experiencing disabilities at the tract-level is shown in Figure D-9 for the region. Less than 20% of the population in most tracts in Los Angeles County are persons with disabilities. Tracts with disabled populations exceeding 20 percent are not concentrated in one area of the County. Tracts with larger shares of persons with disabilities closest to Hermosa Beach are in Inglewood, Long Beach, and the City of Los Angeles. The concentration of persons with disabilities in Hermosa Beach is generally comparable to neighboring jurisdictions. The coastal cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach tend to have smaller disabled populations compared to Gardena, Compton, and Inglewood. Table D-5: Disability Status by Race, Age, and Type – Los Angeles County (2020) Total Population Percent with Disability Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 9,970,085 10.9% Race/Ethnicity White alone 4,760,801 10.9% Black or African American alone 795,512 14.9% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 77,046 13.4% Asian alone 1,482,690 8.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 24,777 12.6% Some other race alone 2,103,933 7.7% Two or more races 725,326 8.7% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 2,580,560 12.7% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 4,826,633 8.3% Age Under 5 years 593,017 0.6% 5 to 17 years 1,581,972 4.0% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 512 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-24 Total Population Percent with Disability 18 to 34 years 2,563,958 4.6% 35 to 64 years 3,888,561 9.0% 65 to 74 years 772,731 23.3% 75 years and over 569,846 51.1% Type With a hearing difficulty N/A 2.5% With a vision difficulty N/A 2.0% With a cognitive difficulty N/A 4.2% With an ambulatory difficulty N/A 5.8% With a self-care difficulty N/A 3.0% With an independent living difficulty N/A 5.6% Source: 2016-202 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 513 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-25 Figure D-9: Regional Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 514 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-26 Local Trend Hermosa Beach has a significantly smaller population of persons with disabilities compared to the County. Only 5.5% of the City population experience one or more disability compared to 10.9% countywide. This may be in part, due to the population of persons aged 75 and older. According to the 2016-2020 ACS, 5.9% of the population countywide is 75 or older compared to only 4.5% of the population in Hermosa Beach. Since the 2008- 2012 ACS, the population of persons with disabilities in Hermosa Beach has increased slightly from 5%. While there is only a small population of American/Indian Alaska Native residents in the City (90 persons), a large proportion (41.1%) experience a disability. The Black/African American (6.8%), Hispanic/Latino (5.8%), and non-Hispanic White (5.8%) populations also have disabilities rates exceeding the citywide average. Approximately 40% of persons aged 75 and older and 13.1% of persons aged 65 to 74 experience a disability, both smaller proportions compared to the respective populations countywide. Hearing difficulties, ambulatory difficulties, and independent living difficulties are all equally common in Hermosa Beach, where 2.1% of the population experiences each, respectively. As shown in Sites Inventory There are no tracts in the City where more than 10% of the population experiences a disability. There are no RHNA sites in areas where populations of persons with disabilities are heightened. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 515 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-27 Figure D-10, all tracts in Hermosa Beach have populations of persons with disabilities under 10%. Table D-6: Disability Status by Race, Age, and Type – Hermosa Beach (2020) Total Population Percent with Disability Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 18,974 5.5% Race/Ethnicity White alone 15,431 6.2% Black or African American alone 118 6.8% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 90 41.1% Asian alone 1,144 0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 - Some other race alone 402 2.5% Two or more races 1,789 1.6% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 14,248 5.8% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2,131 6.6% Age Under 5 years 995 6.2% 5 to 17 years 2,421 1.2% 18 to 34 years 4,676 2.7% 35 to 64 years 8,284 3.1% 65 to 74 years 1,745 13.1% 75 years and over 853 40.1% Type With a hearing difficulty N/A 2.1% With a vision difficulty N/A 1.5% With a cognitive difficulty N/A 1.8% With an ambulatory difficulty N/A 2.1% With a self-care difficulty N/A 0.9% With an independent living difficulty N/A 2.1% Source: 2016-202 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Sites Inventory There are no tracts in the City where more than 10% of the population experiences a disability. There are no RHNA sites in areas where populations of persons with disabilities are heightened. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 516 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-28 Figure D-10: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 517 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-29 c. Familial Status Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status covers: the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Regional Trend According to the 2016-2020 ACS, 27.6% of households have children of the householder under age 18. Of the 27.6% of households with children, 18.8% are married couple households, 2.6% are male-headed households, and 6.2% are female-headed households. Figure D-11 shows households with children in Los Angeles County, Hermosa Beach, and jurisdictions adjacent to Hermosa Beach. Of the selected jurisdictions, Manhattan Beach has the largest proportion of households with children (34.3%), followed by Lawndale 31.9%), and Torrance (29.3%). Hermosa Beach has the smallest proportion of households with children compared to the County and neighboring cities. Lawndale has the largest proportion of single-parent male-headed households. All the selected cities have proportions of single-parent female-headed households below the countywide average of 6.2%. Figure D-12 shows the population of children living in single-parent female-headed households by tract in the region. Children in female-headed households are most concentrated in the area northeast of Hermosa Beach, including Inglewood, the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated Los Angeles County communities, and the areas around Long Beach and Lakewood. In general, there are more children living in female-headed households in the central Los Angeles County areas compared to the South Bay, Westside, Gateway, San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley cities. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 518 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-30 Figure D-11: Households with Children in Neighboring Cities and County (2020) Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 519 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-31 Figure D-12: Regional Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 520 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-32 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Local Trend According to the 2006-2010 and 2016-2020 ACS, the proportion of households with children has increased (Table D-7). Households with children represent 16.4% of households citywide in 2010, but 18.6% in 2020. The proportion of married couples with children and single-parent female-headed households also increased during this period. Female- headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. However, only 2.2% of households in Hermosa Beach are single- parent female-headed households compared to 6.2% countywide. There are no tracts in Hermosa Beach where more than 20% of children reside in female-headed households Figure D-13). Tract 6211.02 in the southeast section of the City has a smaller population of children in married couple households compared to other tracts. According to the HCD Data Viewer 2.0, based on the 2017-2021 ACS, 64.7% of children reside in married couple households in tract 6211.02 compared to 80.4% to 94.6% of children in the remaining tracts. Hermosa Beach is characterized by a large population of persons living alone. Approximately 35% of households are persons living alone in the City compared to only 25.8% countywide. However, 8.9% of households in both the County and City are elderly persons aged 65 and older living alone. Figure D-15 shows that the northern tracts, tracts 6210.01 and 6210.05, have larger populations of adults living alone compared to the southern tracts. According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, tracts 6210.01 and 6210.05 also have larger populations of elderly adults, 15% and 21.2%, respectively, compared to tracts 6211.02 and 6211.04 in southern Hermosa Beach (14.1% and 8.5%, respectively) (Figure D- 16). Table D-7: Households with Children (2010-2020) Household Type Households with Children 1,542 16.4% 1,595 18.6% Married Couple with Children 1,314 14.0% 1,310 15.2% Male Householder with Children 113 1.2% 99 1.2% Female Householder with Children 115 1.2% 186 2.2% Source: 2006-2010 and 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Sites Inventory There are no tracts with populations of children residing in single-parent female-headed households exceeding 20%. The distribution of RHNA units by population of children in married couple households is shown in Figure D-13 and Table D-8. Most RHNA units (78%) are in tracts where more than 80% of children live in married couple households, including 88.5% of lower income units. The City’s RHNA strategy does not concentrate lower or moderate income units in areas where fewer children reside in married couple households. RHNA sites are distributed throughout tracts with variable populations of children in married Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 521 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-33 couple households to the greatest extent possible given the overall character of Hermosa Beach. Table D-8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households (2021) Children in Married Couple HHs (Tract) Lower Income Units Total Units 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 60-80% 40 11.5% 65 36.5% 28 38.9% 133 22.2% 80% 309 88.5% 113 63.5% 44 61.1% 466 77.8% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 522 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-34 Figure D-13: Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 523 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-35 Figure D-14: Children in Married Couple Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 524 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-36 Figure D-15: Population Living Alone by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 525 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-37 Figure D-16: Population Aged 65 and Older by Tract (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACs (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 526 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-38 d. Income Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80% of the Area Median Income). Regional Trend According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)3 data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, 55.6% of Los Angeles County households are low income, earning 80% or less than the area median income (AMI) (Table D-9). A significantly larger proportion of renter households in Los Angeles County are considered lower income. Over 69% of renter households are lower income compared to only 39.3% of owner households. Figure D-17 shows populations of low or moderate income (LMI) households in the region by block group. The central and south Los Angeles County areas tend to have larger LMI household populations. Coastal areas, including Hermosa Beach, tend to have smaller populations of low or moderate income households. Table D-9: Households by Income and Tenure – Los Angeles County (2022) Income Category Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total 0%-30% of AMI 10.8% 30.6% 21.5% 31%-50% of AMI 11.1% 18.9% 15.3% 51%-80% of AMI 17.4% 19.9% 18.7% 81%-100% of AMI 11.0% 8.9% 9.9% Greater than 100% of AMI 49.7% 21.7% 34.5% Total 1,519,515 1,797,280 3,316,795 Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. 3 Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 527 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-39 Figure D-17: Regional LMI Household Population by Block Group (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 528 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-40 Local Trend A significantly larger proportion of Hermosa Beach households earn 100% or more of the AMI compared to the County as a whole. According to 2022 HUD CHAS data, 71.9% of Hermosa Beach households earn 100% or more of the AMI compared to only 34.5% countywide. The income disparity between owners and renters is also less prominent in Hermosa Beach than the County. Only 22.7% of owners and 21.9% of renters earn less than 80% of the AMI. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, the median household income in Hermosa Beach is $142,500. Coastal cities like Hermosa Beach tend to have significantly higher median household incomes compared to adjacent cities to the east. The median household income in Hermosa Beach is higher than the median in Los Angeles County ($71,358), El Segundo ($115,846), Gardena ($64,015), Lawndale ($65,923), Redondo Beach ($116,832), and Torrance ($94,781), and only slightly lower than the median in Manhattan Beach 153,926). Table D-10: Households by Income and Tenure – Hermosa Beach (2022) Income Category Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total 0%-30% of AMI 6.2% 6.7% 6.5% 31%-50% of AMI 7.4% 4.0% 5.6% 51%-80% of AMI 9.1% 11.1% 10.2% 81%-100% of AMI 4.2% 7.4% 5.9% Greater than 100% of AMI 73.0% 70.8% 71.9% Total 4,245 4,710 8,955 Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. LMI household populations at the block group-level are shown for Hermosa Beach in Figure D-18. There are no block groups in the City that are considered LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income. Most block groups have very small LMI household populations representing less than 25% of the block group population. There are five block groups located along Hermosa Avenue with LMI household populations ranging from 26% to 37%. Populations of LMI households in Hermosa Beach tracts are generally consistent with adjacent coastal cities such as Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. As mentioned above, jurisdictions east of the City, including Lawndale, Gardena, and Torrance, have more LMI households. Sites Inventory There are no LMI areas where more than 50% of households earn low or moderate incomes in Hermosa Beach. As shown in Table D-11 and Figure D-18. Consistent with the citywide trend, most RHNA units are in block groups where less than 25% of households are low or moderate income. There are 44 lower income units, 20 moderate income units, and 19 above moderate income units in a block group where 35% of households are LMI. The City’s RHNA strategy distributes sites throughout block groups with variable LMI household populations to the extent possible given the composition of Hermosa Beach. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 529 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-41 Table D-11: Distribution of RHNA Units by LMI Household Population LMI Households ( Block Group) Lower Income Units Total Units 25% 305 87.4% 158 88.8% 53 73.6% 516 86.1% 25-50% 44 12.6% 20 11.2% 19 26.4% 83 13.9% 50-75% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 75-100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 530 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-42 Figure D-18: LMI Household Population by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD 2020), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 531 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-43 3. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas a. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50%) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. Regional Trend Figure D-19 shows tracts that have been identified as R/ECAPs or TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty. TCAC opportunity areas and scores are expanded upon in Section 4, Access to Opportunities. In the region, R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty are most prevalent in the City of Los Angeles, south Los Angeles, and in and around Long Beach. There are no R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty in the coastal areas stretching from Malibu to Rancho Palos Verdes. As mentioned previously, jurisdictions along the coast tend to have smaller populations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households compared to the inland County areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 532 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-44 Figure D-19: Regional R/ECAPs and TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2009-2013; TCAC 2022), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 533 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-45 Local Trend There are no R/ECAPs or TCAC-designated areas of high segregation and poverty in Hermosa Beach. The closest R/ECAPs are in the City of Los Angeles and Hawthorne east of the City, and the closest TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty are in the unincorporated County and Inglewood northeast of the City. As presented in Table D-12, Hermosa Beach has a significantly smaller population below the poverty level compared to the County (4.2% vs. 14.2%, respectively). In Hermosa Beach, the American Indian/Alaska Native population (12.2%) and Asian population (10%) have the highest poverty rates. All other racial/ethnic groups in the City have poverty rates below the citywide average of 4.3%. In Los Angeles County, poverty rates are the highest in the Black/African American population (20.2%), population of some other race (17.8%), Hispanic/Latino population (16.9%), and American Indian/Alaska Native population 16.3%). Sites Inventory There are no RHNA sites in R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty. Figure D-20 shows poverty status by tract in Hermosa Beach the surrounding area. Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach all contain tracts with small populations of persons below the poverty level. Less than 10% of the population in all Hermosa Beach tracts are below the poverty level. Jurisdictions east of the City, such as Lawndale, Torrance, and Hawthorne, contain tracts with larger populations below the poverty level ranging from 10% to 40%. Table D-12: Population Below Poverty Level by Race/Ethnicity (2020) Race/Ethnicity Total Population Total Population Black or African American alone 135 0.0% 787,711 20.2% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 90 12.2% 76,403 16.3% Asian alone 1,160 10.0% 1,464,802 11.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 -- 24,520 -- Some other race alone 402 2.7% 2,093,575 17.8% Two or more races 1,789 2.1% 717,876 12.1% Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 2,149 2.7% 4,797,018 16.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 14,358 4.3% 2,554,426 9.4% Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Sites Inventory There are no RHNA sites in R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 534 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-46 Figure D-20: Poverty Status by Tract (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 535 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-47 b. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to HUD's policy paper, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. HCD has created a new version of the RCAA metric to better reflect California's relative diversity and regional conditions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis of racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304. This section describes RCAAs using HCD’s updated methodology.4 Regional Trend As presented in Figure D-21, RCAAs are more prevalent in Los Angeles County coastal communities. In the region surrounding Hermosa Beach, RCAAs have been identified along the coast from Malibu to Ranchos Palos Verdes. There are no RCAAs in the central, south, and east Los Angeles area. As shown in Figure D-5 and Figure D-17 previously, coastal areas tend to have smaller non-White and LMI household populations compared to inland jurisdictions. Figure D-22 shows median income by block group in the region. Consistent with the RCAA trend, block groups with higher median incomes exceeding the Statewide median of 87,100 are most prevalent along the coast from Santa Monica to Ranchos Palos Verdes. In general, median incomes are lower the more inland a jurisdiction is. Most block groups in central and east Los Angeles surrounding the City of Los Angeles have median incomes below the State median. 4 HCD, Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Summary and Description. Accessed January 20, 2023. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4100330678564ad699d139b1c193ef14&sublayer=4. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 536 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-48 Figure D-21: Regional RCAA Tracts (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 537 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-49 Figure D-22: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 538 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-50 Local Trend Median household income by race/ethnicity in Hermosa Beach and Los Angeles County is shown in Table D-13. In the County, White, non-Hispanic households have the highest median income of $91,323. Black/African American households ($51,256), households of some other race ($56,747), and Hispanic/Latino households ($59,837) have the lowest median incomes in the County. American Indian/Alaska Native households also have a median income below the countywide median of $71,358. The median household income in Hermosa Beach is $142,500, significantly higher than the median countywide. The median income amongst Black/African American households in Hermosa Beach is well below other racial/ethnic groups but is higher than the median for Black/African American households countywide. The median household income for the Black/African American population is only $86,056. The median household income in the Hispanic Latino population, $139,034, is also lower than the citywide median of $142,083. All other racial/ethnic groups in the City have median household incomes exceeding the median citywide. Table D-13: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2020) Race/Ethnicity % Distribution % Distribution Black or African American 1.0% $86,056 9.4% $51,259 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.7% - 0.7% $62,427 Asian 4.7% $212,847 15.1% $83,252 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% - 0.2% $78,831 Some other race 1.2% $152,656 16.1% $56,747 Two or more races 4.5% $206,875 5.8% $71,943 Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 7.3% $139,034 37.7% $59,837 White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 82.6% $143,083 35.1% $91,323 Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). All tracts in Hermosa Beach are considered RCAAs (Figure D-24). As presented in Figure D- 24, most block groups in the City have median incomes exceeding the State median of 87,100. There is one block group with a median income of only $54,150 located in the northwestern section of the City. This block group encompasses North School and Valley Park and is located along Valley Drive, Gould Avenue, 27th Street, and Hermosa Avenue. The tract encompassing this block group has a larger proportion of renter-occupied households compared to all other City tracts. Approximately 61% of households in this tract are renters. In general, renters are more likely to have lower incomes compared to owners. Tenure is further discussed in Section 5, Disproportionate Housing Needs, of this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Block groups between Hermosa Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, including the block group discussed above, tend to have lower median incomes than the remainder of the City. There is one mobile home park in Hermosa Beach on Pier Avenue in this section of the City Marineland MHP, 60 units). Mobile homes tend to be more affordable than other housing options; therefore, households residing in mobile homes generally have lower incomes. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 539 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-51 Hermosa Beach was previously a redlined community. The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. During this time period, Hermosa Beach was ranked D. A D-ranking was considered “hazardous” and “areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.”5 Despite being historically redlined, Hermosa Beach has gradually transitioned into a desirable community given its coastal location, Hermosa Beach is a coastal community spanning only approximately a mile inland. Because of the geographic character of the City, land and housing costs, including rental and ownership housing, tend to be higher compared to other Los Angeles County jurisdictions. According to Zillow’s market summary for Hermosa Beach, the median rent in the City is $5,900 as of November 2023.6 Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, coastal cities north and south of Hermosa Beach also have higher median rental prices of $7,000 and $3,500, respectively, compared to jurisdictions east of the City including Torrance 2,733), Lawndale ($2,600), and the City of Los Angeles ($2,800). Similarly, the median home sale price in Hermosa Beach in August 2022 was $1,850,000 compared to only 820,000 countywide during the same period.7 Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach also had median home sale prices exceeding the County average of $2,842,500 and 1,300,000, respectively. Cities just inland of Hermosa Beach had significantly lower median home sale prices, including Torrance ($956,500), Lawndale ($855,00), Gardena ($730,000), and the City of Los Angeles ($1,075,000). The high housing costs in the City, due to geographic location, are a contributing factor for the prevalence in RCAAs in the community. Actions outlined in this Housing Element (see Table II-2 in Chapter II, Housing Policy Plan) aim to increase access to these RCAAs through increased housing opportunities and outreach strategies. Affirmative marketing strategies include working with agencies serving low income and special needs households to promote affordable housing opportunities in the City to promote more diverse and inclusive communities. Sites Inventory All sites identified to meet the RHNA are in RCAAs. 5 HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, HOLC Redlining Grade Description. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=7792ea4a90834c168078907350c40ad8. Accessed November 2023. 6 Zillow.com Rental Market Trends. https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/. Accessed November 2023. 7 Corelogic California Home Sale Activity by City, August 2022. https://www.corelogic.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2022/09/CA-Home-Sale-Activity-by-City-August-2022.pdf. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 540 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-52 Figure D-23: RCAA Tracts (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 541 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-53 Figure D-24: Median Income by Block Group (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 542 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-54 4. Access to Opportunities Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table D-14 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were: Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Table D-14: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator Economic Poverty Adult education Employment Job proximity Reading proficiency High School graduation rates TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domain (see Table D-14) by census tracts as well as computing “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains. Scores from each individual domain range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize show areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty and can help to identify areas within the community Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 543 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-55 that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas. Regional Trend As explained previously, TCAC composite scores categorize the level of resources in each census tract. Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the region. In the Los Angeles County region surrounding Hermosa Beach, coastal areas are predominantly highest resource areas (Figure D-25). As tracts go further inland, the lower composite TCAC scores are. The central and south Los Angeles areas are predominantly low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty. Jurisdictions adjacent to Hermosa Beach to the east, including Lawndale and Gardena, are comprised of high, moderate, and low resource areas, whereas cities even further east of Hermosa Beach, such as the City of Los Angeles, Willowbrook and Westmont communities, and Compton, have primarily low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 544 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-56 Figure D-25: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 545 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-57 While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess County residents’ access to key opportunity assets. HUD opportunity indices are provided for entitlement jurisdictions only. Opportunity indicators are not available for the City of Corte Madera. Table D-20 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices: School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 546 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-58 Table D-15: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Los Angeles County (2020) School Proficiency Index Labor Market Index Transit Trip Index Transportation Jobs Proximity Index Environmental Health Index White, non-Hispanic 65.09 65.41 82.63 74.09 55.80 18.99 Black, non-Hispanic 32.37 34.00 87.70 79.18 40.13 11.66 Hispanic 38.38 33.18 87.19 77.74 41.53 11.91 Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 59.34 55.94 86.52 76.45 51.82 12.16 Native American, non-Hispanic 46.90 44.50 83.17 75.65 44.24 16.74 White, non-Hispanic 58.06 57.49 86.42 79.48 57.52 16.66 Black, non-Hispanic 27.16 25.52 88.65 81.18 36.59 11.62 Hispanic 32.87 27.66 89.45 81.02 42.84 10.30 Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 54.52 50.06 89.62 81.49 54.19 9.84 Native American, non-Hispanic 35.12 32.02 85.23 78.70 46.35 16.01 Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 547 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-59 Local Trend Table D-16 and Sites Inventory All RHNA sites are in HCD/TCAC highest resource areas. Figure D-26 show TCAC opportunity map scores by tract in Hermosa Beach. All tracts in the City are considered highest resource areas. As mentioned above, jurisdictions adjacent to Hermosa Beach, such as Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, are also comprised of mostly highest resource tracts. Tract 6211.02 in the southeast corner of the City has the lowest economic, environmental, and composite scores compared to other tracts in Hermosa Beach. However, all scores in all Hermosa Beach tracts are high, revealing economic, environmental, and educational opportunities are highly accessible in the City. Table D-16: TCAC Opportunity Map Scores by Tract (2021) Tract Economic Score Education Score Composite Score Final Category 6210.01 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.29 Highest Resource 6210.02 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.54 Highest Resource 6210.04 0.98 0.96 1.00 1.38 Highest Resource 6211.02 0.93 0.90 0.98 1.09 Highest Resource 6211.04 0.99 0.94 0.98 1.30 Highest Resource Source: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map Scores by Tract, 2021. Sites Inventory All RHNA sites are in HCD/TCAC highest resource areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 548 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-60 Figure D-26: TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 549 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-61 a. Economic Regional Trend As of December 2022, Los Angeles County has a labor force of 4,927,700 with an unemployment rate of 4.4%.8 According to the 2016-2020 ACS, the following industries employ the largest proportions of Los Angeles County residents: educational services, and health care and social assistance (19.5%), professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (14%), and manufacturing (10.9%). The California Employment Development Department (EDD) cited the following companies and organizations as major employers in Los Angeles County: AHMC Healthcare Inc (Alhambra) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees All Nations Church (Sylmar) – 1,000 to 4,999 employees California State Univ NRTHRDG (Northridge) – 1,000 to 4,999 employees Cedars-Sinai Health System (West Hollywood) – 10,000+ employees Infineon Technologies Americas (El Segundo) – 1,000 to 4,999 employees Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles (Los Angeles) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Lac & USC Medical Ctr (Los Angeles) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Long Beach City Hall (Long Beach) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Longshore Dispatch (Wilmington) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Los Angeles County Sheriff (Monterey Park) – 10,000+ employees Los Angeles Intl Airport-Lax (Los Angeles) – 10,000+ employees Los Angeles Medical Ctr (Los Angeles) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Los Angeles Police Dept (Los Angeles) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees National Institutes of Health (Pasadena) – 10,000+ employees Security Industry Specialist (Culver City) – 1,000 to 4,999 employees Six Flags (Valencia – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Sony Pictures Entrtn Inc (Culver City) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Space Exploration Tech Corp (Hawthorne) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees Twentieth Century Fox (Los Angeles) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees UCLA Community Based Learning (Los Angeles) – 10,000+ employees University of Ca Los Angeles (Los Angeles) – 10,000+ employees Vision X (Los Angeles) – 10,000+ employees Walt Disney Co (Burbank) – 5,000 to 9,999 employees 8 California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2023. Los Angeles County Profile. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 550 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-62 Water Garden Management (Santa Monica) – 1,000 to 4,999 employees HUD’s opportunity indicators provide values for labor market index9 and jobs proximity index10 that can be measures for economic development in Los Angeles County. Like the other HUD opportunity indicators, scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher score means higher labor force participation and humancapital in a neighborhood. Los Angeles County’s labor market index values have range significantly from 33 to 65, with Hispanic residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. Scores for Los Angeles County residents living below the poverty line drop for all racial/ethnic groups, most notably for Native American residents (from 45 to 32). Index values indicate that Black and Hispanic residents living in poverty have the lowest labor force participation and human capital in the County. HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicate better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 40 to 56 for the total population, where the White population scores the highest and the Black population scores the lowest. The jobs proximity value map in Figure D-27 shows the distribution of scores by block group in the region surrounding Hermosa Beach. Jobs proximity scores are highest in block groups in the Westside area, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Downtown Los Angeles, and Torrance. Block groups with low scores below 20 are most concentrated in the south Los Angeles area (i.e., Inglewood, South Gate, Compton), the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and Long Beach. The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity index values as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics. TCAC economic scores range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate more positive economic outcomes. The map in Figure D-28 shows that tracts with the lowest economic scores are located east of Hermosa Beach and other coastal cities, including tracts in and around the cities of Compton, Huntington Park, the City of Los Angeles, Wilmington, and Long Beach. Nearly all tracts in jurisdictions in the coastal areas (i.e., Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes) scored in the highest quartile for economic opportunities. 9 Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. 10 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 551 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-63 Figure D-27: Regional Jobs Proximity Index Scores by Block Group (2017) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 552 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-64 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2014-2017), 2022. Figure D-28: Regional TCAC Economic Scores by Tract (2022) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 553 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-65 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2022. Local Trend According to the 2016-2020 ACS, Hermosa Beach has a labor force of 11,935 persons with an unemployment rate of 3.9%. The ACS estimates Los Angeles County had an unemployment rate of 6.5% during the same period. The following industries employ the largest proportions of Hermosa Beach residents: professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (24.2%), educational services, and health care and social assistance (14.6%), finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing (13.5%), and manufacturing (12.4%). As shown in Figure D-29, approximately 76% of employees in Hermosa Beach commute to work in a car, truck, or van compared to 81.6% countywide. A significantly larger proportion of employees work from home in Hermosa Beach (16.3%) compared to the County (8%). Overall, Hermosa Beach residents tend to have slightly longer commutes compared to residents countywide. Over 34% of workers in Hermosa Beach commute 45 minutes or longer to work compared to only 25% of workers in Los Angeles County. Figure D-29: Means of Transportation to Work (2020) Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimate). Jobs proximity scores by block group are shown for Hermosa Beach in Figure D-30. In general, block groups on the northern side of the City have higher jobs proximity scores compared to the southern side. Block groups on the northern side and along the western border received scores ranging from 61 to 75, while block groups on the southern side received scores ranging from 49 to 58. While the northern section of the City has slightly better access to employment opportunities, jobs proximity scores citywide are generally comparable. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 554 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-66 All tracts in the City scored in the highest quartile for TCAC economic opportunities (Figure D-31). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 555 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-67 Figure D-30: Jobs Proximity Index Scores by Block Group (2017) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2014-2017), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 556 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-68 Figure D-31: TCAC Economic Scores by Tract (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 557 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-69 b. Education Regional Trend The school proficiency index is an indicator of school system quality, with higher index scores indicating access to higher school quality. In Los Angeles County, Black residents have access to lower quality schools (lowest index value of 32), followed by Hispanic residents (38), and Native American residents (47). The White and Asian/Pacific Islander populations received higher index scores of 59 and 65, respectively (Table D-15). For residents living below the federal poverty line, index values are lower for all races and are still lowest for Black and Hispanic residents. White residents have the highest index values, indicating a greater access to high quality schools, regardless of poverty status. The HCD/TCAC education scores for the region show the distribution of education quality based on education outcomes (Figure D-32). As explained in Table D-14, the Education domain score is based on a variety of indicators including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. The education scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating more positive education outcomes. In the region, lower education scores are found in census tracts in the Downtown Los Angeles and south Los Angeles areas, such as the City of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Westmont, and Huntington Park, and Long Beach area. Consistent with TCAC composite scores, tracts in coastal areas, from Santa Monica to Rancho Palos Verdes, have higher education scores, most scoring in the highest quartile. As of 2022, Los Angeles County had a five-year cohort graduation rate of 86.1%, slightly lower than 86.1% statewide.11 The Asian and Filipino populations have the highest graduation rates (both 95.8%), followed by the White population (89.3%), and population of two or more races (86.9%). The American Indian and African American populations have the lowest graduation rates (67.2% and 78.5%, respectively). In the 2019-2020 school year, 61.5% of high school completers were enrolled in college in Los Angeles County compared to 62.7% in the State. 11 California Department of Education (CDE), Data Quest. 2021-2022 Five-Year Cohort Graduation Rate, Los Angeles County Report. Accessed January 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 558 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-70 Figure D-32: Regional TCAC Education Scores by Tract (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 559 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-71 Local Trend The Hermosa Beach City School District operates in the City and includes Hermosa View School (TK-2), Hermosa Vista School (3-4), and Hermosa Valley School (5-8). There is no public high school in Hermosa Beach. The closest public high schools are located in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average”, 5-6 indicate “average”, and 7-10 are “above average.” Hermosa View School and Hermosa Valley School received high scores of 10 and 9, respectively. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents.12 The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score. Hermosa Beach has an HPI index score in 96th percentile, indicating the City has healthier community conditions than 96% of other California cities and towns. The HPI also includes individual indicators related to variables including, but not limited to, economic, educational, social, environmental, and housing factors. Educational variables include population with a bachelor’s education or higher, high school enrollment, and preschool enrollment at the tract level. All Hermosa Beach tracts scored in the highest quartile for population with a bachelor’s education or higher. More than 71% of the population over the age of 25 in all tracts have a bachelor's degree of higher. In all Hermosa Beach tracts, 100% of 15 to 17 year olds are also enrolled in high school. Preschool enrollment is also included as a variable for the HPI as “early childhood is a crucial period for brain development, shaping nearly every aspect of one’s future health and wellbeing. Quality preschool is important for healthy development, and has been associated with lifelong educational, economic and health benefits.”13 Figure D-33 shows percentile rankings by tract for preschool enrollment in Hermosa Beach. The northern Hermosa Beach tracts scored in the highest quartile for preschool enrollment, where 75% to 100% of 3 and 4 year olds are enrolled in preschool. Only 53.8% of preschool- aged children in the southeastern tract (tract 6211.02) and 50.9% in the southwestern tract tract 6211.04) are enrolled in preschool. TCAC education scores for Hermosa Beach tracts are presented in Figure D-34. As stated in Table D-14 above, TCAC education scores are formulated based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. All tracts in the City scored in the highest quartile for educational opportunities. 12 California Healthy Places Index (HPI) (based on ACS 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates)), 2022. Accessed January 2023. https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/. 13 California Healthy Places Index (HPI), 2022. Preschool Enrollment. Accessed January 2023. https://policies.healthyplacesindex.org/education/preschool-enrollment/about. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 560 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-72 Figure D-33: Healthy Places Index – Preschool Enrollment by Tract (2019) Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI) (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 561 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-73 Figure D-34: TCAC Education Scores by Tract (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 562 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-74 c. Environmental Regional Trend Historical and current land uses, such as landfills and proximity to freeways, may expose residents to variable environmental conditions. The TCAC Environmental Score shown in Figure D-35 is based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 scores. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. TCAC Environmental Scores range from 0 to 1, where higher scores indicate a more positive environmental outcome (better environmental quality) A large proportion of the region surrounding Hermosa Beach is comprised of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile for environmental opportunities (Figure D-35). Most tracts in and around the cities of Los Angeles, El Segundo, Gardena, Carson, Long Beach, Compton, and South Gate received environmental scores in the lowest quartile. Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and the Palos Verdes peninsula (Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates) have the highest concentration of tracts scoring in the highest quartile in the region. Most of Los Angeles County as a whole received environmental scores of 0.5 or lower. Figure D-35 shows the TCAC Environmental Score based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in Figure D-36 are based on percentiles and show that coastal areas, from Santa Monica to Rancho Palos Verdes, generally have better environmental conditions compared to south, central, and east Los Angeles. Tracts scoring in the 91st percentile or higher (worst scores) are prevalent in the section of the County stretching from Glendale to Carson (north and south) and Inglewood to El Monte (west and east). HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. In Los Angeles County, environmental health index values range from 11.7 for Black residents to 19 for White residents for the total population (Table D-15). The index decreases for all racial/ethnic groups below the poverty line, most drastically for the Asian/Pacific Islander population. Of the populations below the poverty line, Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest environmental health index score of 9.8. The White population, including the population below the poverty line, has the highest environmental health index score compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 563 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-75 Figure D-35: Regional TCAC Environmental Scores by Tract (2022) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 564 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-76 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 565 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-77 Figure D-36: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (OEHHA 2021), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 566 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-78 Local Trend TCAC environmental scores by tract are shown in Figure D-38 for Hermosa Beach. Of the five tracts in the City, four scored in the highest quartile and one, in the southwestern corner of the City, received a score of 0.74. While this tract did receive a slightly lower environmental score compared to the remainder of Hermosa Beach, it is relevant to note that the other four tracts received scores ranging from 0.75 to 0.83. Based on these scores, environmental opportunities, based on TCAC/HCD’s definition, are generally consistent citywide. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores for Hermosa Beach are presented in Figure D-39. Consistent with TCAC environmental scores, all tracts in the City received low CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores (best scores) indicating healthy environmental conditions. As mentioned above, based on the overall HPI score, Hermosa Beach has healthier community conditions than 96% of other California cities and towns. The HPI includes individual indicators used to determine a City or neighborhoods overall score. The HPI uses the following variables to analyze clean environment: Diesel PM (average daily amount of particulate pollution (very small particles) from diesel sources, measured in kilograms/day), drinking water contaminants (combines information about 13 contaminants and 2 types of water quality violations that are sometimes found when drinking water samples are tested), ozone (average amount of ozone in the air during the most polluted 8 hours of summer days, measured in parts per million), and PM 2.5 (yearly average of fine particulate matter concentration (very small particles from vehicle tailpipes, tires and brakes, powerplants, factories, burning wood, construction dust, and many other sources), measured in micrograms/meter3). All Hermosa Beach tracts scored in the highest quartile best scores) for drinking water contaminants and in the 72nd percentile for ozone. All tracts also scored in the lowest quartile for PM 2.5 Diesel PM percentile rankings by tract are shown in Figure D-37. Most tracts received percentile scores for Diesel PM ranging from 32 to 50, while the northeastern tract scored in the 18th percentile. While the City does have low scores for Diesel PM and PM 2.5, these scores are generally consistent with the County as a whole. Coastal cities, such as Hermosa Beach, generally have slightly better Diesel PM and PM 2.5 percentile scores compared to inland County jurisdictions. High levels of Diesel PM are typically recorded adjacent to ports, rail yards, and freeways.14 PM 2.5 emissions are typically emitted from power plants, industries, and automobiles, but can also be emitted by construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks, for fires.15 Highly urbanized areas such as Los Angeles County, including Hermosa Beach, are generally more exposed to high Diesel PM and PM 2.5 pollutants. The HPI also includes data for park access. Parks and open space are an important part of environmental health as “parks can encourage physical activity, reduce chronic diseases, improve mental health, foster community connections, and support community resilience to climate change and pollution.”16 According to the HPI based on 2017 14 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Diesel Particulate Matter. Accessed January 2023. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate- matter#:~:text=What%20is%20diesel%20particulate%20matter,contains%20hundreds%20of%20different%20chemical s.. 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Particulate Matter (PM) Basics. Accessed January 2023. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics. 16 California Healthy Places Index (HPI). Policy Guide, Park Access. Accessed January 2023. https://policies.healthyplacesindex.org/neighborhood/park-access/about. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 567 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-79 California Department of Public Health data, 100% of residents in all Hermosa Beach tracts live within a half-mile of a park, beach, or open space. Sites Inventory All RHNA units are located in tracts scoring within the 20th percentile (best scores) of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores. Figure D-37: Healthy Places Index – Diesel PM by Tract (2016) Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI) (based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2016), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 568 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-80 Figure D-38: TCAC Environmental Scores by Tract (2022) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 569 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-81 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2023. Figure D-39: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract (2021) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 570 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-82 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (OEHHA 2021), 2023. d. Transportation Regional Trend HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Marin County through the transit index 17 and low transportation cost.18 Index values can range from zero to 100 and are reported per race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on race. In the County, transit index values range from 82.6 to 87.7, where White residents scored the lowest and Black residents scored the highest. Hispanic (87.2) and Asian/Pacific Islander (86.5) populations also scored higher than White and Native American (83.2) populations. Given that higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are more likely to use public transit. For residents living below the poverty line, index values increase for all racial/ethnic groups, most notably for the White and Asian/Pacific Islander populations. Transit scores for the population below the poverty line range from 85.2 for the Native American population to 89.6 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population. Low transportation cost index values range from 74.1 for the White population to 79.2 for the Black population. The Black population has the highest low transportation cost index score followed by the Hispanic population (77.7), Asian/Pacific Islander population (76.5), and the Native American population (75.7). Low transportation cost scores are higher for the population below the poverty line regardless of race. Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the highest low transportation cost index values, regardless of poverty status. A higher “low transportation cost” index value indicates a lower cost of transportation. Therefore, transit is less costly for these racial/ethnic groups compared the White and Native American populations. Los Angeles County is served by a large public transit system including rail systems, bus operations, and transitways. The Metro rail system operates throughout the County and includes a hub in downtown Los Angeles. Additional rail service operators in the County include Metrolink and Amtrak. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operates the 416-mile Metrolink commuter rail system, which has its hub in Downtown Los Angeles at Union Station and extends to Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties. Amtrak provides interstate service from points around the country to Union Station, as well as regional service between major cities throughout California. There are several regional and municipal bus operators in the County; however, the largest is the Metro bus system. Metro operates the Metro Rapid Bus service and the Metro Express Bus service. The Metro rail and bus map is included as Figure D-40. 17 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. 18 Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 571 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-83 Figure D-40: Metro Rail and Busway Map (2022) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 572 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-84 Source: Metro – Metro System Maps, October 2022. Accessed January 2023. https://www.metro.net/riding/guide/system-maps/. Local Trends HUD opportunity indices are not available for Hermosa Beach. Public transit systems operating in the City include Beach Cities Transit, Torrance Transit, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Commuter Express. Beach Cities Transit provides fixed route and dial-a-ride transit service in the South Bay. BCT Line 109 connects Riviera Village, Hermosa, Manhattan, El Segundo, Green Line Stations, and the LAX Bus Center. Torrance Transit operates one bus route through Hermosa Beach. Torrance Transit Line 13 operates between Redondo Beach Pier and Artesia A Blue) Line Station, serving major destinations that include Hermosa Beach Pier, South Bay Galleria, Harbor Gateway Transit Center, Dignity Health Sports Park, and California State University, Dominguez Hills. LADOT Commuter Express shuttles provide one-way limited stop transit service to job centers during commute hours through Commuter Express Line 438. Hermosa Beach also has a system of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes throughout the City. Bike facilities generally run along the western side of the City, mainly along Hermosa Avenue, Monterey Boulevard, and Ardmore Avenue. Bike facilities are shown in Figure D- 41. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 573 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-85 Figure D-41: Bicycle Facilities (2023) Source: City of Hermosa Beach Bike Facilities Map. Accessed January 2023. The City also operates a Safe Routes to School Program, partnering with the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach Police Department. The City and School District have administered surveys of parents to understand walking and biking to school preferences and activities to inform safe routes to school programming and practices. The HPI includes automobile access and active commuting data as transportation indicators. According to HPI data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, more than 92% of households in all Hermosa Beach tracts have access to an automobile. While this is a large proportion of the population, these tracts received percentile scores ranging from only 32 to 62. Populations of households with access to vehicles in Hermosa Beach tracts are consistent with adjacent areas and larger than other areas of the County such as central and east Los Angeles. Only 1.6% to 9.7% of workers aged 16 or older commute to work by transit, walking, or cycling in Hermosa Beach tracts. The tract in the southeast corner of the City has the smallest population of transit, walking, or cycling commuters. As discussed previously, 76.2% of workers in Hermosa Beach get to work via car, truck, or van (Figure D- 29). The southern side of the City also has lower jobs proximity index scores compared to the northern and western sides (Figure D-30). Bike facilities (paths, lanes, and routes) are also less accessible to persons residing in the southeastern tract (Figure D-41). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 574 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-86 Figure D-42: Healthy Places Index – Active Commuting by Tract (2019) Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI) (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2023. 5. Disproportionate Housing Needs The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Los Angeles County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include: Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30% of gross income; Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50% of gross income; Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom According to 2022 HUD CHAS data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 51% of Los Angeles County households experience housing problems, compared to 29% of households in Hermosa Beach. In both the County and Hermosa Beach, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 575 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-87 a. Cost Burden Regional Trend As presented in Table D-17, in Los Angeles County, approximately 44% of households are cost burdened. Renters experience cost burden at higher rates than owners (52.8% vs. 33.7%), regardless of race. Among renters, Black and Hispanic households are cost burdened at the highest rate (58.8% and 56.1%, respectively). All other racial/ethnic renter groups are cost burdened at a rate below the citywide average of 52.8% for renter- occupied households. Geographically, tracts with larger populations of cost burdened owners are more concentrated in the central and south Los Angeles areas (Figure D-43). However, tracts with populations of owners exceeding 60% are dispersed throughout the region, including in coastal areas such as Santa Monica and Long Beach. Tracts with larger populations of overpaying renters are also more prevalent in the central and south Los Angeles areas in and around the cities of Los Angeles, Compton, and Westmont, and in the area surrounding Long Beach (Figure D-44). The coastal area from Manhattan Beach to Palos Verdes Estates, including Hermosa Beach, tends to have fewer cost burdened renters. Table D-17: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – L.A. County (2019) White Black Asian Amer. Ind Pac. Isl. Hispanic All With Housing Problem Owner-Occupied 31.7% 41.3% 36.7% 34.7% 41.6% 45.8% 37.8% Renter-Occupied 51.9% 92.7% 56.1% 56.1% 54.0% 69.4% 61.2% All Households 41.0% 55.5% 45.7% 47.0% 49.5% 60.3% 50.5% With Cost Burden Owner-Occupied 30.7% 39.8% 33.0% 33.1% 31.0% 36.7% 33.7% Renter-Occupied 48.6% 58.8% 47.3% 51.3% 45.3% 56.1% 52.8% All Households 38.9% 52.4% 39.7% 43.6% 40.1% 48.6% 44.1% Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately. Table D-18 shows that elderly renters and large renter households experience housing problems at rates exceeding the countywide average for renter- occupied households. Over 83% of large renter households have one or more housing problem but only 52.5% are cost burdened. This is likely due to the population of large households that are overcrowded. Large owner households also experience housing problems at a rate exceeding the countywide average for owner-occupied households. Approximately 56% of elderly renters are cost burdened compared to only 52.8% countywide. Elderly households are more likely to have fixed incomes and overpay for housing. Table D-18: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Household Type – L.A. County (2019) All HH Any housing problem 37.0% 52.1% 37.8% 65.7% 83.3% 61.2% 50.5% Cost burden >30% 37.8% 30.0% 33.7% 56.3% 52.5% 52.8% 44.1% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 576 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-88 All HH Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 577 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-89 Figure D-43: Regional Population of Cost Burdened Owners by Tract (2019) Source: HUD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 578 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-90 Figure D-44: Regional Population of Cost Burdened Renters by Tract (2019) Source: HUD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 579 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-91 Local Trend Housing problem and cost burden rates are lower in Hermosa Beach (28.8% and 26.6%, respectively, Table D-19) than in the County overall (50.5% and 44.1%, respectively, Table D-17). Since the 2006-2010 HUD CHAS data, cost burden has decreased in Hermosa Beach. In 2010, 38% of households were cost burden, including 36.4% of owner households and 39.2% of renter households. Unlike the countywide trend, Asian (50%) and American Indian 46.2%) renter households are cost burdened at the highest rates. As presented in Table D- 12 previously, the Asian and American Indian populations in Hermosa Beach also have the highest poverty rates compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic renter households are also cost burdened at a rate exceeding the citywide average for renter-occupied households (41%). White and Black renters are cost burdened at rates below the citywide average. Asian and Hispanic owners are also cost burdened at rates exceeding 25.2%, the citywide average for owner-occupied households. There are no cost burdened Black or American Indian owners in the City. As shown in Figure D-45, between 20% and 40% of owners are cost burdened in most Hermosa Beach tracts. Tract 6210.05 in the northwestern section of the City has a slightly larger population of overpaying owners with mortgages of 56.5%. Less than 38% of owners are cost burdened in the remaining Hermosa Beach tracts. Tract 6210.05 also contains block groups with LMI household populations exceeding 25% and lower median income compared to other areas of the City (see Figure D-18 and Figure D-24). Between 20% and 40% of renters are also cost burdened in tracts on the western side of the City (tracts 6210.05 and 6211.04) (Figure D-46). Only 19.8% of renters are cost burdened in tract 6211.02 in the southeast corner of the City while 45.6% are cost burdened in tract 6210.01 in the northeast section of the City. As discussed previously, tract 6210.01 has a population of elderly adults aged 65 and older of 15% compared to only 13.9% citywide. Elderly adults are more likely to be retired and have fixed or limited incomes. However, cost burden in Figure D-46 is based on earnings over the past 12 months from when the survey was taken. According to the ACS methodology, earnings are just one kind of income and are primarily wages and salary from a job. Other sources of income that are not considered “earnings” include Social Security payments, pensions, child support, public assistance, annuities, money derived from rental properties, interest and dividends. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, of the 454 households in tract 6210.01 with a householder aged 65 or older, 56.8% have household incomes, including annual earnings and other sources of income, of over $100,000. Because cost burden is estimated based on earnings alone, the population of households overpaying for housing may be exaggerated, especially in tract 6210.01. Table D-19: Housing Problems & Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Hermosa Beach (2019) White Black Asian Amer. Ind Pac. Isl. Hispanic All With Housing Problem Owner-Occupied 24.1% 0.0% 41.2% 0.0% -- 31.3% 26.5% Renter-Occupied 29.1% 21.1% 50.0% 76.9% -- 54.1% 30.9% All Households 26.8% 17.4% 42.7% 62.5% -- 42.2% 28.8% With Cost Burden Owner-Occupied 23.3% 0.0% 41.2% 0.0% -- 31.3% 25.2% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 580 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-92 White Black Asian Amer. Ind Pac. Isl. Hispanic All Renter-Occupied 26.7% 21.1% 50.0% 46.2% -- 41.0% 27.8% All Households 25.2% 17.4% 42.7% 37.5% -- 35.9% 26.6% Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Like the trend countywide, larger owner- and renter-occupied households are more likely to experience housing problems in the City (Table D-20). Large renter households are also more likely to be cost burdened. Approximately 55% of large renter households are cost burdened compared to only 28% of renters citywide. Elderly households also overpay for housing at rates exceeding the citywide average. Table D-20: Housing Problems & Cost Burden by Household Type – Hermosa Beach (2019) All HH Any housing problem 30.2% 33.3% 26.5% 61.8% 58.0% 30.9% 28.8% Cost burden >30% 29.7% 14.0% 25.2% 45.5% 54.6% 27.8% 26.6% Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Sites Inventory As described above, three of the four tracts that make up Hermosa Beach have populations of cost burdened owners ranging from 20% to 40%. Consistent with this trend, 86% of RHNA units are in tracts with populations of cost burdened owners in this range Table D-21). There are 46 lower income units, 20 moderate income units, and 19 above moderate income units in the tract where 56.5% of owner-occupied households are cost burdened. No above moderate income units are located in this tract. As shown in Table D-22, nearly half of RHNA units are in tracts where 20% to 40% of renters overpay for housing. As presented in Figure D-46, half of Hermosa Beach tracts on the western side of the City have cost burdened renter populations in this range. A larger proportion of units allocated to the lower income RHNA, 35%, are in the tract where 45.6% of renters experience cost burden compared to moderate (19.7%) and above moderate 22.2%) income units. While there are more lower income units in tracts with higher rates of cost burden, lower income units are not concentrated in these areas alone, nor are they exclusively placed in these tracts. Both tract 6210.01 and 6210.04 contain sites identified to accommodate moderate and mixed income units. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 581 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-93 Table D-21: Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Owners (2021) Cost Burdened Owners (Tract) Lower Income Units Total Units 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20-40% 303 86.8% 158 88.8% 53 73.6% 514 85.8% 40-60% 46 13.2% 20 11.2% 19 26.4% 85 14.2% 60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Table D-22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Renters (2021) Cost Burdened Renters (Tract) Lower Income Units Total Units 20% 40 11.5% 65 36.5% 28 38.9% 133 22.2% 20-40% 188 53.9% 78 43.8% 28 38.9% 294 49.1% 40-60% 121 34.7% 35 19.7% 16 22.2% 172 28.7% 60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 582 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-94 Figure D-45: Population of Cost Burdened Owners by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HUD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 583 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-95 Figure D-46: Population of Cost Burdened Renters by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HUD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 584 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-96 b. Overcrowding Regional Trend Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, 11.2% of households in Los Angeles County are living in overcrowded conditions (Table D-23). About 16% of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions in the County, compared to only 5.7% of owner households. Similarly, 7.4% of renter households are severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room, compared to only 1.6% of owners. According to 2015-2019 HUD CHAS data, there 203,320 large renter-occupied households with five or more persons, representing 11.3% of renters countywide. There are slightly more large owner households, 214,590, representing 14.1% of owners countywide. Table D-23: Overcrowded Households by Tenure – Los Angeles County (2020) Overcrowded 1.0 persons per room) 87,325 5.7% 286,881 16.0% 374,206 11.2% 23,819 1.6% 133,699 7.4% 157,518 4.7% Total 1,534,472 100.0% 1,798,032 100.0% 3,332,504 100.0% As presented in Figure D-47 below, tracts with larger populations of overcrowded households in the region surrounding Hermosa Beach are most prevalent in the central and south County areas in and around the cities of Los Angeles, Compton, Hawthorne, South Gate, and parts of Long Beach. Coastal County areas, from Malibu to Ranchos Palos Verdes, are nearly all comprised of tracts with populations of overcrowded households below the statewide average of 8.2%. As discussed throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues, coastal Los Angeles County areas also have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations, fewer LMI households, and higher median incomes compared to inland County areas (see Figure D-5, Figure D-17, and Figure D-22). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 585 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-97 Figure D-47: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) Source: HUD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS data), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 586 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-98 Local Trend Overcrowding is generally not an issue in the City. As shown in Table D-24, there are no severely overcrowded owner-occupied households in Hermosa Beach. Only 1.8% of renter-occupied households are severely overcrowded. Only 1.1% of owner households and 3.4% of renter households are overcrowded. While overcrowding is more prevalent amongst Hermosa Beach renters, a significantly smaller proportion are overcrowded compared the County (16%). The rate of overcrowding in all areas of the City is below the statewide average of 8.2%. According to the HCD Data Viewer 2.0, there are no tracts in Hermosa Beach where more than 5% of households are overcrowded. Table D-24: Overcrowded Households by Tenure (2020) Overcrowded 1.0 persons per room) 48 1.1% 147 3.4% 195 2.3% Severely Overcrowded 1.5 persons per room) 0 0.0% 76 1.8% 76 0.9% Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Sites Inventory There are no RHNA sites in tracts where overcrowding is a prominent fair housing issue. c. Substandard Housing Regional Trend Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2016-2020 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs. According 2016-2020 ACS estimates, shown in Table D-25, 1.6% of households in Los Angeles County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.5% lack complete plumbing facilities. Incomplete facilities affect renter households more than owner households. Approximately 0.4% of owner households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.3% lack complete plumbing facilities compared to 2.6% and 0.6%, respectively, amongst renter households countywide. Table D-25: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure – Los Angeles County (2020) Lacking complete kitchen facilities 6,186 0.4% 46,465 2.6% 52,651 1.6% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 3,884 0.3% 11,381 0.6% 15,265 0.5% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 587 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-99 Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 85.3% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 59.7% built prior to 1970 (Table D-27). Figure D-48 shows median housing age for cities and Census-designated places (CDPs) in the region surrounding Hermosa Beach. Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Hermosa Beach tend to have younger housing stocks compared to adjacent jurisdictions to the north, south, and east. The south County areas, including Long Beach, Compton, Lakewood, Lynwood, and South Gate, tend to have older housing stocks. Figure D-48: Regional Median Housing Age – Cities and CDPs (2020) Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 588 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-100 Local Trend There are no owner-occupied households in Hermosa Beach lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities (Table D-26). There are also no renter-occupied households in the City lacking complete plumbing facilities. There are 59 renter households, representing 1.4% of renters citywide, lacking complete kitchen facilities. Households lacking complete facilities are much less prominent in Hermosa Beach compared to the County, where 2.6% of renters lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.6% lack complete plumbing facilities. Table D-26: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure (2020) Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0 0.0% 59 1.4% 59 0.7% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Table D-27 shows housing stock age in the County, City, and Hermosa Beach tracts. Only 52% percent of housing units in the City were built in 1969 or earlier compared to 60% countywide. As discussed previously, units aged 50 and older are likely to require major rehabilitation. Another 29.7% of units in the City were built between 1970 and 1989. The remaining 18.6% of housing units in Hermosa Beach were constructed in 1990 or later, a larger proportion than in the County (14.7%). As shown in Figure D-49, tracts 6210.05, northwestern quarter, and 6211.02 , southeastern quarter, have older median housing ages compared to tracts 6210.01 and 6211.04. Nearly 66% of housing units in tract 6210.05 and 60% in tract 6211.02 were built prior to 1970 compared to 50% in tract 6210.01 and 39% in tract 6211.04 (Table D-27). Tract 6211.04 has the largest proportion of new housing units built in 1990 or later (24.9%). According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, the southwest section of the City, tract 6211.04, has a larger proportion of renter-occupied households compared to other tracts. As mentioned above, this tract has the largest proportion of new housing units built in 1990 or later. There are no tracts in Hermosa Beach where more than 2% of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Tract 6210.05 in the northwestern corner of Hermosa Beach is the only tract in the City where more than 2% of households lack complete kitchen facilities. This section of the City also has a higher rate of cost burdened owners, but a population of cost burdened renters consistent with the citywide trend (see Figure D-45 and Figure D-46). Table D-27: Housing Stock Age (2020) Tract/Jurisdiction 6210.01 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 2,071 6210.05 65.7% 18.4% 16.0% 2,955 6211.02 59.5% 23.9% 16.5% 1,216 6211.04 38.6% 36.5% 24.9% 3,577 Hermosa Beach 51.7% 29.7% 18.6% 9,819 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 589 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-101 Tract/Jurisdiction Los Angeles County 59.7% 25.5% 14.7% 3,559,790 Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Figure D-49: Median Housing Age by Tract (2020) Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 590 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-102 Figure D-50: Renter-Occupied Household Populations by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 591 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-103 Figure D-51: Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 592 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-104 d. Displacement Risk Regional Trends UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined based on the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters above 40%, share of people of color more than 50%, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the Los Angeles County region surrounding Hermosa Beach were identified throughout the central and south County areas. Sensitive communities are the most concentrated in the area spanning from Glendale to the north, throughout the City of Los Angeles, Inglewood to the west, Compton to the south, and El Monte to the east. There are significantly fewer sensitive communities in the coastal County cities from Malibu to Ranchos Palos Verdes. As mentioned previously, this area, which includes Hermosa Beach, also has smaller non-White and LMI household populations and higher median incomes compared to inland County areas (see Figure D-5, Figure D-17, and Figure D-22). TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs are also more prevalent in the central and south County areas where sensitive communities are concentrated (see Figure D-19). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 593 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-105 Figure D-52: Regional Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement by Tract (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, 2020), 2023. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 594 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-106 Local Trends As shown in Figure D-52 above, there are no tracts that have been identified as sensitive communities in Hermosa Beach. The closest sensitive communities are located in Torrance and Lawndale east of the City. There are also no sensitive communities in the adjacent jurisdictions of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. Displacement of low-income households can occur through the expiration of affordability restrictions on assisted low-income housing, escalation of market rents, or demolition of existing rental units. As noted in the Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, there are no low-income rental projects at risk of conversion to market rate during the 2021-2031 period. As discussed previously, vulnerability is measured based on several variables including: share of renters exceeding 40%, share of people of color exceeding 50%, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Hermosa Beach has an owner population of 50.1% with a non-White population of only 25%. In comparison, only 46% of households are owners and 74.1% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group countywide. Over the past decade, both the owner population and non-White population have increased (from 45.6% and 19.6%, respectively, during the 2006-2010 ACS). As presented in Figure D-53, Asian householders are the most likely to own their home (67.7%), followed by Hispanic/Latino householders 55.7%), and White householders (50.3%). Black/African American householders in the City are significantly less likely to own their home. Only 9.6% of Black/African American householders are owners. Fewer householders of some other race (30.5%) and American Indian/Alaska Native householders (32.8%) are homeowners. Figure D-53: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder (2020) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 595 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-107 Source: 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Figure D-54 shows the median contract rent in Hermosa Beach and Los Angeles County from 2009 to 2020. During this period, the median contract rent in Hermosa Beach increased 24.8% (from $1,743 in 2010 to $2,176 in 2020), a smaller increase than 39.1% countywide (from $1,017 to $1,415). While rental prices have increased more countywide, median contract rent prices in Hermosa Beach remain higher than rental prices throughout the County. As presented above, increasing rental prices in the City are more likely to disproportionately affect people of color, specifically Black/African American households, households of some other race, and American Indian/Alaska Native households. Figure D-54: Median Contract Rent (2009-2020) Source: 2006-2010 through 2016-2020 ACS (5-Year Estimates). e. Homelessness Regional Trend The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) estimates there were 69,144 persons experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles County, based on the 2022 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Figure D-55 shows the Los Angeles County homeless populations from 2017 to 2022. As of 2022, 70% of the homeless population is unsheltered and 30% is sheltered. The proportion of sheltered individuals has increased slightly since 2017, when 27.2% of the population experiencing homelessness was sheltered. The homeless population has increased over 25% since 2017, and 4.1% since 2020. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 596 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-108 As shown in Table D-28, of the individuals experiencing homelessness, 3.5% were transitional age youths aged 18 to 24 and 0.2% were unaccompanied minors under the age of 18. Another 5.7% of the homeless population were veterans and 41.3% were experiencing chronic homelessness. A household is considered chronically homeless if any of its members have (1) a long-term disabling condition; and (2) been homeless for 12 months or more within the last 3 years as specified by HUD. There are many emergency shelters in Los Angeles County. Emergency shelters are most prevalent in the central County areas such as the City of Los Angeles. Figure D-55: L.A. County Population of Persons Experiencing Homelessness (2017-2022) Note: LA County data includes the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, and the cities of Pasadena, Glendale, and Long Beach. Source: Los Angeles County Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count – Los Angeles County, 2017-2022. Table D-28: Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness – LA County (2022) Sheltered Unsheltered Total Persons 20,596 48,548 69,144 -- Total Households 14,248 47,586 61,834 -- Individuals (those not in family units) 11,153 47,098 58,251 -- Transitional Age Youth (18-24)1 994 1,073 2,067 3.5% Unaccompanied Minors (under 18)1 116 5 121 0.2% Family Households (at least 1 child under 18) 3,095 488 3,583 -- All Family Members 9,443 1,450 10,893 -- Veterans2 929 3,013 3,942 5.7% People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness (all)2 4,992 23,584 28,576 41.3% Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 597 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-109 Sheltered Unsheltered Notes: 1. Percent of individuals 2. Percent of total persons Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 598 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-110 Figure D-56: Regional Emergency Shelter Locations (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2022. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 599 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-111 As of November 2023, LAHSA recently released the results of the 2023 Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC) survey. The CoC covers all of Los Angeles County except Pasadena, Glendale, and Long Beach. The 2023 survey estimates the population of persons experiencing homelessness is 71,320, 26.7% of whom were sheltered and 73.3% unsheltered. Table D-29 compares the population of persons experiencing homeless by race/ethnicity to the Countywide distribution. The Black/African American population is the most overrepresented in the homeless population. The American Indian/Alaksa Native population, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander population, and population of multiple races are also slightly overrepresented in the homeless population. Table D-29: Population of Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Race/Ethnicity – Los Angeles County (2021/2023) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 30,350 42.6% 4,878,619 48.7% Not Hispanic/Latino 40,970 57.4% 5,141,016 51.3% American Indian/Alaksa Native 723 1.0% 19,571 0.2% Asian 1,212 1.7% 1,458,140 14.6% Black/African American 22,606 31.7% 766,190 7.6% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 389 0.5% 21,433 0.2% White 13,826 19.4% 2,550,832 25.5% Multiple Races 2,214 3.1% 281,399 2.8% Source: LAHSA 2023 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count – Los Angeles County; 2017-2021 Acs (5-Year Estimates). According to the 2023 LAHSA Homeless Count, 27% of persons experiencing homelessness also have substance abuse disorders, 2% have HIV/AIDs, 25% struggle with serious mental illness, 10% have a developmental disability, and 19% have a physical disability. Local Trends According to the LAHSA Point-In-Time (PIT) count for Hermosa Beach, in 2022 there were 34 persons experiencing homelessness in the City in 2022, all of whom were unsheltered. Since 2016, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in the City has increased. In 2016, there were only 20 people counted experiencing homelessness in Hermosa Beach, including six who were sheltered. In 2022, most persons experiencing homelessness in Hermosa Beach were living in vans 50%). Another 27% were on the street, 18% were in cars, and 5% were in RVs or campers. As shown above, there is one emergency shelter in Hermosa Beach. This shelter has a total of 20 beds. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 600 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-112 Figure D-57: Hermosa Beach PIT Homeless Population (2022) Source: LAHSA Homeless Count by Community/City – Hermosa Beach, 2022. According to LAHSA 2022 Homeless Count data at the tract-level, tract 6211.04 had the largest population of persons experiencing homelessness (25 persons) compared to other tracts in Hermosa Beach. One person was counted in tract 6210.02, six in tract 6210.04, and two in tract 6211.02. Tract 6211.04 encompasses the southwest quadrant of the City. The emergency shelter is located in the northwest quadrant of the City in tract 6210.05. Tract 6211.04 is generally bound by Pier Avenue to the north and the Pacific Coast Highway to the east which includes much of Downtown Hermosa Beach, adjacent to the Hermosa Beach Pier (extending along Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue). Line 109 of the Beach Cities Transit routes has one stop in Hermosa Beach (Pier Avenue) and connects to Riviera Village, Downtown Manhattan Beach, Downtown El Segundo, Douglas Green Line Station, The Pointe, Plaza El Segundo, Aviation/LAX Green Line station, and the LAX Bus Center. The Torrance Transit Line 13 also operates between Redondo Beach Pier and Artesia A (Blue) Line Station, serving major destinations that include Hermosa Beach Pier, South Bay Galleria, Harbor Gateway Transit Center, Dignity Health Sports Park, and California State University, Dominguez Hills. LA Commuter Express shuttles provide one-way limited stop transit service to job centers during commute hours. Commuter Express Line 438 provides morning commute service from the beach cities to Downtown LA and Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 601 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-113 evening service from Downtown to the beach cities. Additionally, under the City’s 2018 Homelessness Plan Supporting Action #1f includes local funds to support response efforts and special circumstances. This fund can cover items such as miscellaneous services and materials, motel vouchers, transit vouchers, laundry services, hygiene products, etc. Although the 2018 Homelessness Plan stated a 5-year timeline, the programs are ongoing and continue forward until such time that the Plan is updated. According to the City’s 2018 Homelessness Plan, The demographics of Hermosa Beach’s homeless population appear to be consistent with that of other beach cities in the South Bay, and the City’s total homeless population is among the lowest in the region on a per- capita basis. Nevertheless, according to information gleaned through interactions with the City’s Police Department, PATH outreach workers and the faith-community, Hermosa Beach’s homeless population may be categorized as diverse and displaying varying needs for service. Chronically homeless individuals often have a disabling condition, and have been homeless for a year or more, or have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. These individuals are typically well known to HBPD, businesses, and the faith community, and are often the source of calls received by HBPD. They typically have co-occurring substance abuse and mental illness, and most have been unable to take advantage of services when they are offered. Several individuals are long-time, well-known local residents; others are more recent arrivals in Hermosa Beach. Recently homeless people have lost their housing during the past year for reasons such as losing a job, medical bills, marital breakdown, or a property owner’s decision to go out of the rental business. They may be able to benefit from emergency rental assistance or other programs available through Harbor Interfaith or PATH. These individuals may be known to the school district if their children are enrolled in local schools, and may also be known to faith groups that offer laundry and meals to people who are homeless. Most people in this category are local residents who want to stay in the area for school, a job, or community accessibility, and some live in their vehicles. Transients often find their way to Hermosa Beach, especially in the summer months, seeking beachside living. Some of these people are youth, and some may be willing to return to their home outside of Los Angeles County or out of state if resources are available. People at imminent risk of homelessness, including families, often use services such as laundry, meals, and food pantries offered by the faith community. Intervention with these people prior to homelessness will help prevent additional people from becoming homeless in the community. Through regional service providers such as PATH and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Hermosa Beach has access to shelter beds, when they are available. However, there is a significant shortage of shelter beds available in Los Angeles County and wait lists for housing are extremely long. The City Council has approved $20,000 in the FY2022-2023 budget to use for securing temporary housing for people experiencing homelessness in Hermosa Beach. Hermosa Beach Police also have worked with other agencies in the past Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 602 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-114 to secure shelter beds for people experiencing homelessness. The City also implements outreach and engagement efforts under the Homelessness Plan with the following organizations: South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), Harbor Interfaith Services (HIS), People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health's Mental Evaluation Team, 1736 Family Crisis Center, South Bay Coalition to End Homelessness (SBCEH), Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, faith-based organizations, Hermosa Beach Community non-profit organizations, Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Watch, Beach Cities Health District, Hermosa Beach City School District, Los Angeles County Library, Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Lifeguard, and City agencies Elected and appointed officials, City Manager's office, Hermosa Beach Police Department, Community Services, Community Development/Code Enforcement, Public Works, Community Resources (Parks and Senior Center), and the Emergency Operations Center). In 2022, the City of Hermosa Beach began hosting Housing Initiative Courts on a monthly basis, to provide people experiencing homelessness an opportunity to avoid prosecution on non-violent misdemeanor charges in exchange for accepting judge-mandated services that can eventually lead to placement in housing. In 2023, the City also launched a grant-funded Mobile Crisis Response Pilot Program to help people experiencing homelessness and mental health crises. This supports a civilian team that responds to non- emergency and non-medical situations with individuals experiencing homelessness and in need of mental health services. This mobile crisis response team is trained to de-escalate situations and work with Harbor Interfaith Services, which assists with homelessness. Outreach efforts and services for persons experiencing homelessness are outlined in Table II-2, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Summary Actions, of this Housing Element. 6. Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors a. Zoning and Housing Type The City’s Zoning Map is presented in Figure D-58. The northern and eastern areas are predominantly zoned for single-family residential uses (R-1). The northernmost section of the City, north of 27th Street, the area along Hermosa Avenue north of 16th Street, and the area south of Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and the PCH have larger pockets zoned for two-family residential uses (R-2). The southwest section of the City has the largest areas zoned for multiple family residential uses (R-3). As discussed above, the southwest corner of the City also has the largest proportion of renter-occupied households (see Figure D-50). The southeastern corner of the City is comprised of nearly all R-1 zoning designations and has the smallest proportion of renters compared to other Hermosa Beach tracts. Consistent with zoning designations, the western side of the City has larger shares of housing structures with two or more units compared to the eastern side (Figure D-59). The western side of the City also contains block groups where more than 25% of households are LMI. All block groups on the eastern side of the City have LMI household populations below 25% (see Figure D-18). As discussed previously, the areas north of Pier Avenue and Aviation Boulevard have larger populations of persons living alone and elderly adults (see Figure D-15 and Figure D-16). Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 603 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-115 There are two mobile home parks in the City, one in tract 6210.05 (Marineland MHP) and one in tract 6211.04 (Hermosa Beach RV Court). According to the California Housing Partnership Affordable Housing Map and Benefits Calculator, there are no state- or federally-subsidized affordable homes in Hermosa Beach.19 19 California Housing Partnership – Affordable Housing Map and Benefits Calculator. Accessed May 2023. https://chpc.net/datatools/affordablehomes/. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 604 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-116 Figure D-58: Hermosa Beach Zoning Map (2021) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 605 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-117 Figure D-59: Structures with Two or More Units by Tract (2021) Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 606 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-118 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023. b. Lending Practices and Home Loan Trends A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the recent lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants. Table D-30 summarizes home purchase and improvement loan applications in Los Angeles County for 2021. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications along with the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. Overall, 671,854 households applied for loans for homes in Los Angeles County in 2021. Of the applications for home purchase loans, 63% were approved and 7.2% were denied. An additional 29.4% were withdrawn by the applicant, closed for incompleteness, or purchased. Home improvement loans were denied at the highest rate of 33%. Table D-30: Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications – LA County (2021) Loan Type Denied Other Total Home purchase 63.4% 7.2% 29.4% 132,322 Home improvement 47.6% 33.2% 19.2% 22,150 Refinancing 59.0% 9.6% 31.4% 310,635 Cash-out refinancing 60.1% 10.3% 29.6% 187,576 Other purpose 50.6% 30.5% 18.9% 17,361 Not applicable 9.4% 0.7% 89.8% 1,810 Note: Other = Withdrawn by applicant, closed for incompleteness, purchased loan. Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data (HMDA) – Los Angeles County, 2021. Table D-31 shows home loan applications in Los Angeles County in 2021 by race and ethnicity of applicants. Countywide, applicants of two or more minority races (19%), American Indian/Alaska Native applicants (18.2%), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander applicants (15.9%), and Black or African American applicants (15.7%) were denied at the highest rates. Hispanic/Latino applicants were denied at a higher rate (13.6%) compared to non-Hispanic applicants (10.8%). Asian applicants, joint race applicants, joint ethnicity applicants, and applicants of an unknown race were the only racial/ethnic groups with denial rates below 10.6%, the average for all loan applications. White applicants also had a lower denial rate of 11% compared to most racial/ethnic minority groups. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 607 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-119 Table D-31: Home Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – LA County (2021) Denied Other Total 2 or more minority races 54.7% 19.0% 26.3% 1,092 American Indian or Alaska Native 52.1% 18.2% 29.7% 3,078 Asian 67.5% 10.4% 22.1% 88,115 Black or African American 59.8% 15.7% 24.5% 32,425 Joint 70.6% 8.5% 21.0% 15,329 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 59.0% 15.9% 25.1% 1,796 Race Not Available 45.2% 9.5% 45.3% 226,397 White 67.2% 11.0% 21.8% 303,463 Hispanic or Latino 62.8% 13.6% 23.7% 130,061 Not Hispanic or Latino 66.8% 10.8% 22.4% 323,672 Joint 69.2% 9.9% 20.8% 17,198 Note: Other = Withdrawn by applicant, closed for incompleteness, purchased loan. Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data (HMDA) – Los Angeles County, 2021. C. Sites Inventory AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section. The City’s sites inventory is presented in Figure D-60 and shown by site, tract, and AFFH variable in Table D-32. For the purposes of this Assessment of Fair Housing, the sites analysis is further discussed with respect to the four Hermosa Beach tracts: 6210.01 northeast), 6210.05 (northwest), 6211.02 (southeast), 6211.04 (southwest). Hermosa Beach is an affluent area with high access to opportunities and resources. All areas of the City generally have low levels of disproportionate housing needs such as cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Further, the City’s RHNA strategy is distributed throughout Hermosa Beach and is not concentrated in a single tract or block group alone. Sites identified to meet the RHNA promote mixed income communities and new housing opportunities for lower income households in highest resource areas. In addition, the Housing Sites Inventory consists primarily of underutilized sites occupied by non-residential uses; therefore, there is not a substantial displacement risk of in these areas. However, if redevelopment is proposed on properties with existing housing units, displacement mitigation strategies will be required consistent with State law. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate conditions related to fair housing in Hermosa Beach. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 608 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-120 1. Northeast Hermosa Beach (Tract 6210.01) Tract 6210.01 is bound by the north and east City boundaries, Valley Drive to the west, and Pier Avenue/Aviation Boulevard to the south. This area is zoned primarily for single-family residential uses (R-1), with smaller pockets zoned for limited multiple family residential (R- 2B), multiple family residential (R-3), and two-family residential (R-2) uses. Non-residential zones in this section of the City include general and highway commercial (C-3), specific plan areas for both residential and commercial uses (SPA), and open space (OS). A total of 172 RHNA units over six sites are located in tract 6210.01, including 121 lower income units, 35 moderate income units, and 16 above moderate income units. Like all Hermosa Beach tracts, tract 6210.01 is a highest resource area and an RCAA. RHNA sites in this section of the City are in a block group with a non-White population of 26.5%, compared to 25% citywide, and an LMI household population of 14%, compared to 22.3% citywide. While this area has a smaller LMI household population compared to Hermosa Beach as a whole, a larger proportion of renters are cost burdened in this tract (45.6%) compared to households citywide (27.8%) and other Hermosa Beach tracts. As discussed in this Assessment of Fair Housing, this tract has a larger population of single-person households (householder living alone) and elderly adults compared to the southern tracts. Elderly populations are more likely to earn fixed or limited incomes and experience cost burden. Further, cost burden is based on annual earnings alone, which does not include Social Security payments, pensions, child support, public assistance, annuities, money derived from rental properties, interest, and dividends. As discussed previously, nearly 57% of households with a householder aged 65 or older in tract 6210.01 have household incomes, including annual earnings and other sources of income, of over $100,000. Cost burden is likely exaggerated in this tract due to the population of elderly adults residing in this tract. Tract 6210.01 also has a smaller proportion of cost burdened owners (23.8%) compared to the City (25.2%). The City’s RHNA strategy identifies sites that can accommodate both lower and moderate income units in tract 6210.01, promoting new housing opportunities for households of various income levels. The sites selected to meet the RHNA do not exacerbate conditions related to fair housing in northeast Hermosa Beach. 2. Northwest Hermosa Beach (Tract 6210.05) Tract 6210.05 is bound by the coast to the west, the northern City boundary, Valley Drive to the east, and Pier Avenue to the south. Tract 6210.05 is characterized by a mix of R-1 and R-2 zoning designations with smaller areas zoned for R-2B, R-3, and limited single-family residential (R-1A) uses. Non-residential zoning designations in tract 6210.05 include OS, SPA, limited business and residential (C-1), general commercial (C-2), and mobile home park MHP). There are five RHNA sites in this tract with a capacity for 85 units (46 lower income, 20 moderate income, and 19 above moderate income). Tract 6210.05 is a highest resource area and has been identified as an RCAA. Only 18.5% of the population in this area belongs to a racial or ethnic minority population. Comparatively, 25% of the population citywide is non-White. This tract does contain block groups with larger LMI household populations compared to the citywide average. Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5 are in a block group with an LMI household population of 35%, while site 1 is in a block group with an LMI household population of 22%. Site 1 has a capacity of 7 units, Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 609 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-121 all of which are allocated towards the lower income RHNA. Tract 6210.05 has a larger proportion of cost burdened renters compared to the southern tracts and a larger proportion of cost burdened owners compared to all City tracts. As discussed above, this tract has the largest population of persons living alone (28.2%) and persons aged 65 and older (21.2%) compared to other Hermosa Beach tracts. This area also contains block groups with lower median incomes. According to the HCD Data Viewer 2.0 based on the 2017-2021 ACS, tract 6210.05 has a median income of $134,032 compared to $150,417 in tract 6210.01, $168,977 in tract 6211.02, and $143,469 in tract 6211.04. One of the two mobile home parks in the City, Marineland MHP (60 units) is located in this tract. While the median household income in this tract is lower compared to other Hermosa Beach tracts, it is significantly higher than the countywide median of $76,367. While cost burden is heightened in this tract, this is likely due to the elderly population with fixed or limited incomes. As discussed above, cost burden is based on annual earnings alone, and does not include Social Security payments, pensions, child support, public assistance, annuities, money derived from rental properties, interest, and dividends. Nearly 45% of households with a householder aged 65 or older earn more than $100,000 and only 9% earn less than $25,000. Overall, like Hermosa Beach as a whole, tract 6210.05 is an affluent area with highly accessible opportunities and resources. Further, the RHNA strategy allocates both lower and moderate income units in this tract, ensuring units of a single income level are not concentrated in this area alone. The City’s RHNA strategy in northwest Hermosa Beach does not exacerbate existing fair housing issues. 3. Southeast Hermosa Beach (Tract 6211.02) Tract 6211.02 is bound by the south and east City boundaries, Aviation Boulevard to the north, and the PCH to the west. Tract 6211.02 is primarily zoned for R-1 uses with smaller pockets zoned for R-2, R-2B, R-3, SPA, OS, C-3, and residential-professional (R-P). The City has identified eight RHNA sites with a capacity of 133 units, including 40 lower income units, 65 moderate income units, and 28 above moderate income units. Tract 6211.02 has been identified as a highest resource area and RCAA. In the area where RHNA sites are located, 28% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group 19.8% of renters are cost burdened, and 34.2% of owners are cost burdened. This area has a slightly larger non-White population and population of cost burdened owners compared to the City (25% and 25.2%, respectively). According to 2022 HUD CHAS data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, 27.8% of renters citywide are cost burdened. Sites 14, 15, 19, and 21 are in block groups where 16% of households are LMI and sites 23, 27, 28, and 29 are in block groups where 15% of households are LMI. Tract 6211.02 has the smallest renter (32.9%) and cost burdened renter (19.8%) populations compared to other Hermosa Beach block groups. Despite tract 6211.02 being zoned primarily for single-family residential uses that are typically more suitable for above moderate income units, the City’s RHNA strategy includes sites that can accommodate 22 lower income and 65 moderate income units. The City identifies a mix of sites suitable for households of variable income levels in this section of the City. RHNA sites in tract 6211.02 would not exacerbate conditions related to fair housing. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 610 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-122 4. Southwest Hermosa Beach (Tract 6211.04) Tract 6211.04 is in the southwest corner of Hermosa Beach and is bound by the coast to the west, the southern City boundary, the PCH to the east, and Pier Avenue to the north. Unlike other areas in Hermosa Beach, there is only one small section of tract 6211.04 along Ardmore Avenue that is zoned R-1. Most of the area west of Valley Drive is zoned R-3 and most of the area between Valley Drive and the PCH is zoned R-2. Other zoning designations in tract 6211.04 include C-1, C-2, SPA, OS, R-P, C-3, residential planned development (RPD), and light manufacturing (M-1). There are 10 RHNA sites intract 6211.04 with a capacity of 209 units (142 lower income, 58 moderate income, and 9 above moderate). Like all tracts in the City, tract 6211.04 is a highest resource area and RCAA. Only 20.2% of the population where RHNA units are located belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group and only 10% of households are LMI. Comparatively, 25% of the population citywide is non- White and 22.3% are LMI households. Tract 6211.04 has larger populations of cost burdened renters and owners (33.9% and 37.7%) compared to the City as a whole (27.8% and 25.2%). Consistent with zoning designations, this tract has the largest renter population of 60.2% compared to other tracts in the City. This tract generally has small populations of interest racial/ethnic minority populations, persons with disabilities, LMI households, etc.) and low rates of disproportionate housing needs (cost burden, overcrowding, etc.). This tract also has the highest proportion of new housing units built in 1990 or later. Only 38.6% of housing units in this tract were built prior to 1970 compared to 52% citywide. Like the entirety of Hermosa Beach, tract 6211.04 is an affluent area with few fair housing issues and high access to opportunities. The RHNA strategy distributes both lower and moderate income units throughout the City including in tract 6211.04, ensuring sites that can accommodate affordable housing are not concentrated in a single area of the City. RHNA sites in tract 6211.04 promote mixed income communities, 142 lower income units and 58 moderate income units, and provide new housing opportunities for lower income households in high resource areas. The City’s RHNA strategy in tract 6211.04 does not exacerbate existing fair housing issues. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 611 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-123 Table D-32: Distribution of RHNA Sites and Units by Tract and AFFH Variable Tract/Site # of HHs in Tract Total Capacity ( Units) Non- White LMI HHs* TCAC Opp. Cat. Overpay Renter HH Overpay Owner HH RCAA? Lower Moderate 12) 1601 Pacific Coast Highway (4185-011-061) 96 64 16 16 26.5% 14% Highest 45.6% 23.8% Yes 13) 1100 Pacific Coast Highway (4185-011-039) 14 14 0 0 26.5% 14% Highest 45.6% 23.8% Yes 16) 1021 and 1035 AVIATION (4185-014-001, 4185-014- 015) 8 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 0 6210.05 2,460 85 46 20 19 18.3% 22% - 35% Highest 34.0% 56.5% Yes 44 44 0 0 18.3% 35.0% Highest 34.0% 56.5% Yes 16 0 6 10 18.3% 35.0% Highest 34.0% 56.5% Yes 6211.02 1,231 133 40 65 28 28.0% 15% - 16% Highest 19.8% 34.2% Yes 16 0 16 0 28.0% 16.0% Highest 19.8% 34.2% Yes 6 0 6 0 28.0% 16.0% Highest 19.8% 34.2% Yes Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 612 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-124 Tract/Site HHs in Tract Capacity ( Units) Non- White LMI HHs* TCAC Opp. Cat. Overpay Renter HH Overpay Owner HH RCAA? Lower Moderate 30) 8, 18, 26 Pacific Coast Highway and 824 1st Street 4186-031-001, 002, -003, -102, -036) 18 18 0 0 28.0% 15.0% Highest 19.8% 34.2% Yes 6211.04 3,217 209 142 58 9 20.2% 10% Highest 33.9% 37.7% Yes Sites within the same tract may be located in different block groups. LMI household populations are estimated at the block group level and may vary between block groups. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 613 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-125 Figure D-60: Sites Inventory Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 614 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-126 D. Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors Contributing factors to fair housing issues. Under the Federal consolidated planning process, the Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice is the primary tool for addressing fair housing issues. The City of Hermosa Beach was a participating city with the County of Los Angeles in the preparation of the 2018 AI. Based on extensive analysis of housing and community indicators, and the input of residents, a list of impediments to fair housing choice was developed. 1. Los Angeles County Analysis of Impediments Appendix D includes a summary of the contributing factors to fair housing issues pertaining specifically to the Urban County and the Housing Authority of Los Angeles County HACoLA) service areas, which includes Hermosa Beach. These items are prioritized according to the following criteria: 1. High: Impediments/Contributing factors that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice, especially in R/ECAP areas, affecting housing, those impacting persons with disabilities, and are core functions of HACoLA or the Community Development Commission (CDC). 2. Moderate: Impediments/ Contributing factors that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice, especially in R/ECAP areas, affecting housing, those impacting persons with disabilities, and are core functions of HACoLA or the CDC, but the CDC or HACoLA may only have limited capacity to make a significant impact; or may not be within the core functions of HACoLA or the CDC. 3. Low: Impediments/Contributing factors that may have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice but are not within the core functions of HACoLA or the CDC or not within the capacity of these organizations to make significant impact, or not specific to R/ECAP neighborhoods, or have a slight or largely indirect impact on fair housing choice. The impediments/contributing factors identified and included in Appendix D are in relation to the fair housing issues listed below. The prioritization of these contributing factors relates to the ability of the CDC and HACoLA to address the fair housing issues. A low priority does not diminish the importance of the factor in the Urban County or HACoLA service areas but reflects the priority in addressing issues of fair housing. Segregation Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) Disparities in Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs Discrimination or violations of civil rights laws or regulations related to housing As a participating city in the Los Angeles County CDBG program, Hermosa Beach has access to fair housing outreach, education, and counseling on housing discrimination complaints. The City will continue to advertise the fair housing program through placement Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 615 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-127 of fair housing service brochures at the public counter, at the Senior Center and on the City website. Apartment owners and managers are provided with current information about fair housing issues, rights and responsibilities. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles conducts seminars on State, Federal and local Fair Housing laws and compliance issues. In addition, the City will: Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement requirements. Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the applicable development regulations. Work with the County to implement the regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and HUD Consolidated Plan. Facilitate public education and outreach by posting informational flyers on fair housing at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website. Conduct public meetings at suitable times, accessible to persons with disabilities, and near public transit. Resources will be invested to provide interpretation and translation services when requested at public meetings when feasible. Encourage community and stakeholder engagement during development decisions. 2. Contributing Factors a. Lack of Fair Housing Testing, Education, and Outreach The City lacks information on fair housing law and discrimination complaint filing procedures on the City website. Current outreach practices may not provide sufficient information related to fair housing, including federal and state fair housing law, and affordable housing opportunities. Cost burdened households throughout the City may be unaware of affordable housing opportunities. As part of the Urban County program, HRC serves Hermosa Beach under contract with LACDA. HRC’s contract with LACDA does not include reporting fair housing records by participating jurisdiction. Service records may reveal gaps in fair housing testing, education, and outreach. A majority of fair housing discrimination cases in Los Angeles County were filed on the basis of disability. While HRC records are not available for Hermosa Beach, the City may lack sufficient education and outreach related to reasonable accommodations and ADA laws based on the proportion of complaints related to disability status countywide. Contributing Factors Lack of fair housing service records Lack of fair housing testing Lack of monitoring Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 616 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-128 Lack of targeted outreach Priority Level High b. Substandard Housing Conditions While the City does not have a large proportion of households lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities, approximately 81% of housing units are aged 30 years or older, including 52% aged 50 years or older, and may require minor or major rehabilitation. Tracts 6210.05 and 6211.02 have the highest concentration of older housing units, but aging housing units are prevalent citywide. Contributing Factors Age of housing stock Cost of repairs or rehabilitation Priority Level Low c. Disparities in Disproportionate Housing Needs Racial/ethnic minority populations represent only 25% of the population according to the 2016-2020 ACS. However, Asian, American Indian, and Hispanic households are significantly more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden. The American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations also have poverty rates of 12.2% and 10%, respectively, compared to only 4.2% citywide. The Black/African American population in the City has a median household income of $86,056, while all other racial/ethnic groups have median household incomes exceeding $139,000. In the City, Black/African American householders, American Indian/Alaska Native householders, and householders of some other race (race other than those included in the ACS) are significantly less likely to own their homes compared to White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino householders. Contributing Factors Unaffordable rental prices Availability of affordable housing Private discrimination Priority Medium Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 617 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-129 d. Lack of Affordable Housing and Housing Mobility Hermosa Beach’s lack of affordable housing has a disproportionate impact on low- and moderate-income households who are more likely to be households of color. As such, Hermosa Beach lacks racial and ethnic diversity relative to the County overall. Racial/ethnic minority populations are also more likely to experience housing problems, such as cost burden and overcrowding, and have reduced access to opportunities, such as employment opportunities and better environmental conditions, compared to White populations. Additionally, Hermosa Beach is generally an affluent community with higher income earners. the lack of affordable housing in Hermosa Beach limits housing mobility for lower income households, including households who may work in Hermosa Beach but cannot afford to live in the City. Contributing Factors High land, rental, and ownership housing costs Availability of affordable housing Priority High 3. Conclusion This analysis indicates that the primary barrier to fair housing in the city is high housing cost, which has the effect of limiting access by lower-income households to the high opportunities and resources available in Hermosa Beach. There is no evidence to suggest that discrimination against racial groups or persons with disabilities is a major issue. The Housing Policy Plan includes several programs intended to encourage and facilitate multi-family and mixed-use development to accommodate low- and moderate-income housing, and also encourage the provision of accessory dwelling units, which can expand affordable housing opportunities for lower-income persons such as care-givers, household employees and others working in service occupations. Program 12 describes actions the City will take to affirmatively further fair housing and address any issues of housing discrimination that may arise. Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 618 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-130 Racial Characteristics – Hermosa Beach Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data Viewer, 2021 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 619 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-131 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty – Hermosa Beach Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 620 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-132 Poverty Status – Hermosa Beach Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data Viewer, 2021 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 621 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-133 Population with a Disability – Hermosa Beach Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data Viewer, 2021 Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 622 of 764 Housing Element Technical Report Adopted December 21, 2021 / August 8, 2023 CERTIFIED August 1, 2024 Revised January, May, June 2024 D-134 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 623 of 764 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT 71 Commercial Commercial designations provide for a wide variety of retail, restaurant, office and other uses that provide goods or services. Commercial designations are organized based on the scale and type of goods or services provided. The most localized designations are intended to serve a neighborhood and residents within the immediate vicinity, while other commercial designations are intended to serve the entire community or the region. of retail, restaurant, office, and mixed-uses including other residential). that provide goods or services. Commercial designations are organized based on the scale and type of goods or services provided. The most localized designations are intended to serve a neighborhood and residents within the immediate vicinity, while other commercial designations are intended to serve the provide space for production, design and manufacturing uses that support the local employment base and produce goods and services that enhance the brand of Hermosa Beach as a creative and innovative community. Uses that are considered light industrial are to be designed and sited in a manner that ensures their compatibility with surrounding uses. provide space for production, design and manufacturing uses that support the local employment base and produce goods and services that enhance the brand of Hermosa Beach as a creative and innovative community. Uses that are considered light industrial are to be designed and sited in a manner that ensures their compatibility with surrounding uses. Residential uses, such as live work and artist space would be also be community-oriented uses such as schools, parks, community facilities, administrative offices or buildings, and space for essential services and utility needs. Institutional uses also vary in scale from parkettes at few thousand square feet to the beach, which includes approximately 63 acres in community-oriented uses such as schools, parks, community facilities, administrative offices or buildings, and space for essential services and utility needs. Institutional uses also vary in scale from parkettes at few thousand square feet to the beach, which includes approximately 63 acres in size. EXHIBITCDocusignEnvelopeID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 624 of 764 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT sited within such uses as adaptive re-use of facilities or best use of resources for facilities no longer in Commercial (CC) Appropriate Land Uses This designation provides space for locally oriented commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services. Uses on the ground floor are reserved for retail, restaurant, and other sales-tax revenue generating uses, while offices and personal service uses are encouraged on upper floors. Residential uses are not allowed in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect retail, office, and service uses that diversify the City’s tax base. commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services. Uses on the ground floor are reserved for retail, restaurant, and other sales-tax revenue generating uses, while offices and personal service uses are encouraged on upper floors. Residential uses are not allowed in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect retail, office, and service uses that diversify the City’s tax base. Mixed use developments (including residential uses) may be Commercial (GC) Purpose key entryways and intersections to Hermosa Beach to offer a greater variety of employment, retail, and economic activity to the community. The Gateway Commercial designation also plays a role in providing services and amenities to visitors and the region by encouraging hotels and larger employment centers to be relocated in this area. With the Gateway Commercial designation appropriately applied to larger sites, they are intended to provide both commercial services as well as facilities that benefit the local community. key entryways and intersections to Hermosa Beach to offer a greater variety of employment, retail, and economic activity to the community. The Gateway Commercial designation also plays a role in providing services and amenities to visitors and the region by encouraging hotels and larger employment centers to be relocated in this area. With the Gateway Commercial designation appropriately applied to larger sites, they are intended to provide both commercial services as well as mixed-use (including residential) developments facilities that benefit the local Commercial ground floor should include community or floor should include community or regionally Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 625 of 764 3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT Appropriate Land Uses visitor office uses. Professional and medical offices and hotels providing lower cost visitor accommodations are also allowed in this designation. Public assembly, recreational, and other community facilities which are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards enhancing the gateway commercial district may also be allowed. Parking facilities will serve onsite uses and are encouraged to explore shared parking agreements with nearby commercial uses to encourage a “park once” strategy. hotels providing lower cost visitor accommodations are also allowed in this designation. Public assembly, recreational, and other community facilities which are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards enhancing the gateway commercial district may also be allowed; this includes mixed use (including residential) developments. Parking facilities will serve onsite uses and are encouraged to explore shared parking agreements with nearby commercial uses to SC) Purpose The Service Commercial designation is intended to provide adequate space specifically for specialty goods and services that serve residents and the region. These businesses often require indoor or outdoor warehousing or storage space to display or sell their inventory, and caution is taken to ensure they are located in a manner that minimizes their impact on nearby residential, retail, or office uses. Service Commercial uses often attract customers for a specific item or service, compared to a traditional retail district where customers may visit many businesses within a single trip. provide adequate space specifically for specialty goods and services that serve residents and the region. These businesses often require indoor or outdoor warehousing or storage space to display or sell their inventory, and caution is taken to ensure they are located in a manner that minimizes their impact on nearby residential, retail, or office uses. Service Commercial uses often attract customers for a specific item or service, compared to a traditional retail district where customers may visit many businesses within a single trip. Occasionally, mixed use development (including residential uses) may be appropriately sited. Appropriate Land Uses The Service Commercial designation is reserved for the provision of specialty goods and services, primarily related to home and automotive needs. Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto provide adequate space specifically for specialty goods and services that serve residents and the region. These businesses often require indoor or Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 626 of 764 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT are the prioritized use with this designation. Retail trade and warehousing facilities are allowed as an may be appropriately sited. Industrial Appropriate Land Uses This designation is reserved for the provision of production uses for light manufacturing, creative art, or design services. Flexible use spaces, co- working offices, and creative or “maker” industry incubator spaces are also permitted. Professional office or specialty retail are allowed only as an accessory in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect industry and production uses that diversify the City’s tax base. production uses for light manufacturing, creative art, or design services. Flexible use spaces, co- working offices, and creative or “maker” industry incubator spaces are also permitted. Professional office or specialty retail are allowed only as an accessory in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect industry and production uses that diversify the City’s tax base. Residential uses, such as live work and artist space would be permitted in the Creative Light land use Appropriate Land Uses Civic-related administrative offices, community space, operational yards, and educational or institutional facilities are the primary uses allowed in this designation. Public utility structures or corridors, plazas, and historic landmarks or monuments are also allowed this designation. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be allowed in this designation when co-located with public buildings and determined to be compatible with and avoid nuisances to surrounding uses. space, operational yards, and educational or institutional facilities are the primary uses allowed in this designation. Public utility structures or corridors, plazas, and historic landmarks or monuments are also allowed this designation. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be allowed in this designation when co-located with public buildings and determined to be compatible with and avoid nuisances to surrounding uses. Occasionally, residential uses may be appropriately sited within such uses as adaptive re-use of facilities or the best use of resources for facilities no longer Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 627 of 764 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Hermosa Beach ) September 18, 2024 Certification of Council Action RESOLUTION NO. RES-24-7453 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-01, RE-ADOPTING THE 2021-2029 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AS CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) I, Myra Maravilla, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. RES-24-7453 was duly approved and adopted by the City Council of said City at its regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September, 2024 and passed by the following vote: AYES: MAYOR FRANCOIS, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE SAEMANN, COUNCILMEMBERS DETOY, JACKSON AND MASSEY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Myra Maravilla, City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 7742F62B-5F28-4B9A-B379-408539F9D3D1 Page 628 of 764 XXXXX 20-006 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETSCALE: 1" = 20' LEGAL DESCRIPTION JOB ADDRESS SUBDIVIDER 6/1/2020 ENGINEER DENN ENGINEERS DATE GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 3914 DEL AMO BLVD., STE. 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 310-542-9433 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE EXISTING BUILDING CONCRETE BRICK WOOD DECK 106.76 EXISTING ELEVATION BLOCK WALL LEGEND 100 EXISTING CONTOUR FINISH FLOOR GARAGE FINISH FLOOR LEAD AND TAG TOP OF CURB FLOW LINE TOP OF WALL TOP OF DVWY APRON BEGINNING OF CURB RET SPIKE FOUND WESTERLY PROPERTY CORNER FF GFF L&T TC FL TW TX BCR SPK FD W'LY PC X EXISTING FENCE NORTHERLYN'LY SPIKE AND WASHERS&W POWER POLEPP GUY WIREGW STK STAKE PROPERTY LINEPL, P/L E'LY EASTERLY MH MANHOLE SOUTHERLYS'LY WATER METERWM BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SET ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE REFER TO THE NOTATION ON THE PLANS FOR OFFSET DISTANCES. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT DENN ENGINEERS FOR CLARIFICATION AT : (310) 542-9433, M-F 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM. NOTE: ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TRACT NO. 83011 1st STREET PARTNERS, LLC ATTN: LUIGI SCHIAPPA 2040 LOMITA BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 LOMITA, CA 90717 PHONE: 310 373-8555 LOTS 39, 40 AND 41, TRAFTON HEIGHTS, M.B. 10-72. APN 4186-026-047 911 1ST STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 20-0061 NOTES SPECIAL NOTE: THIS SURVEY WAS NOT PERFORMED BY DENN ENGINEERS. SURVEY INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO DENN ENGINEERS BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER FOR USE IN PREPARING THIS TENTATIVE TRACT. 1. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL UTILITIES ARE LOCATED IN ADJACENT STREETS. 3. THIS IS A 13 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 1 COMMERCIAL UNIT. 4. WATER SUPPLY IS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY. 5. SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL IS TO AN 8" NON-REINF. CONC. PUBLIC LINE. THE 8" CONC. PIPE IS LOCATED IN 1ST STREET; APPROXIMATE DEPTH = 6'±. 6. SEE SOILS REPORT FOR POTENTIAL FILL ON THIS SITE. 7. SITE DRAINAGE IS SURFACE FLOW WITH DISCHARGE TO ADJACENT STREETS. SW'LY LINE OF LOT 38, TRAFTON HEIGHTS AND PARCEL MAP NO. 70888, PMB 372-35-39. NE'LY LINE OF LOT 42, TRAFTON HEIGHTS, MB 10-169SE'LY LINE OF LOTS 36, 37, AND 38,HOME BUILDERS' PLACE, M.B. 10-72S 68°45'00" W 120'(R) 119.61'(M)S 68°45'00" W 120'(R) 119.61'(M)S 21°15'00" E 168.44'(R) 168.36'(M) S 21°15'00" E 168.44'(R) 168.36'(M) AREA = 20,213 SF (R) (EXISTING CONDITIONS) REV.: 6-25-2024 Page 629 of 764 20-006 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETSCALE: 1" = 20' IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 83011 20-0061 SW'LY LINE OF LOT 38, TRAFTON HEIGHTS AND PARCEL MAP NO. 70888, PMB 372-35-39. NE'LY LINE OF LOT 42, TRAFTON HEIGHTS, MB 10-169SE'LY LINE OF LOTS 36, 37, AND 38,HOME BUILDERS' PLACE, M.B. 10-72S 68°45'00" W 120'(R) 119.61'(M)S 68°45'00" W 120'(R) 119.61'(M)S 21°15'00" E 168.44'(R) 168.36'(M) S 21°15'00" E 168.44'(R) 168.36'(M) AREA = 20,213 SF (R) (PROPOSED) PRIVATE DRIVEWAY & FIRE LANE (NO PARKING) 6/1/2020 ENGINEER DENN ENGINEERS DATE GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 3914 DEL AMO BLVD., STE. 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 310-542-9433 REV.: 6-25-2024 2'-8"393 5'-8" GUEST PARKING GUEST PARKING (3) (2)(1) GUEST PARKING TRASH BUILDING 1 4 UNITS (3 RESIDENTIAL + 1 COMMERCIAL) BUILDING 2 (3-RESIDENTIAL UNITS) BUILDING 4 (3-RESIDENTIAL UNITS) BUILDING 3 (3-RESIDENTIAL UNITS) COMMERCIAL Page 630 of 764 Hopkins AveArdmo re A ve Paci fi cCoastHwyBar neyCtOcean View Ave 1st St V alleyDr 4th St 1s t S t Meyer Ct 1st Pl 4th St 3rd St Gentry St3rd St 4th St 2nd St Hill S t 5th St 1st Pl 1st S t 4th St 2nd St Project Zoning MapPlanning Commission July 28, 2025 911 1st St APN: 4186-026-047 Zone: SPA-7-HE Specific Plan Area 7, Housing Element Overlay Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, TTM Description Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) -HE Housing Element Overlay 500' Notification Radius Page 631 of 764 03.1.1 Critical Height Worksheet 03.1.2 Critical Height Worksheet L1 Landscape Plans Page 632 of 764 ADA CommercialSpace SCE SCE (OFFICE - GENERAL) Page 633 of 764 7’ MAY 23, 2024 ㄶ 〳⸱ SAMPLE P.C. Elevation 114.6 P.C. Elevation 98.6 (Point C)(Point A) Lot Length = 168.4'Lot Length = 168.4 P.C. Elevation 118.1 Lot Width = 119.66 P.C. Elevation 103 (Point D)(Point B) Dotted Lines = Property Lines Critical Height Calculation For: Address CP1 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. B 103 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-AB'9.98 Elev. AB': 98.86 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-CD'9.98 Elev.CD': 114.81 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CP1 13.75 Elev. CP1: 100.70 Height Limit 30 Max. Ht. @ CP1:130.70 Prop. Ht. @ CP1:129.23 CP2 CP5 CP8 CP11 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-AB'9.98 Length A-AB'93.77 Length A-AB'160.19 Length A-AB'75.59 Elev. AB': 98.86 Elev. AB': 101.05 Elev. AB': 102.79 Elev. AB': 100.58 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-CD'9.98 Length C-CD'93.77 Length C-CD'160.19 Length C-CD'75.59 Elev.CD': 114.81 Elev.CD': 116.55 Elev.CD': 117.93 Elev.CD': 116.17 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CP2 27.1 Length AB'-CP5 14.1 Length AB'-CP8 26.96 Length AB'-CP11 83.79 Elev. CP2: 102.48 Elev. CP5: 102.88 Elev. CP8: 106.20 Elev. CP11: 111.51 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Max. Ht. @ CP2:132.48 Max. Ht. @ CP5:132.88 Max. Ht. @ CP8:136.20 Max. Ht. @ CP11:141.51 Prop. Ht. @ CP2:130.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP5:131.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP8:134.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP11:139.73 Lowest property corner (PC) elevation, this elevation will be reference as A from hereon PC elevation of corner at end of length, this elevation point will be reference as B Distance from A to B (lot length) PC elevation of corner across width of A, this elevation point will be reference as C from hereon Distance from A to Critical Point along Line AB PC elevation of corner at end of length of C, this elevation point will be reference as D Distance from C to D (lot length) Distance from C to Critical Point along Line CD Lot width at Critical Point Allowable height limit in the R-3 zone (25' limit for R-1 zone) Distance from Line AB to Critical Point (width) 03.1.1 Page 636 of 764 〳⸱ CP3 CP6 CP9 CP12 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-AB'75.59 Length A-AB'93.77 Length A-AB'160.19 Length A-AB'9.98 Elev. AB': 100.58 Elev. AB': 101.05 Elev. AB': 102.79 Elev. AB': 98.86 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-CD'75.59 Length C-CD'93.77 Length C-CD'160.19 Length C-CD'9.98 Elev.CD': 116.17 Elev.CD': 116.55 Elev.CD': 117.93 Elev.CD': 114.81 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CP3 14.1 Length AB'-CP6 26.96 Length AB'-CP9 83.79 Length AB'-CP12 83.79 Elev. CP3 102.42 Elev. CP6: 104.55 Elev. CP9: 113.40 Elev. CP12: 110.04 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Max. Ht. @ CP3:132.42 Max. Ht. @ CP6:134.55 Max. Ht. @ CP9:143.40 Max. Ht. @ CP12:140.04 Prop. Ht. @ CP3:131.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP6:132.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP9:139.73 Prop. Ht. @ CP12:139.73 CP4 CP7 CP10 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. A 98.6 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Elev. Pt. B 103 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-B 168.4 Length A-AB'75.59 Length A-AB'160.19 Length A-AB'93.77 Elev. AB': 100.58 Elev. AB': 102.79 Elev. AB': 101.05 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. C 114.6 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Elev. Pt. D 118.1 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-D 168.4 Length C-CD'75.59 Length C-CD'160.19 Length C-CD'93.77 Elev.CD': 116.17 Elev.CD': 117.93 Elev.CD': 116.55 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CD'119.51 Length AB'-CP4 26.96 Length AB'-CP7 14.1 Length AB'-CP10 83.79 Elev. CP4: 104.09 Elev. CP7: 104.57 Elev. CP10: 111.92 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Height Limit 30 Max. Ht. @ CP4:134.09 Max. Ht. @ CP7:134.57 Max. Ht. @ CP10:141.92 Prop. Ht. @ CP4:132.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP7:133.23 Prop. Ht. @ CP10:139.73 03.1.2 Page 637 of 764 MAY 23, 2024 MAY 23, 2024 MAY 23, 2024 245 SF COMMERCIAL 2BR + 2.5 BA + 2-CAR GARAGE 1,303 SF LIVABLE + 408 SF GARAGE + 245 SF COMMERCIAL PRIVATE STORAGE: 210 SF TOWNHOME - PLAN A.C MAY 23, 2024 〶 䝡牡来 ㅓ 吠 Conceptual Imagery MAY 23, 2024 PLANS PREPARED FOR:Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet: REVISIONS BY PREPARED BY:CRAIG WEBER & ASSOCIATES950 SANTIAGO AVE., LONG BEACH, CA 90804PH/FAX 562.494.0411911 1st STREET,HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254PROJECT:SEPT 2024 1" = 10' KGW 1553 CRAIG WEBER & ASSOCIATESLUIGI SCHIAPPA DEVELOPMENT2040 LOMITA BOULEVARD SUITE 100LOMITA, CA 90717 310.936.503512 - UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTAPN#: 4186-026-047CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 T3 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUST1 CERCIS 'FOREST PANSY'T4 PODOCARPUS HENKELII S4 ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS'S3 MYRTUS 'COMPACTA' T2 LAGERSTROEMIA X 'BILOXI' WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ETo) 42.6 PLANT DESCRIP.PLANT FACTOR (PF)IRRIGATION METHOD IRRIG. EFFICIENCY (IE)ETAF (PF / IE)LAND. AREA ETAF X AREA ETWU MODERATE WATER 0.5 DRIP 0.81 0.62 140 87 2,298 GAL. / YR. LOW WATER 0.2 DRIP 0.81 0.25 2,154 539 14,236 GAL. / YR. NO WATER (PERMEABLE PAVING AREAS)338 0 0 GAL. / YR. TOTAL 2,632 S.F.626 ETWU TOTAL 16,534 GAL. / YR. MAWA TOTAL 38,234 GAL. / YR. MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA) MAWA = (ETo) (0.62) [(ETAF X LA) + ((1-ETAF) X SLA)] MAWA = (42.6) (0.62) [(0.55 X 2,632) + (0.45 X 0)] MAWA = 38,234 GAL. / YR. ETAF CALCULATIONS (AVERAGE ETAF FOR REGULAR LANDSCAPE AREAS MUST BE .55 OR BELOW FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS) TOTAL ETAF X AREA = 626 TOTAL AREA = 2,632 S.F. AVERAGE ETAF = 0.24 MATERIAL LIST NO.BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE QTY HEIGHT X WIDTH WUCOLS REMARKS RATING TREES: T1 CERCIS CANADENSIS 'FOREST PANSY'EASTERN REDBUD 24" BOX 4 15-20' X 15-20'LOW STD. TRUNK T2 LAGERSTROEMIA X 'BILOXI'CRAPE MYRTLE 24" BOX 6 20' X 10-12'MODERATE STD. TRUNK T3 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24" BOX 6 25-35' X 20'MODERATE STD. TRUNK T4 PODOCARPUS HENKELII HENKEL FERN PINE 15 GAL.16 15-20' X 5'MODERATE COLUMNAR FORM SHRUBS: S1 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL.17 3' X 3'LOW S2 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY 5 GAL.79 2' X 2'LOW S3 MYRTUS COMMUNIS 'COMPACTA'COMPACT MYRTLE 5 GAL.252 2-4' X 1-2'LOW S4 ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS'PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 5 GAL.29 1-2' X 2-3'LOW S5 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL.46 3-4' X 3-4'LOW GROUNDCOVERS: G1 CARISSA 'GREEN CARPET'PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM 1 GAL.24" o.c.1-1 1/2' X 2-3'LOW G2 CISTANTHE GRANDIFLORA ROCK PURSLANE 1 GAL.18" o.c.1' X 2'LOW G3 FESTUCA OVINA GLAUCA BLUE FESCUE 4" POT 12" o.c.1' X 1'LOW PERMEABLE PAVING: PP PERMEABLE PAVER BY BELGARD OR EQUAL, SELECTION BY OWNER BENCH: B1 5' BENCH, SELECTION BY OWNER 3 GENERAL NOTES PROJECT: 12 - UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 911 1ST STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / EXHIBIT PREPARER: CRAIG WEBER & ASSOCIATES 950 SANTIAGO AVENUE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90804 562.494.0411 PROJECT OWNER / APPLICANT: LUIGI SCHIAPPA DEVELOPMENT 2040 LOMITA BOULEVARD, STE. 100 LOMITA, CALIFORNIA 90717 CONTACT: LORENZO SCHIAPPA (310.936.5035) LANDSCAPE AREA: ON SITE PLANTING AREA = 1,594 SQ. FT. R-O-W PLANTING AREA = 700 SQ. FT. ON-SITE PERMEABLE PAVING AREA = 180 SQ. FT. R-O-W PERMEABLE PAVING AREA = 158 SQ. FT. TOTAL PROJECT LANDSCAPE AREA = 2,632 SQ. FT. WATER SUPPLY TYPE: POTABLE WATER S5 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA T3 S3 T4 S5 S1T2 G1 CARISSA 'GREEN CARPET' T2 T3 S1 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM S2 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS G2 CISTANTHE GRANDIFLORA G3 FESTUCA GLAUCA T1S3G1T4 S1 S5 S2 SCALE: 1" = 10' AC AC AC AC ACACACACACAC ACAC AC B1B2 B4 1st StreetB3 MAIL MAIL TRASHTRASHTRASHTRASH TRASH TRASH TRASH TRASHTRASH TRASH TRASHTRASH SCE SCE P.L. 119' 7"P.L. 168' 4" P.L. 168' 4"P.L. 119' 7"DRIVE AISLE G3 T2 G2 S4 S4 T2 S2 G3 PP PP B1 Page 659 of 764 1 911 FIRST STREET PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located at 911 1st Street, consists of three sloped lots totaling 0.46-acres. Currently, the site is currently developed as two parking lots and features ornamental vegetation including three trees. It also includes concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls along the property perimeter and in the middle, dividing the two parking lots. There are two iron gates that provide vehicle access to each parking lot. The site has a notable slope, rising approximately 16 feet from east to west along the property frontage, and it also slopes upward from south to north, increasing in height by about five feet. The project proposes to develop the site to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 12 residential units and a 245-square-foot commercial unit within four, three-story (29’), buildings with an attached two-car garage for each residential unit. The project includes eight plan types ranging in size from 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet. The project would have seven guest parking spaces, consisting of one American with Disabilities Act (ADA) stall and five standard stalls for the residential units; and one ADA stall for the commercial unit. Residential units would have a modern architectural style utilizing several materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) and recesses in the façade to break up massing. The project proposes a landscaped area of 3,658 square feet. This includes 2,482 square feet of common open space and 2,400 square feet of private open space. Each unit will have access to 200 square feet of private open space. In addition, the project will eliminate the two existing curb cuts and construct a single curb cut and driveway approach at the middle of the property. The project will also involve the removal of three on-site trees, grading, and the installation of a new Low Impact Development (LID) system to manage on-site drainage effectively. Additionally, off- site improvements will include a new driveway approach, street trees, and new sewer and water connections. The project requires the Planning Commission’s review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 13 condominiums and professional office use and Precise Development Plan for the purposes of promoting architectural unity, enhancing design, and ensuring neighborhood compatibility of the proposed twelve-unit condominium with 245-square-foot commercial unit. Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to consolidate three lots into a single ground lot and create a 13-unit condominium subdivision including 12 residential units and one commercial unit. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT The 911 First Street Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project is exempt in accordance with Section 15332 which addresses in-fill development projects. Page 660 of 764 2 15332 – IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below. A brief explanation is given to support the finding that the project meets each of the five conditions, (a) through (e). (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial (CC) which identifies mixed- use developments as an appropriate land use (PLAN Hermosa, page 76 as amended by City Council Resolution No. 24-7453). As defined in the General Plan a mixed-use development is defined as, “Any mixture of land uses on a single parcel, including mixtures of residences with commercial, offices with retail, or visitor accommodation with offices and retail. As distinguished from a single-use land use designation or zone, mixed use refers to an authorized variety of uses for buildings and structures in a particular area.” (PLAN Hermosa, page 16). The project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan as detailed in the table below. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high-quality life for residents Policy 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designated for multi-family housing Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seeks to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. The proposed project site is located within walking distance to Pacific Coast Highway, which has numerous commercial business The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Page 661 of 764 3 The project proposes a modern architectural style and the use of several different materials (i.e. metal coping, wood railings and doors, stucco, etc.) to break monotony. Housing Element Issue Area 2 – New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.1 The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the community. Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Issue Area 3 – Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing Issue Area 4 – Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of residential development proposals. Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to assist in their understanding of the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the city. The proposed project consists of 12 residential condominium units and one commercial unit. Creating new opportunity for home ownership within the city. The proposed project will be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. The proposed project meets the definition of mixed use as defined in the General Plan. The project proposes to develop 12 new market rate units which is consistent with the Housing Inventory list of the General Plan and Housing Element Overlay. The project is being processed in a manner with state law ensuring Infrastructure Element Page 662 of 764 4 Goal 5. The storm water management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable Policy 5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces. This new development is designed to comply with LID standards through the incorporation of an infiltration pit, area drains and grass areas. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low-impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. The zoning designation for the site is Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7), Housing Element Overlay. Pursuant to Government Code section 655895, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project is inconsistent with the general plan. The local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zone which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. Based on state law staff determined that the multiple-family residential zone standards, Residential (RP), are the appropriate development standards with which the project must comply1. The following 1 In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(1). The project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Page 663 of 764 5 summarizes the Multiple Family Residential (R-P) Zone Development Standards. Pursuant with HBMC any use permitted in the R-P Zone may be permitted in the R-3 zone, subject to the same regulations as provided in said R-3 Zone and subject to Chapter 17.22 for condominiums. Criteria Required Provided Lot Standards Lot Coverage Maximum 65% 46% Height 30 ft maximum 29 ft Yards: Front 10 ft (residential) 0 ft (commercial) 10 ft (residential) 7 ft (commercial) Side 10% of lot width, not less than 3 feet and not to exceed 5 feet (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8’-3 11/16” 8’-3 11/16” Rear 5 ft (residential) 8 ft (commercial) 8 ft (residential) 150 (commercial) Parking: Garage Spaces 2 per unitt 24 private spaces Residential guest spaces 1 guest space for each two dwelling units 6 guest spaces Commercial spaces 1 space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area 1 space Open Space 300 sq.ft. per unit (3,600 sq.ft.) plus 100 sq.ft. of common open space per unit for development of 5 or more units (1,200 sq. ft) 4,800 sq.ft. total required 4,882 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. (private open space) 2,450 sq.ft. (common open space) Landscape 5% of lot (1,001.88 sq.ft.) 3, 626 sq.ft. Storage: Private storage 200 cubic feet per unit 200 cubic feet per unit Recyclable/waste storage 36 waste bins (3 per unit) 3 per unit Design Minimum unit sizes Two bedrooms 1,250 Three bedrooms 1,400 1,300 sq.ft. 1,600 -3,100 sq.ft. *The project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act when a timely formal application is filed. Accountability Act when a timely formal application is filed. A preliminary application was submitted to the City on January 23, 2024 and filed a formal application on July 3, 2024. Page 664 of 764 6 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is on a site of 0.46 acres located in a mixed commercial and residential area in the city of Hermosa Beach, California, with a commercial development (Frontier Communications) adjacent to the site to the west and residential housing on adjacent properties to the north, east and south. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site has previously been developed. The site is covered with an asphalt surface with ornamental landscaping and trees and has recently been used as an automobile parking lot. The project site has limited value for habitat and is not known to provide habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. As part of the City’s standard procedures, the street tree removals will be subject to review and approval by either the Public Works Commission or Public Works Director in accordance with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Traffic CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for environmental analysis and prescribes criteria for analyzing VMT impacts. Analysis of the proposed project’s VMT impact utilizes the screening thresholds developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, 2018), specifically the screening threshold of small projects which supports a finding that “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact” (OPR, 2018, Page 12). The First Street Project is estimated to generate 89 average daily trips (based on trip generation rates of single-family attached and general office land use categories per the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition). Because the project’s 89 daily trips are well below the 110 trips per day screening threshold, the project can be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Noise and Vibration The project will generate temporary construction noise. The noisiest event would likely be site preparation when heavy equipment would be used. The project applicant anticipates the use of a 315 excavator and a 953 track loader along with haul trucks to export earth material. These pieces of equipment are diesel fueled and therefore generate noise above ambient levels. They can also generate ground borne vibration, though the magnitude of vibration anticipated from these machines is less than earth moving equipment and other machinery that would be required for larger projects. Construction activities that produce extremely high levels of noise or vibration, such as jackhammers and pile driving, would not be used. The site preparation phase is expected to last 4 weeks, during which approximately 1,000 to 1,750 cubic yards of earth material would Landscape 5% (1,001.88 sq. ft.) 3,658 sq.ft. AThe project is subject to the development standards in place when the project was submitted for a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act. Page 665 of 764 7 be excavated and exported from the site. The export of soil will require from 70 to 130 truckloads over the four-week period. Haul trucks and construction worker vehicles will add to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity on First Street and on other local and regional roadways as vehicles come and go from the site. However, this temporary increase in roadway noise will not be great enough to significantly increase ambient roadway noise levels over current levels which are less than 60 dB CNEL (Plan Hermosa, Figure 6.9, Existing Noise Contours) During the remaining 10 months of the construction period the subsequent construction activities will generate noise temporarily at various levels depending on the activity. Projected Construction Noise Location Phase Construction Noise Level Adjacent Residential Properties Demolition 85.1 Grading 83.0 Building 82.1 Paving 75.0 Architectural Coatings 72.4 Source: MDA, 2025a. The magnitude of noise generated by these actions is not great enough to violate local standards, provided such activity complies with the workday and work hour restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Noise standards applied to land use and development projects consider the duration of noise (averaging the noise level over time) along with the volume of the noise event. The short duration of noise events reduces the overall effect of noise on the environment. Although there are residences immediately adjacent to the site to the east and north and other residences in the immediate neighborhood on First Street, the noise impact of the construction phase would affect these sensitive land uses temporarily for a brief period of time. The City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 8.24.050) limits construction and demolition hours to 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project’s conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any significant adverse impacts related to noise during the construction phase. The City’s General Plan identifies noise levels compatible for residential land use. The project site is well within the acceptable range of ambient noise (See PLAN Hermosa Table 6.4 and Figures 6.9 and 6.10). Under existing conditions, the site is subject to noise from traffic on First Street. However, traffic noise is not significant enough to adversely impact the proposed land use. This is true for current traffic levels as well as for future traffic conditions. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project is very small and not great enough to result in a measurable increase in roadway noise (see traffic discussion above). An increase in traffic volumes of at least 26 percent is necessary to cause a 1 dB increase in noise. (An increase of 1 dB is well below the level of increase in noise detectable by the human ear; a 3 dB increase is usually applied as the threshold level at which noise might be considered to have an impact. Page 666 of 764 8 (MDA, May 2025a)) The project’s estimated increase in traffic volumes of 89 trips per day would not approach a 26 percent increase over current traffic volumes. The proposed residential and commercial uses will have no long-term effect that would increase the exposure of persons using the site to adverse noise. The project would not result in any significant effects related to noise. The use of some diesel-powered equipment (excavator, loader and haul trucks) during site preparation has the potential to generate ground borne vibration on-site. A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.5 in/sec is considered to be the threshold level for risk of damage to the residential structures adjacent to the project site. Based on the distance to neighboring structures and the type of heavy equipment that might be used, the worst-case level of vibration occurring during construction at the project site is estimated to be 0.471, considerably below the risk threshold of 0.5. None of the construction activities or equipment that will be used on-site are expected to generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.5 threshold. The project will not result in any significant effects related to ground borne vibration. (MDA, May 2025) Air Quality Due to the project’s relatively small scale the project would not generate sufficient air pollutant emissions to result in a significant impact related to regional air quality thresholds, local significance thresholds, or greenhouse gas emissions, during either the construction phase, the operational (post-construction) phase, or from both phases combined. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land use Designation (and therefore the Southern California Air Quality Management Plan) and other plans applicable to regional planning of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Projected construction and operational emissions of the project are presented in the tables on the following page (MDA, 2025b.) Projected Construction Emissions and Thresholds Page 667 of 764 9 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Site2 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 1.19 0.30 Off-Site3 0.05 1.07 0.97 0.01 0.35 0.10 Total 0.52 5.40 6.62 0.02 0.20 0.06 Grading On-Site2 1.09 10.10 10.00 0.02 2.56 1.44 Off-Site3 0.16 11.04 4.62 0.06 2.53 0.76 Total 1.25 21.14 14.62 0.08 5.09 2.20 Building Construction On-Site2 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 Off-Site3 0.04 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.03 Total 0.56 5.23 7.47 0.01 0.34 0.23 Paving On-Site2 0.65 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 0.16 Off-Site3 0.06 0.26 1.05 0.00 0.28 0.06 Total 0.71 4.50 6.35 0.01 0.46 0.22 Architectural Coating On-Site2 26.02 0.86 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 Off-Site3 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total 26.03 0.87 1.23 0.00 0.04 0.03 Total of overlapping phases4 26.74 5.37 7.58 0.01 0.50 0.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. Projected Operational Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.53 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources4 0.31 0.24 2.50 0.01 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.84 0.32 3.21 0.01 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. The project would not have a significant effect on air quality. (MDA, April 2025) Water Quality Page 668 of 764 10 The project would comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements through its compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which in turn implement the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit. The LID Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15-1351 codifed as Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.44 Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations) requires the project to “control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area” and by “controlling runoff through infiltration, bio retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. Project plans include a storm water mitigation plan (SWMP) to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. All BMPs would meet performance standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. These requirements not only ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, they also are effective in mitigating the project’s water quality impacts to a level that is less than a significant impact. The redeveloped site would consist of 17,667 square feet of impervious surface, comprising 88 percent of the site. Under current conditions the site is nearly 100% impermeable surfaces. The project would provide 2,632 square feet of permeable surface area in the form of landscaping and vegetation, resulting in an increase in permeable surface area over existing conditions. The water quality management plan proposes the onsite stormwater will be collected and treated by 27 tanks in addition to the 2,471 square feet of pervious surface. The project’s LID Plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that it complies with the LID Ordinance and other applicable requirements. The project will have no significant effect on water quality. (e) The site can be served by all required utilities and public services. The site can be readily served by all required utilities and public services (police, fire, schools), due to the history of its prior use and its urban setting. The project site is in an urbanized location, surrounded by development. The site was previously occupied by single-family residences from approximately 1927 until 1966 when the residential structures were demolished, and a parking lot was developed (Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). The site is currently developed with two parking lots. The 12-unit project is of a relatively small scale and therefore would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities except for minor connections to the site from existing local facilities which would not result in significant environmental effects. Exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Section 15300.2) None of the exceptions identified in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. (a) Location The project is not in a particularly sensitive environment, nor would it have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern that is designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact There are no successive projects of the same type in the same place, which over time would result in a significant cumulative impact. (c) Significant Effect Page 669 of 764 11 There are no unusual circumstances that would result in a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. (d) Scenic Highways The project is not within or near a State Scenic Highway. (e) Hazardous Waste Site The project site is not a hazardous waste site and is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code (See Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). (f) Historical Resources There are no historical resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. References Fehr & Peers, April 17, 2025. 911 1st Street Condominium Project Class 32 Exemption Transportation Evaluation Leymaster Environmental Consulting, November 2016. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report. MDA, May 2025a. Letter report. 911 First Street, Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. MDA, May 2025b. Letter report. 911 First Street, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Assessment. OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Page 670 of 764 100 Oceangate | Suite 1425 | Long Beach, CA 90802 | (562) 294-5848 | www.fehrandpeers.com Draft Memorandum Date: April 17, 2025 To: Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach From: Michael Kennedy, AICP, Fehr & Peers Subject: 911 1st Street Condominium Project Class 32 CEQA Exemption Transportation Evaluation LB25-0142 Project Description The proposed Project is located on 911 1st Street within the City of Hermosa Beach, mid-block between Pacific Coast Highway and Barney Court. The site is currently developed as surface parking and is adjacent to multi-family residential uses immediately to the north, east, and south. The parcel immediately to the west is zoned Commercial. Vehicle access is provided from 1st Street. The project proposes a small office component of 245 square feet and 12 dwelling units. Each attached townhome would have two garaged parking spaces (24 total). A total of seven additional surface parking spaces would be provided for guest parking, with a total of 31 off- street parking spaces provided within the proposed Project. Class 32 Exemption Criteria The proposed Project is characterized as in-fill development and is seeking a Class 32 categorical exemption as identified in CEQA Guideline Section 15332. This exemption is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas by streamlining environmental review for projects that are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements and do not result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. The Project must meet all the following criteria to demonstrate the applicability of Class 32 exemptions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Page 671 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 2 of 5 (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Of the above criteria, only Criterion D, marked in bold above, is applicable to traffic and transportation and is evaluated in detail below. Evaluation of Transportation Related Criterion d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. In order to evaluate the potential traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project, a daily and peak hour trip generation estimate was prepared using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Given that the proposed Project consists of attached townhome units, the Single-Family Attached Housing ITE land use category was determined to be the most applicable. The 245 square feet ancillary commercial space is envisioned to be used as General Office and so was analyzed using that ITE land use category. As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 89 daily trips, seven AM peak hour trips, and eight PM peak hour trips. In order to evaluate whether this modest level of vehicle trips would result in a significant effect related to traffic/transportation, the proposed Project trip generation estimates for the proposed Project was qualitatively evaluated based on the impact findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in August 2017. The PLAN Hermosa EIR applied the threshold of significance for transportation impacts based on project-related change in volume to capacity (v/c) or delay, and intersection level of service (LOS), which were the CEQA transportation impact metrics in effect at the time that EIR was prepared. A total of 13 study intersections were analyzed using peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. The closest study intersection to the proposed Project that was analyzed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR is Pacific Coast Highway & 2nd Street. That intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C in 20401. The addition of the proposed Project peak hour trips to this intersection (no more than eight peak hour trips, likely less because that would require 100% of proposed Project traffic to always travel northbound on Pacific Coast Highway), would not cause the intersection to operate worse than LOS C, and would have a negligible effect on traffic at that location. Further from that intersection, proposed Project trips would further dissipate, as they are distributed 1 City of Hermosa Beach, PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2016, Page 4.14-35. Accessed 4/17/25 from https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/community-development/plan- hermosa/review-the-latest-documents Page 672 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 3 of 5 through the roadway network, and would have little to no effect on traffic conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project meets this criterion and is considered eligible for the Class 32 exemption. The PLAN Hermosa EIR included an analysis of VMT for informational purposes but did not determine the significance of transportation impacts because it was not required at the time. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the State Resources Agency added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. It states that vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA effective July 1, 2020. While not used for the determination of impact significance for PLAN Hermosa, VMT is discussed below as it is related to Cumulative Impacts. Evaluation of Potential Exceptions Related to Transportation In addition to the eligibility criteria, the Class 32 exemption also identifies potential exceptions for a project to be able to utilize a Class 32 exemption relevant to traffic. They are discussed in the following section: (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. After the adoption of PLAN Hermosa and the certification of its EIR, the City prepared an updated Housing Element and determined that rezoning would be necessary to accommodate the City’s allocated housing units under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. An addendum to the PLAN Hermosa EIR was prepared in 2023 (“Addendum Project”) which evaluated the rezoning changes to implement the RHNA, and determined that there were no new or substantially more severe transportation impacts due to the rezoning based on the methodologies and thresholds of significance from the PLAN Hermosa EIR. While the Addendum Project resulted in minor changes to forecast traffic volumes, the addition of the proposed Project traffic with the addition of development associated with the Addendum Project would not be expected to contribute to a cumulative impact. The PLAN Hermosa EIR included an analysis of VMT for informational purposes but did not determine the significance of transportation impacts on that basis because it was not required at the time. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the State Resources Agency added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. It states that vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA effective July 1, 2020. As an additional confirmation of the eligibility of the proposed Project to qualify for the Class 32 exemption, Fehr & Peers reviewed the travel demand model land use inputs used for the PLAN Hermosa Addendum Project to determine whether the proposed Project would fit within the analyzed citywide growth. With the buildout of the Addendum Project in 2040, the City is estimated to have a population of approximately 21,000, a growth of 3,000 from the 2015 Page 673 of 764 Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach April 17, 2025 Page 4 of 5 baseline used for the PLAN Hermosa EIR2. Using the average household size for the City of Hermosa Beach of 2.15 persons per household3 from the United States Census, the 12 dwelling units of the proposed Project would result in a population of approximately 26 people. Adding the proposed General Office use (likely accommodating only one or two jobs) would add a negligible amount to this increase of jobs and population. Thus, the proposed Project represents less than 1% of the estimated per capita (population+employment) growth within the City and can be considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions for the Addendum Project. Given this limited amount of growth, the proposed Project would have a negligible cumulative effect on VMT per capita. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances related to transportation associated with the proposed Project. It is primarily residential with a small general office use, both of which are typical land uses within the City. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. There are no designated California State Scenic Highways within the City of Hermosa Beach, and the proposed Project would have no effect on highways other than for generating a negligible amount of vehicle traffic on roadways. Conclusion The proposed Project meets the criterion related to traffic to be considered eligible for a Class 32 categorial exemption in that it would not have a significant effect related to traffic. Additionally, the traffic-related potential exceptions to this determination listed for Class 32 are not applicable to the proposed Project, so it is considered eligible for Class 32 as it relates to traffic and transportation. 2 Fehr & Peers, Transportation Impact Analysis Consistency Finding for the Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element-Related Rezoning, July, 2023. 3 United States Census, Quick Facts, Hermosa Beach City, California. Accessed 4/17/25 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hermosabeachcitycalifornia/PST045224 Page 674 of 764 Rate % In % Out Rate % In % Out In Out Total In Out TotalSingle Family Attached Housing 215 12DU17.2 0.48 25% 75% 0.57 59% 41% 86246437General Office 710 0.245 KSF 10.84 1.52 88% 12% 1.44 17% 83%310101189347448Daily TripsAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourTable 13. Given the size of the proposed Project's General Office component, with rounding, the resulting peak hour trips would be zero. However for the purposes of a conservative analysis, 1 of the 3 daily trips is assumed to occur in each peak hour.Notes:1. KSF = 1,000 square feet, DUs = Dwelling Units2. Sources: Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) 2021)Project Trips Total911 1st Street Condominium Project, City of Hermosa Beach Trip Generation EstimatesLand UseITE Land CodeQuantity UnitTrip Generation Rates23Estimated Trip GenerationDaily RateAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourPage 675 of 764 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 MD Acoustics, LLC 1 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx www.mdacoustics.com May 6, 2025 Mr. Ed Almanza Ed Almanza & Associates Subject: 911 1st St Hermosa Beach – Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment – City of Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Mr. Almanza: MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a construction noise and vibration impact assessment for the proposed Multi-Family Residential Development project located at 911 1st Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The Project has filed for a Categorical 32 Exemption (Cat32) in which an “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332) exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements. This class is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. It may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, and/or mixed-use projects. This noise assessment intends to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with applicable noise regulations and lack of significant noise impacts. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A. 1.0 Project Description and Assessment Overview Land zoning surrounding the site includes Single-Family Residential to the north, Residential Professional to the east and south, and Specific Plan Area to the west. The Project is not within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. The proposed Project location is in Exhibit A. The Project proposes the construction of a new high-density residential 3-story building containing twelve (12) condominium units and a 245-square-foot general office building on an approximately 0.46-acre site. Each residential unit will include a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The site plan for the proposed Project is in Exhibit B. 2.0 Local Acoustical Requirements and CEQA Guidelines The City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code specifies the following relating to construction noise and vibration requirements within the Noise Ordinance: Section 8.24.030 Prohibited noise – General standard Unless otherwise permitted in this chapter, no person shall make, permit to be made or cause to suffer any noises, sounds or vibrations that in view of the totality of the circumstances are so loud, prolonged and Page 676 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 2 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx harsh as to be physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and to cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity. When considering whether a noise, sound or vibration is unreasonable within the meaning of this section, the following factors shall be taken into consideration: A. The volume and intensity of the noise, particularly as it is experienced within a residence or place of business; B. Whether the noise is prolonged and continuous; C. How the noise contrasts with the ambient noise level; D. The proximity of the noise source to residential and commercial uses; E. The time of day; and F. The anticipated duration of the noise. (Ord. 07-1285 §2, 2007) Section 8.24.050 Construction A. Permissible hours of construction. All construction shall be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except national holidays), and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction activity is prohibited at all other hours and on Sundays and national holidays. For purposes of this section, "construction" or "construction activity" shall include site preparation, demolition, grading, excavation, and the erection, improvement, remodeling or repair of structures, including operation of equipment or machinery and the delivery of materials associated with those activities. B. Special circumstances. The building official may grant an exception to the provisions of this section in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Upon receipt of an application in writing therefore stating the reasons for the request and the facts upon which such reasons are based, the building official may grant such permission if he or she finds that: 1. The work proposed to be done is in the public interest; or 2. Unusual hardship, injustice or unreasonable delay would result from adherence to the hours and days specified above. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the building official may forthwith appeal to the city council. Construction, repair or excavation which qualifies as emergency work and which must be accomplished during prohibited hours during such hours as the offices of the city are closed or where such necessity requires immediate action prior to the time at which it would be possible to obtain the building official approval, may be performed provided that the persons doing such construction, repair or excavation obtain a permit therefor within one day after the office of the building official is first opened subsequent to the making of such construction, repair or excavation C. Utilities exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to construction, repair or excavation by a public utility which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and where such work is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare and where such necessity makes it necessary to construct, repair or excavate during the prohibited hours. D. City exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to public works which are authorized by the City. Page 677 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 3 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx E. Owner exemption. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this section, a property owner may engage in construction activity on his or her own property on Sundays and national holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (Ord. 02-1223 §2, Oct. 2002) According to CEQA guidelines, the Project would have a potential impact if it resulted in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.0 Traffic Noise Impact 3.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Model The traffic noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model, together with several key construction parameters. Key input speed, site conditions, average daily traffic (ADT), and vehicle mix data. The modeling does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Existing traffic counts were taken from the PLAN Hermosa EIR. The closest study intersection to the proposed Project that was analyzed in the PLAN Hermosa EIR is Pacific Coast Highway & 2nd Street. 2nd Street traffic volumes were used to represent existing volumes along 1st Street because of their proximity and similar characteristics. The traffic noise model indicated that the existing noise level due to 1st Street traffic is 56 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline. The calculated traffic noise level excludes any existing or future walls. See Appendix C. 3.2 Traffic Noise Model Projections Traffic noise along 1st Street will be the main source of noise impacting the Project site and the surrounding area. The Project will generate approximately 89 daily trips, per the Project’s trip generation prepared by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix C). It takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear an audible difference, which would occur with a doubling of traffic. The Project is anticipated to increase the existing noise level by 0.1 dB due to an increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 4.0 Construction Noise Impact 4.1 FHWA Construction Noise Model The construction noise analysis utilizes the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model methodology, together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, Page 678 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 4 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. The Project was analyzed based on the different construction phases. The FHWA has compiled data regarding the noise-generated characteristics of typical construction activities and is presented in Table 2. Table 2: RCNM Measured Noise Emission Reference Levels1 Type Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 90 Dozer 82 Grader 85 Tractor 84 Roller 80 Crane 81 Man Lift 75 Concrete Mixer Truck 79 Air Compressor 78 Notes: 1 Referenced Noise Levels from the FHWA RCNM. 4.2 Construction Vibration Model Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller has a vibration impact of 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is likely perceptible but below any risk of architectural damage. The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows: PPVequipment = PPVref (25/Drec)n Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 25ft. Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft. n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provide general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts. 4.3 Construction Noise Projections The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the Project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with construction will vary with the different phases of construction. Table 3 presents the construction noise levels at sensitive receptors (residences to the east). Construction equipment for each phase was estimated using CalEEMod methodology. See Appendix B for calculations. Page 679 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 5 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Table 3: Projected Construction Noise Levels (dBA, Leq)1 Location Phase Construction Noise Level Adjacent Residential Properties Demo 85.1 Grade 83.0 Build 82.1 Pave 75.0 Arch Coat 72.4 As shown in Table 3, construction noise will range from 72 to 85 dBA Leq at the adjacent residences to the east. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 8.24.050(A)). Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Construction is anticipated to occur within the allowable hours, thus, the impact is considered less than significant. 4.4 Construction Vibration Projections Construction equipment is anticipated to operate no closer than 12 feet from the nearest residential buildings to the east. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. At a distance of 12 feet, a vibratory roller would yield a worst-case 0.471 PPV (in/sec), which will be perceptible but will be below any risk of damage (0.5 in/sec PPV is the threshold of new residential structures). The impact is thus less than significant. See Appendix B for calculations. 4.5 Construction Noise and Vibration Reduction Policies Construction operations must follow the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair, or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following policies should be taken: 1. Construction shall occur during the hours of 8AM to 6PM on weekdays and 9AM to 5PM on Saturdays. 2. The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas as far as possible, away from the sensitive receptors. 3. During construction, ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 4. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 5. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. 5.0 Conclusions The Project will be compliant with the City’s noise ordinance and CEQA guidelines. In addition, the Project will not generate a significant noise impact during operation. MD is pleased to provide this noise assessment Page 680 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 6 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx for the proposed Project. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477. Sincerely, MD Acoustics, LLC Bethany Wu Claire Pincock, INCE-USA Acoustical Consultant Sr. Acoustical Consultant Page 681 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 7 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Exhibit A Location Map SITE Page 682 of 764 911 1st St Hermosa Beach Cat32 Exemption Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 8 JN: 10452401_Letter Report_250506.docx Exhibit B Site Plan Page 683 of 764 Appendix A Glossary of Acoustical Terms Page 684 of 764 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. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the 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). 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. 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 corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces. 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, 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...”. Page 685 of 764 Noise Criteria (NC) Method: This metric plots octave band sound levels against a family of reference curves, with the number rating equal to the highest tangent line value as demonstrated in Figure 1. Percent Noise Levels: See L(n). Room Criterion (RC) Method: When sound quality in the space is important, the RC metric provides a diagnostic tool to quantify both the speech interference level and spectral imbalance. 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. 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. Sound Transmission Class (STC): To quantify STC, a Transmission Loss (TL) measurement is performed in a laboratory over a range of 16 third-octave bands between 125 – 4,000 Hertz (Hz). The average human voice creates sound within the 125 – 4,000 Hz 1/3rd octave bands. STC is a single-number rating given to a particular material or assembly. The STC rating measures the ability of a material or an assembly to resist airborne sound transfer over the specified frequencies (see ASTM International Classification E413 and E90). In general, a higher STC rating corresponds with a greater reduction of noise transmitting through a partition. STC is highly dependent on the construction of the partition. The STC of a partition can be increased by: adding mass, increasing or adding air space, and adding absorptive materials within the assembly. The STC rating does not assess low-frequency sound transfer (e.g. sounds less than 125 Hz). Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern has lower frequencies than speech, such as mechanical equipment and or/or music. The STC rating is a lab test that does not take into consideration weak points, penetrations, or flanking paths. Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air-gap, or “flanking path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing, or corridors. Noise will travel between spaces at the weakest points. Typically, there is no reason to spend money or effort to improve the walls until all weak points are controlled first. FIGURE 1: Sample NC Curves and Sample Spectrum Levels Page 686 of 764 Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas). 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. 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. Page 687 of 764 Appendix B Construction Noise and Vibration Calculations Page 688 of 764 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: 10452402_Report May 8, 2025 Mr. Ed Almanza Ed Almanza & Associates Subject: 911 1st St Hermosa Beach – Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation, City of Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Mr. Almanza: MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation for the proposed Multi-Family Residential Development project located at 911 1st Street 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 Land zoning surrounding the site includes Single-Family Residential to the north, Residential Professional to the east and south, and Specific Plan Area to the west. The proposed Project location is in Exhibit A. The Project proposes the construction of a new high-density residential 3-story building containing twelve (12) condominium units and a 245-square-foot general office building on an approximately 0.46-acre site. Each residential unit will include a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The site plan for the proposed Project is in Exhibit B. 2.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1.1.29) to calculate both the construction and operational emissions from the project site1. Project construction is modeled to commence no earlier than October 2025 and be completed by March 2026. Construction assumes demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in Appendix C. 3.0 Local Ambient Conditions The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA) 32. 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 websites3,4. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)5. 1 https://www.caleemod.com/ 2 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6 3 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year 4 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ 5 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html Page 689 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 2 JN: 10452402_Report 4.0 AQ Analysis 4.1 AQ Significance Thresholds Project emissions were compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for construction and operational emissions of the following pollutants:6,7 • Ozone • Nitrogen Dioxide • Lead • Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) • Carbon Monoxide • Particulate Matter • Sulfur Dioxide See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm for additional information on criteria pollutants and air quality standards. 4.2 Regional Construction Emissions The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level as indicated in Table 1, and therefore the impact would be considered less than significant. Table 1: Regional Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Site2 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 1.19 0.30 Off-Site3 0.05 1.07 0.97 0.01 0.35 0.10 Total 0.52 5.40 6.62 0.02 0.20 0.06 Grading On-Site2 1.09 10.10 10.00 0.02 2.56 1.44 Off-Site3 0.16 11.04 4.62 0.06 2.53 0.76 Total 1.25 21.14 14.62 0.08 5.09 2.20 Building Construction On-Site2 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 Off-Site3 0.04 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.03 Total 0.56 5.23 7.47 0.01 0.34 0.23 Paving On-Site2 0.65 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 0.16 Off-Site3 0.06 0.26 1.05 0.00 0.28 0.06 Total 0.71 4.50 6.35 0.01 0.46 0.22 Architectural Coating On-Site2 26.02 0.86 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 Off-Site3 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total 26.03 0.87 1.23 0.00 0.04 0.03 Total of overlapping phases4 26.74 5.37 7.58 0.01 0.50 0.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No 6 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf 7 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds Page 690 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 3 JN: 10452402_Report Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. 4.3 Localized Construction Emissions Utilizing the construction equipment list and associated acreages per 8-hour day provided in the SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b), the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 1.0 acres during grading (as shown in Table 2 below); however, as the project is less than one acre, the project emissions have been compared to the 1-acre per day localized significance threshold. Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day1 Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres Grading Graders 1 0.5 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5 Total Per Phase 1.0 Notes: 1. Source: CalEEMod output and South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 None of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the LST emission thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors as shown in Table 3, based upon a 25-meter threshold as the nearest sensitive receptor is located adjacent to the north, as shown in the site map in Appendix B. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant from construction. Table 3: Localized Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Phase On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 4.33 5.65 1.19 0.30 Grading 10.10 10.00 2.56 1.44 Building Construction 5.14 6.94 0.22 0.20 Paving 4.24 5.30 0.18 0.16 Architectural Coating 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02 Total for overlapping construction phases 10.24 13.37 0.42 0.38 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)2 91 664 5 3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one-acre (see Table 2), to be conservative, in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA 3). 2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residential uses located adjacent to the north of the project site; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was utilized. 4.4 Regional Operational Emissions The operating emissions were based on year 2026, which is the anticipated opening year for the project. The CalEEMod default project trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) were used. Page 691 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 4 JN: 10452402_Report 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 4. The data in Table 4 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Table 4: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.53 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources4 0.31 0.24 2.50 0.01 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.84 0.32 3.21 0.01 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 4.5 Localized Operational Emissions Table 5 shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with appropriate LSTs. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod software outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 5 include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and 10% of the Project- related new mobile sources.8 This percentage is an estimate of the amount of Project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on-site. Table 5: Localized Significance - Unmitigated Operational Emissions On-Site Emission Source On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 0.24 2.50 0.53 0.14 Total Emissions 0.32 3.21 0.54 0.15 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)5 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 (see Table 2), to be conservative, in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA 3). 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. 4 On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 65 meters to the south of the property line; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used. 8 The project site is approximately 0.04 miles in length at its longest point; therefore the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/172nd of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 6.9 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site. Page 692 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 5 JN: 10452402_Report 4.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans Consistency with the City’s General Plan The project site is located in the City of Hermosa Beach. The project site has a current land use classification of Community Commercial according to the City’s Land Use/Zoning Map. As the proposed project is a mixed-used project, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the City’s General Plan and Community Plan. The project will be subject to the policies and ordinances pertaining to air quality and climate change in the City’s General Plan. Although the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, these emissions are short-term and not considered to have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, project emissions have demonstrated that they will be below any significant thresholds as outlined by SCAQMD. In addition, as shown below, the project’s GHG impacts have been evaluated by assessing the project’s consistency with applicable statewide, regional, and local GHG reduction plans and strategies. 5.0 Greenhouse Gas Analysis 5.1 GHG Significance Thresholds The project emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses9. 5.2 GHG Emissions Table 6 outlines the construction and operational GHG emissions for the project. The project’s emissions are below (125.12 MTCO2e) the SCAQMD’s draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and; therefore, the impact is less than significant. Table 6: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1 Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area Sources2 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 Energy Usage3 0.00 31.40 31.40 0.00 0.00 31.50 Mobile Sources4 0.00 84.80 84.80 0.00 0.00 86.20 Solid Waste6 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 2.81 Water7 0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 0.00 1.44 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Construction8 0.00 2.91 2.91 0.00 0.00 2.94 Total Emissions 0.94 120.14 121.09 0.09 0.00 125.12 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Notes: 1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 9 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2 Page 693 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 6 JN: 10452402_Report 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate. 5.3 Consistency with Applicable Plans Consistency with Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15 Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are orders from the State’s Executive Branch for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. These strategies call for developing more efficient land-use patterns to match population increases, workforce, and socioeconomic needs for the full spectrum of the population. The project includes elements of smart land use as it is well-served by transportation infrastructure and near public transit. Although the project’s emissions level in 2050 cannot be reliably quantified, statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State’s achievement of that goal and it is reasonable to expect the project’s emissions profile to decline as the regulatory initiatives identified by ARB in the First Update are implemented, and other technological innovations occur. As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the project is consistent with the Executive Order’s horizon-year goal. Therefore, the project is consistent with Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15. 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. 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 2020 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 latest, 2020 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of the 2008, 2017, and 2020 Plan are assessed in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies within the Scoping Plan. Page 694 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 7 JN: 10452402_Report Table 7: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long- term climate change goals. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards and will not impede City efforts to increase energy efficiency. Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy- duty vehicle efficiency measures. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. Consistent. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The project will be subject to these mandatory standards. High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will comply with the strategy. Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. Consistent. The state is currently developing a regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341. Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements. 2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Page 695 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 8 JN: 10452402_Report Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero- emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards and will not impede City efforts to increase energy efficiency. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. Consistent. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. The project will be in an urbanized area within a quarter mile of transit. Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California fuel demand Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards. Generate clean electricity Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not interfere with clean energy generation. Decarbonize industrial energy supply Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be residential, therefore would not interfere with this goal. Decarbonize buildings Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards. Reduce non-combustion emissions Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 and CalGreen standards. Notes: 1Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022) 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 Page 696 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 9 JN: 10452402_Report 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 8 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 8, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Table 8: 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 proposed project is a residential development on a currently vacant site; therefore, it will not displace existing housing. Focus new growth around transit. Local Jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed project is a residential development 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 proposed project is a residential development 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 Communities. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed project would help further jobs/housing balance objectives. The 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 proposed project is a residential development in an existing community 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. Page 697 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 10 JN: 10452402_Report 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 a residential development 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. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the City's Building Code requires the proposed building to provide conduit for on-site electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project is to provide in the proposed parking garage. Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions Consistent. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the City's Building Code requires the proposed building to provide conduit for on-site electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project is to provide in the proposed parking garage. 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. Notes: 1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020. Page 698 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 11 JN: 10452402_Report 6.0 Energy Analysis Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands. Construction Energy Demand Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates Electrical service will be provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)10, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 20,100 square feet of residential development including 12 residential dwelling units over the course of approximately 6 months. Based on Table 9, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $279.79. As shown in Table 9, the total electricity usage from Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 5,087 kWh.11 Table 9: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Power Cost (per 1,000 square foot of building per month of construction) Total Building Size (1,000 Square Foot)1 Construction Duration (months) Total Project Construction Power Cost $2.32 20.1 6 $279.79 Cost per kWh Total Project Construction Electricity Usage (kWh) $0.06 5,087 *Assumes the project will be under the A-1 Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service rate under LADWP. https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-financesandreports/a-fr-electricrates/a-fr-er- stcommindrates?_adf.ctrl-state=4uqberzct_4&_afrLoop=958662023680086 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr/gal.12 As presented in Table 10 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 6,170 gallons of diesel fuel. 10 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 11 LADWP’s Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service (A-1) is approximately $0.06 per kWh of electricity Southern California Edison (SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general-service-&- industrial-rates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS-1_2020.pdf 12 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines: (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf). Page 699 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 12 JN: 10452402_Report Table 10: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase Number of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor HP hrs/day Total Fuel Consumption (gal diesel fuel)1 Demolition 10 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 187 0.41 613 332 10 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 247 0.4 99 53 10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 97 0.37 431 233 Grading 2 Graders 1 6 187 0.41 460 50 2 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 247 0.4 593 64 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37 251 27 Building Construction 100 Cranes 1 4 231 0.29 268 1,448 100 Forklifts 2 6 89 0.2 214 1,155 100 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 574 3,104 Paving 5 Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 9 0.56 121 33 5 Pavers 1 7 130 0.42 382 103 5 Rollers 1 7 80 0.38 213 58 5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37 251 68 Architectural Coating 5 Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 225 61 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 6,170 Notes: 1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Construction Worker Fuel Estimates It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways. With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 19,890 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix C for details). Table 11 shows that an estimated 643 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips. Table 11: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase Number of Days Worker Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 10 18.5 1850 30.95 60 Grading 2 7.5 18.5 278 30.95 9 Building Construction 100 8.64 18.5 15,984 30.95 516 Paving 5 17.5 18.5 1,619 30.95 52 Architectural Coating 5 1.73 18.5 160 30.95 5 Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 643 Notes: 1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Page 700 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 13 JN: 10452402_Report Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates Tables 12 and 13 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 8,861 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.13 Tables 12 and 13 show that an estimated 1,252 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips. Table 12: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Phase Number of Days Vendor Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Grading 2 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Building Construction 100 1.28 10.2 1,306 9.22 142 Paving 5 5 10.2 255 9.22 28 Architectural Coating 5 0 10.2 0 9.22 0 Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 169 Notes: 1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Table 13: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 Phase Number of Days Hauling Trips/Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Demolition 10 11.5 20 2300 6.74 341 Grading 2 125 20 5,000 6.74 742 Building Construction 100 0 20 0 6.74 0 Paving 5 0 20 0 6.74 0 Architectural Coating 5 0 20 0 6.74 0 Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,083 Notes: 1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Construction equipment used over the approximately 6-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to 13 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix C for details). Page 701 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 14 JN: 10452402_Report unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards. Construction of the proposed residential development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. Operational Energy Demand Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). 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 Hermosa Beach. Using the defaults VMT estimates from CalEEMod, it is assumed that the average vehicle miles traveled was 8.934 miles for all vehicle categories. As the proposed project is a mixed-use project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 14 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.14 Table 14 shows that an estimated 10,224 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project. Table 14: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix Number of Vehicles Average Trip (miles)1 Daily VMT Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Total Gallons per Day Total Annual Fuel Consumptio n (gallons) Light Auto Automobile 44.7 7.647 342 31.82 10.75 3,922 Light Truck Automobile 4.8 7.647 37 27.16 1.36 495 Light Truck Automobile 15.8 7.647 121 25.6 4.72 1,723 Medium Truck Automobile 15.0 7.647 115 20.81 5.51 2,010 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 3.2 7.647 24 13.81 1.76 643 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 0.8 7.647 6 14.18 0.43 157 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 1.0 7.647 7 9.58 0.78 286 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 2.5 7.647 19 7.14 2.71 988 Total 87.8 -- 671 -- 28.01 -- Total Annual Fuel Consumption 10,224 Notes: 1Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional. 14 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix A for EMFAC output. Page 702 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 15 JN: 10452402_Report Trip generation and VMT generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar mixed-use uses of similar scale and configuration. That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 15. Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year Condo/Townhouse 288,364 Total 288,364 Electricity Demand kWh/year Condo/Townhouse 55,106 Parking Lot 11,448 Total 66,554 Notes: 1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 annual output. As shown in Table 15, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 66,554 kWh per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 23,255 million kWh of electricity.15 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 288,364 kBTU per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 1,122 million therms of gas.16 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area. Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area. Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE and Southern California Gas Company. Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building 15 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 16 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx Page 703 of 764 911 1st Street Multi-Family Residential Development Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC 16 JN: 10452402_Report commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. 6.0 Conclusions Construction and 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. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. Furthermore, neither construction nor operation of the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. The proposed project does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities and is a mixed- use project that is not proposing any additional features that would require a larger energy demand than other mixed-use projects of similar scale and configuration. The energy demands of the project are anticipated to be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. The Project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CalGreen Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts would be 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 Page 704 of 764 Appendix A Glossary of Terms Page 705 of 764 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 Page 706 of 764 Appendix B Site Plan and Map Page 707 of 764 ADA CommercialSpace SCE SCE (OFFICE - GENERAL) Page 708 of 764 Appendix C CalEEMod Output & EMFAC2017 Data Page 709 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 1 / 43 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated 3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Page 710 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 2 / 43 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Page 711 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 3 / 43 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Page 712 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 4 / 43 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Page 713 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 5 / 43 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Page 714 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 6 / 43 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Page 715 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 7 / 43 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 911 1st St Residences Construction Start Date 10/1/2025 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)3.50 Precipitation (days)20.6 Location 911 1st St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, USA County Los Angeles-South Coast City Hermosa Beach Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 4564 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Condo/Townhouse 12.0 Dwelling Unit 0.16 20,100 0.00 —36.0 — Page 716 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 8 / 43 Parking Lot 0.30 Acre 0.30 0.00 5,000 ——— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.26.0 21.1 14.7 0.07 0.57 4.52 5.09 0.54 1.66 2.20 —10,475 10,475 0.55 1.38 0.53 10,899 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.44 1.00 1.32 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.06 —312 312 0.01 0.01 0.11 317 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.08 0.18 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —51.7 51.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 52.4 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— 2025 1.25 21.1 14.7 0.07 0.57 4.52 5.09 0.54 1.66 2.20 —10,475 10,475 0.55 1.38 0.53 10,899Page 717 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 9 / 43 2026 26.0 4.89 7.40 0.01 0.19 0.27 0.45 0.17 0.07 0.23 —1,455 1,455 0.06 0.04 0.03 1,463 Average Daily ————————————————— 2025 0.10 1.00 1.32 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.06 —312 312 0.01 0.01 0.11 317 2026 0.44 0.73 1.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 —215 215 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 217 Annual ————————————————— 2025 0.02 0.18 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —51.7 51.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 52.4 2026 0.08 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —35.7 35.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 35.9 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.84 0.30 3.21 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 786 792 0.62 0.03 2.13 818 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.78 0.31 2.35 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 760 766 0.62 0.03 0.20 790 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.79 0.29 2.62 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.01 0.12 0.13 5.70 708 714 0.61 0.03 0.91 738 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.14 0.05 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 117 118 0.10 < 0.005 0.15 122 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2ePage 718 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 10 / 43 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.31 0.22 2.50 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —590 590 0.03 0.02 1.98 600 Area 0.53 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.84 0.30 3.21 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 786 792 0.62 0.03 2.13 818 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Area 0.47 ———————————————— Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.78 0.31 2.35 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.01 0.13 0.14 5.70 760 766 0.62 0.03 0.20 790 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile 0.27 0.22 2.12 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 —512 512 0.03 0.02 0.77 521 Area 0.51 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.25 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190 Water ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Waste ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Refrig.———————————————0.14 0.14 Total 0.79 0.29 2.62 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.01 0.12 0.13 5.70 708 714 0.61 0.03 0.91 738 Annual ————————————————— Page 719 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 11 / 43 Mobile 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 Area 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 Energy < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.5 Water ——————————0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 < 0.005 —1.44 Waste ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 Refrig.———————————————0.02 0.02 Total 0.14 0.05 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 117 118 0.10 < 0.005 0.15 122 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855 Demoliti on —————1.03 1.03 —0.16 0.16 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4 Demoliti on —————0.03 0.03 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Page 720 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 12 / 43 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.88 Demoliti on —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 —131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 1.02 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 —797 797 0.04 0.12 0.05 835 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.64 3.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.69 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.9 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.79 3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 721 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 13 / 43 Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720 Dust From Material Movement —————2.10 2.10 —1.01 1.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.39 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.42 Dust From Material Movement —————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.55 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.56 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————Page 722 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 14 / 43 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 —98.3 98.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 99.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 11.0 4.18 0.06 0.11 2.32 2.43 0.11 0.63 0.74 —8,663 8,663 0.47 1.36 0.52 9,080 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.5 47.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 49.8 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.86 7.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.24 3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Page 723 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 15 / 43 0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.72 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —184 184 0.01 < 0.005 —184 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.13 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.5 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 —113 113 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 115 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —40.7 40.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 42.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.74 5.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.99 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 724 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 16 / 43 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 —0.19 0.17 —0.17 —1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.65 0.93 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 —176 176 0.01 < 0.005 —177 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —29.2 29.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —29.3 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 —111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 112 Page 725 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 17 / 43 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —40.0 40.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 41.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.40 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.64 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52 2.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.55 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826 Paving 0.16 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.3 Page 726 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 18 / 43 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 —225 225 0.01 0.01 0.02 228 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —156 156 0.01 0.02 0.01 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.12 3.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)Page 727 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 19 / 43 Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architect ural Coatings 25.9 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84 Architect ural Coatings 0.35 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.30 Architect ural Coatings 0.06 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Page 728 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 20 / 43 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 —22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 729 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 21 / 43 6001.980.020.03590590—0.140.13< 0.0050.530.53< 0.0050.012.500.220.31Condo/T ownhous e Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.22 2.50 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —590 590 0.03 0.02 1.98 600 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.24 2.32 0.01 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 —566 566 0.03 0.03 0.05 574 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.05 0.04 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —84.8 84.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.2 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 730 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 22 / 43 80.6—< 0.005< 0.00580.380.3———————————Condo/T ownhous e Parking Lot ———————————16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.7 Total ———————————97.0 97.0 0.01 < 0.005 —97.4 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —80.6 Parking Lot ———————————16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.7 Total ———————————97.0 97.0 0.01 < 0.005 —97.4 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Parking Lot ———————————2.76 2.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.77 Total ———————————16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.1 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Page 731 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 23 / 43 0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.00Parking Lot Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —92.7 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.43 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Page 732 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 24 / 43 Landsca Equipment 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Total 0.53 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.43 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Total 0.47 ———————————————— Annual ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.08 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.01 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 Total 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Page 733 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 25 / 43 Condo/T ——————————0.86 4.44 5.29 0.09 < 0.005 —8.13 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54 Total ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.86 4.44 5.29 0.09 < 0.005 —8.13 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54 Total ——————————0.86 4.98 5.84 0.09 < 0.005 —8.68 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.14 0.73 0.88 0.01 < 0.005 —1.35 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.09 Total ——————————0.14 0.82 0.97 0.01 < 0.005 —1.44 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Page 734 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 26 / 43 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00——————————Parking Lot Total ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————4.85 0.00 4.85 0.48 0.00 —17.0 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.80 0.00 0.80 0.08 0.00 —2.81 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.14 0.14 Total ———————————————0.14 0.14 Page 735 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 27 / 43 —————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.14 0.14 Total ———————————————0.14 0.14 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.02 0.02 Total ———————————————0.02 0.02 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Page 736 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 28 / 43 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Page 737 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 29 / 43 Total ————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual —————————————————Page 738 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 30 / 43 Total ————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Page 739 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 31 / 43 Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 10/18/2025 10/20/2025 5.00 2.00 — Building Construction Building Construction 10/21/2025 3/10/2026 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 3/11/2026 3/18/2026 5.00 5.00 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/19/2026 3/26/2026 5.00 5.00 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Page 740 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 32 / 43 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 125 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ————Page 741 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 33 / 43 Building Construction Worker 8.64 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 1.28 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 1.73 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 40,703 13,568 0.00 0.00 784 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Page 742 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 34 / 43 Acres Paved (acres)Acres Graded (acres)Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000 — Grading —2,000 1.50 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61%61% 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Condo/Townhouse —0% Parking Lot 0.30 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 87.8 97.7 75.4 31,924 672 747 576 244,137 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 743 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 35 / 43 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 40702.5 13,568 0.00 0.00 784 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 55,106 532 0.0330 0.0040 288,364 Parking Lot 11,448 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 447,286 0.00Page 744 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 36 / 43 Parking Lot 0.00 70,123 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Condo/Townhouse 8.99 — Parking Lot 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Page 745 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 37 / 43 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.Page 746 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 38 / 43 Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.58 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. Page 747 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 39 / 43 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 29.9 AQ-PM 73.3 AQ-DPM 51.4 Drinking Water 19.7 Lead Risk Housing 36.5Page 748 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 40 / 43 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 93.7 Traffic 68.1 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 23.5 Groundwater 30.9 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 68.4 Impaired Water Bodies 51.2 Solid Waste 24.8 Sensitive Population — Asthma 2.13 Cardio-vascular 3.64 Low Birth Weights 3.84 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 6.52 Housing 2.26 Linguistic 32.6 Poverty 12.7 Unemployment 57.2 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 90.50429873 Employed 91.37687668 Median HI 97.62607468 Education — Page 749 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 41 / 43 Bachelor's or higher 90.64545105 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 89.1954318 Transportation — Auto Access 70.20402926 Active commuting 16.50198896 Social — 2-parent households 70.38367766 Voting 58.88617991 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 20.72372642 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 90.08084178 Supermarket access 94.25125112 Tree canopy 19.1068908 Housing — Homeownership 55.98614141 Housing habitability 84.44758116 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 92.59591941 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 68.81817015 Uncrowded housing 83.16437829 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 97.11279353 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 98.2 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Page 750 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 42 / 43 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 83.3 Cognitively Disabled 85.7 Physically Disabled 57.4 Heart Attack ER Admissions 93.4 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 67.9 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 47.4 Elderly 48.7 English Speaking 93.6 Foreign-born 12.6 Outdoor Workers 93.6 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 11.3 Traffic Density 46.6 Page 751 of 764 911 1st St Residences Detailed Report, 4/9/2025 43 / 43 Traffic Access 55.3 Other Indices — Hardship 6.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 73.0 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)7.00 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)96.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use 12 units on 0.46 acres per site plan Construction: Construction Phases No site preparation required Operations: Hearths No hearthsPage 752 of 764 Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air DistrictRegion: South Coast AQMDCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegionCalendar YearVehicle CategoryModel YearSpeedFuelPopulationVMTTripsFuel ConsumptionFuel ConsumptionTotal Fuel ConsumptionVMTTotal VMTMiles Per GallonVehicle ClassSouth Coast AQMD2023HHDTAggregateAggregateGasoline75.104429368265.0971502.6891.9362861451936.2861451913466.4748265.09713656273.037.14HHDSouth Coast AQMD2023HHDTAggregateAggregateDiesel109818.67531364800811336181911.5301881911530.18813648008South Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateGasoline6635002.2952.53E+08313524777971.244037971244.038020635.6982.53E+08255180358.331.82LDASouth Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateDiesel62492.979582469816297086.649.391668549391.66852469816South Coast AQMD2023LDAAggregateAggregateElectricity150700.39716237106751566006237106South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateGasoline758467.64812781299635045631023.9130061023913.0061024279.4662781299627821405.0927.16LDT1South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateDiesel360.77991448408.6181256.880.366459477366.45947698408.618South Coast AQMD2023LDT1AggregateAggregateElectricity7122.93373303507.535798.1900303507.5South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateGasoline2285150.13985272416107233153338.7983123338798.3123356536.4388527241685922778.3425.60LDT2South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateDiesel15594.68309650362.876635.8317.7381261117738.12611650362.8South Coast AQMD2023LDT2AggregateAggregateElectricity28809.63735917592.8145405.400917592.8South Coast AQMD2023LHDT1AggregateAggregateGasoline174910.384762166432605904583.3851736583385.1736811563.1022621664311211395.7913.81LHDT1South Coast AQMD2023LHDT1AggregateAggregateDiesel125545.082249947531579199228.1779285228177.92854994753South Coast AQMD2023LHDT2AggregateAggregateGasoline30102.753241034569448486.2111.5753864111575.3864209423.502510345692969599.00814.18LHDT2South Coast AQMD2023LHDT2AggregateAggregateDiesel50003.131161935030628976.597.8481161897848.116181935030South Coast AQMD2023MCYAggregateAggregateGasoline305044.5141210462461008957.84901857849.01857849.01821046242104623.65736.38MCYSouth Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateGasoline1589862.7035568418873548602693.8835262693883.5262744536.3415568418857109879.7320.81MDVSouth Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateDiesel36128.10191425691176566.950.6528149150652.814911425691South Coast AQMD2023MDVAggregateAggregateElectricity16376.67653537591.783475.9500537591.7South Coast AQMD2023MHAggregateAggregateGasoline34679.50542330042.93469.33863.2629512363262.9512374893.26955330042.9454344.94366.07MHSouth Coast AQMD2023MHAggregateAggregateDiesel13122.693871243021312.26911.6303183211630.31832124302South Coast AQMD2023MHDTAggregateAggregateGasoline25624.31511363694512691.3265.2060557265206.0557989975.642513636949484317.7689.58MHDTSouth Coast AQMD2023MHDTAggregateAggregateDiesel122124.48881206231221858724.7695868724769.58688120623South Coast AQMD2023OBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline5955.291639245774119153.548.0775068948077.5068986265.88761245774579743.83536.72OBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023OBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel4286.940093333969.841558.2938.1883807238188.38072333969.8South Coast AQMD2023SBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline2783.643068112189.611134.5712.1947469212194.7469239638.85935112189.6323043.52038.15SBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023SBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel6671.825716210853.976991.9427.4441124227444.11242210853.9South Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateGasoline957.768618489782.633831.07417.6241632717624.1632717863.6637889782.6391199.25335.11UBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateDiesel13.000460951416.62252.001840.239500509239.50050931416.622South Coast AQMD2023UBUSAggregateAggregateElectricity16.116938861320.16364.4677601320.163Page 753 of 764 Public Notification Package - 911 1st Street Page 754 of 764 Public Notification Package - 911 1st Street Page 755 of 764 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a special public hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 83011) TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR, THREE-STORY, BUILDINGS (29’ IN HEIGHT), WITH A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUM UNITS (CONSISTING OF 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT OF 245 SQUARE FEET FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE) LOCATED AT 911 1ST STREET IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPA 7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65585.5) THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE RP ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15332 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. 2. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-02) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-01) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-STORY (30’) MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF A 952-SQUARE-FOOT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNIT WITH A RESIDENTIAL UNIT LOCATED ABOVE AT 54 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODCOMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ONLY THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/July 17, 2025/HD25-027 City ofHermosa Beach Page 756 of 764 835845417 429440 430 428 400 829832822344818821819836843847300857422 418 408 909915917925929939943947409 337 325 311 313 309 307402 935326 432 412 317 332 10021010302 10491029103310611075 315 327 304 10211017322 320 103210141022319 342 340 334 328 324 1121 107010741076111811221115111111031101104110151023102510311037101610621132110711041110246 914918932938954210 204 84990591993193394595910011011100694294684081482090283410121004948922920912906838830150 142 119 121 9579419639378441021036102610241018111 104211021116128 1003 118 110811051041221161114110910 23 110610501020 4 8 18 90490891693093694095097026828848960962926824709155 719715703714 125730710 7227 243 233 229 217 211 201727750 333 303 403 Hopkins AvePaci fi cCoast HwyBar neyCt 4th St Ocean V iew Ave 1st St 4th St 1s t S t1st Pl Meyer Ct 3rd St Gentry St2nd St 4th St 1st Pl 1st St 3rd St 2nd St 911500' RADIUS MAP ADDRESS: 911 1st St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r Page 757 of 764 Community Development Department Planning Division – Kaneca Pompey City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 911 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4186-026-047 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Special Public Hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-09), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-09), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 83011) TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO A SINGLE GROUND LOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR, THREE-STORY, BUILDINGS (29’ IN HEIGHT), WITH A SUBDIVISION CREATING 13 CONDOMINIUM UNITS (CONSISTING OF 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT OF 245 SQUARE FEET FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE) LOCATED AT 911 1ST STREET IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPA 7) ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65585.5) THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE RP ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15332 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community Development at communitydevelopment@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. In order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 758 of 764 Page 759 of 764 Hopkins AveArdmo re A ve Paci fi cCoastHwyBar neyCtOcean View Ave 1st St V alleyDr 4th St 1s t S t Meyer Ct 1st Pl 4th St 3rd St Gentry St3rd St 4th St 2nd St Hill S t 5th St 1st Pl 1st S t 4th St 2nd St Project Zoning MapPlanning Commission July 28, 2025 911 1st St APN: 4186-026-047 Zone: SPA-7-HE Specific Plan Area 7, Housing Element Overlay Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, TTM Description Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) -HE Housing Element Overlay 500' Notification Radius Page 760 of 764 From: Maren Steiner Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:51 PM To: Community-Development <CommunityDevelopment@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Agenda Item: 911 1st St - Date: 7/15/25 Hi there, this email is in reference to the planning commission meeting on Tuesday, July 14th at 7:00pm regarding assessor Parcel #4186-026-047 at 911 1st St. My name is Maren Steiner and I am a home owner on 1st street three units from this vacant property. I would like to express my concern about the developers interest in the community given the graffiti on the property that has been there almost a year, reported multiple times and not cleaned up. If the developer cannot even remove some graffiti from the vacant lot, I’m unsure how they plan to keep the neighborhood and Hermosa's best interest at heart when building this property. In addition, I would like to know what the parking plan is for these units as there’s currently never any parking available on 1st street on a normal day without these units and now we have an office building going up across from this project that has no parking that I can see. Thank you and I apologize if this is not in the requested format, this is my first time ever submitting a comment like this so thank you in advance for your patience with me and please let me know if there’s something I could do differently here. ____ Maren Steiner You don't often get email from maren91@me.com. Learn why this is important Page 761 of 764 From: Max Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:41 PM To: Community-Development <CommunityDevelopment@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 7-15-25 - Tonights Meeting - 911 1st Street - Parcel # 4186-026-047 Hello, I would like to submit a comment and concern about the proposed Development Plan to Develop 12 Condos at 911 1st Street, behind the Frontier Building in its empty parking lots. I am a homeowner on this street and have often thought that lot should be a nice grassy dog park, without any parking. This block MUST be the most highly populated block in Hermosa Beach, with at least 100 residents on one block. There is also a massive amount of dogs on this block that all use the tiny Moonlite Parkette where grass is dying and neglected. It would be nice to see Community Development address what the community needs, and on this block the last thing we need is more people, more cars and more Athens loud beeping trash pickups. The intersection at the bottom of the hill at 1st and PCH is so dangerous as you already know. A left turn is not possible. This building will create even more traffic for the neighborhood above it as its often the only way out. Thank you for taking my comments, very much appreciate it! Max You don't often get email from kahunamax@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Page 762 of 764 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 28, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-097 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the August 19, 2025 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Attachment: Planning Commission August 19, 2025 Tentative Future Agenda Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 763 of 764 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\12452430758\12452430758,,,Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for August 19, 2025.docx Revised 07/15/2025 12:45 PM Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date 3415 Palm Drive Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) 8/9/25 8/19/25 1016 The Strand (Sea Sprite) Conditional Use Permit (Public Hearing) 8/9/25 8/19/25 901 Hermosa Avenue Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) 8/9/25 8/19/25 Upcoming and Pending Projects Zoning Code More Study Sessions to come Land Value Recapture (Staff Item) Page 764 of 764