HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-17
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
COMMISSIONERS
David Pedersen, Chairperson
Kate Hirsh, Vice Chairperson
Stephen Izant, Commissioner
Michael Flaherty, Commissioner
Peter Hoffman, Commissioner
Carrie Tai, 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.
•
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 •
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 124
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 AUGUST 20, 2024 - 24-CDD-053
6
(Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action
minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of August 20, 2024
6.b ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE 16
Page 3 of 124
PERMIT 23-13 FOR A PRESCHOOL AT 210 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY IN THE (SPA) 7 ZONE - 24-CDD-050
CEQA: Determine that this denial is not a project subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
(Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.
24-08 denying Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-13 for a preschool with
outdoor play area at 210 Pacific Coast Highway and determine the denial
of the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
7.PUBLIC HEARING
8.STAFF ITEMS
8.a REQUEST FOR MURAL DETERMINATION MD 24-01 FOR A 750-
SQUARE FOOT PAINTED DISPLAY ON THE EASTERLY WALL OF AN
EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 730 11TH STREET (GUIDESTONE
CHURCH) - 24-CDD-049
104
CEQA: Determine that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
(Contract Planner Sophia Matheney)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 24-17
finding the artistic rendering consistent with the definition of a mural in
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.50.030, and
determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
8.b 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 - 24-CDD-
054
123
(Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the October
15, 2024 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
Page 4 of 124
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 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CDD-053
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF
AUGUST 20, 2024
(Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the
Planning Commission regular meeting of August 20, 2024
Attachment:
Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of August 20, 2024
Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant
Approved: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director
Page 6 of 124
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2024
Open Session 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Pedersen called the session to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Attorney Patrick Donegan.
3. ROLL CALL
Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado announced a quorum.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Recommendation: To approve the order of the agenda.
A voice vote was taken on this item.
Motion: To approve the order of the agenda
Members Present: Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chair Kate Hirsh,
Commissioner Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty,
and Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Page 7 of 124
2
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant
Motion Carries
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
o In-Person Public Comment:
1. Robin Adler (on behalf of Richard DiGiorgio)
2. M. Scott Shields
3. Teri Jones
4. Kate Kurz
5. Karl Kurz
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Recommendation: To approve the consent calendar.
6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024 - 24-CDD-037
Motion: To approve the consent calendar, including the amended action minutes
of the Planning Commission regular meeting of July 16, 2024.
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant
Motion Carries
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7.a REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 23-13 TO ALLOW A
7,214-SQUARE-FOOT PRESCHOOL WITH OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AT
210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 ZONE
(continued from 5/21/24) - 24-CDD-043
Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided a presentation.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Ayes (5): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chair Kate
Hirsh, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Ayes (4): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen, Commissioner
Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Abstained (1): Vice Chair Kate Hirsh
Page 8 of 124
3
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Izant declared that he received over thirty direct emails;
spoke to the applicant twice (both times were inconsequential) and declared
that he and Commissioner Flaherty conducted approximately six hours of
observations out in the field in relation to this project.
Commissioner Hoffman and Commissioner Hirsh both declared they have
driven by the project site and had inconsequential communications with
applicants as well as received email comments from citizens.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Izant and Commissioner Flaherty provided two handouts to
Planning Commissioners and public attendees.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Applicants Stephanie and Amir Caspian provided comments.
Applicant Amir Mikhail provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
o In-Person Public Comment:
1. Katie Seaman
2. Josh Krasnegor
3. Pete Broussinos
4. Amy Santa Cruz
o Virtual Public Comment:
5. Bernie Sentianin
6. Anthony Higgins
7. Craig Rogers
8. Dan Seaman
9. Cynthia Furnberg
Page 9 of 124
4
10. Mike Treidl
11. Michael Glasman
12. Isa
Amir Mikhail provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Consultant Bernie Sentianin provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Amir Mikhail provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Page 10 of 124
5
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Amir Mikhail provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Motion: To direct Staff to return with a resolution to memorialize the denial
of a request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-13) to operate a preschool
and daycare with an outdoor playground at 210 Pacific Coast Highway,
stating that the Commission was unable to make finding related to the
amount of off-street parking facilities, distance to the proposed use, the
precautions taken by the owner or operator to ensure compatibility to nearby
uses; the relationship between traffic/streets and children with regard to the
circulation and drop off, and the relationship volume of traffic to street size.
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Ayes (3): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen,
and Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Noes (2): Vice Chair Kate Hirsh, and Commissioner Stephen Izant
Motion Carries
Chairperson Pedersen called for a break at 9:55 p.m. The meeting re-
commenced at 10:03 p.m.
Chairperson Pedersen requested agenda Item 7.c to be moved up on the
agenda to be heard before agenda item 7.b.
7.c REQUEST FOR A CUP AMENDMENT (APE) 24-01 TO EXPAND
ALCOHOL TASTINGS TO FULL-SERVICE AT 302 PIER AVENUE;
EXPAND ON-SALE ALCOHOL TO OUTDOORS. - 24-CDD-044
Planning Manager Oropeza provided a presentation.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh declared that she did have a conversation with the
applicant.
Page 11 of 124
6
Applicants Kathy and Jeff Knoll provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Planning Manager provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
o In-Person Public Comment:
1. Jessica Accamando
2. Barbara Ellman
3. John Burry
4. Matt Sieger
5. Rob Antrobius
o Virtual Public Comment:
6. Dan Seaman
7. Laura Pena
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Motion: To approve Staff recommendation to adopt amended Resolution
No. 24-15 approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment (APE) 24-001 to
expand the on-sale beer and wine service in conjunction with an existing
market at 302 Pier Avenue and to expand the use to operate at 1326-1328
Monterey Boulevard for on-sale service subject to conditions; and to
Page 12 of 124
7
determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Action (CEQA). The amendment is to add the
following language to section 1.A(4) and B.2, "...or unless permitted in the
public right-of-way by any applicable city process or permit."
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant
A voice vote was taken on this item.
Ayes (5): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice
Chair Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael
Flaherty
Motion Carries
7.b REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) 24-10 TO
ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING CITY-OWNED
SURFACE PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF 14TH STREET AND MANHATTAN AVENUE IN THE DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2). - 24-CDD-038
Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey provided a presentation.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Contract Planner Pompey provided comments.
Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments.
Public Works Consultant John Oskoui provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Environmental Program Manager Krauss provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Environmental Program Manager Krauss provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Page 13 of 124
8
o In-Person Public Comment:
1. Joe Bailey
2. David Grethen
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
City Attorney Donegan provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Chairperson Pedersen provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Commissioner Flaherty provided comments.
Motion: To approve staff recommendation to adopt resolution 24-16
approving Precise Development Plan 24-10, subject to conditions; and to
determine the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
A voice vote was taken on this item.
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Ayes (4): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen,
Vice Chair Kate Hirsh, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty
Noes (1): Commissioner Stephen Izant
Motion Carries
8. STAFF ITEMS
8.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
Director Tai reported on that one of the first major steps in the Civic Facilities
Assessment is the community engagement portion, which includes
providing updates to the City's Boards and Commissions. As part of the
overall community engagement, Council has secured the services of Lee
Andrews to put together a community engagement plan which will be rolling
out in the next couple of months. Some of the major components are
previewing the City facilities including City Hall, the Police Station,
Community Center, and the City Yard. City Council authorized an informal
Civic Facilities Advisory Committee and they are currently reviewing
applications.
Page 14 of 124
9
The City is actively reviewing opportunities for revenue generation and
costing that can be facilitated by City properties, including parking Lots A
and C in the Downtown area of Hermosa.
Community Development is working to fill staff vacancies and have been
immersed in recruiting activities. Once fully staffed, the Department will
continue the long-term zoning ordinance updates.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Vice Chair Hirsh provided comments.
Director Tai provided comments.
Commissioner Izant provided comments.
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 24-CDD-035
Motion: To receive and file the September 17, 2024 Planning Commission
tentative future agenda.
A voice vote was taken on this item.
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chair Kate Hirsh
Ayes (5): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice
Chair Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael
Flaherty
Motion Carries
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Motion: To adjourn until the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on September 17, 2024.
A voice vote was taken on this item.
Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chair Kate Hirsh
Ayes (5): Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice
Chair Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael
Flaherty
Motion Carries
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Pedersen at 12:20 a.m.
Page 15 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CDD-050
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 23-
13) FOR A 7,214-SQUARE-FOOT PRESCHOOL WITH OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AT
210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) 7 ZONE.
CEQA: Determine that this denial is not a project subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
(Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 24-08 denying
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-13 for a preschool with outdoor play area at 210 Pacific
Coast Highway and determine the denial of the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Executive Summary:
On August 20, 2024, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing for a CUP
request to operate a preschool and daycare with an outdoor play area. The attached
resolution memorializes the Commission’s direction from August 20, 2024 to deny the
Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution denying the CUP.
Background:
The project site at 210 Pacific Coast Highway is located at the intersection of Pacific
Coast Highway and eastbound 2nd Street, in the Specific Plan Area (SPA) - 7 Zone,. The
property is developed with an existing commercial building, previously operated as a used
car dealership and body shop (Felders Body Shop and Sales). The applicant proposes
operating a preschool and daycare, with an outdoor playground at the site. Pursuant to
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.38.300(A), permitted commercial
uses in the SPA-7 zone shall be the same as those permitted in the General Commercial
(C-3) Zone. Per HBMC Section 17.26.030, “Day nursery, preschool” is a conditionally
permitted use in the C-3 zone and requires a CUP. Further, HBMC Section 17.40.110
provides specific minimum conditions and standards for “day nursery, including minimum
parking standards.
Page 16 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 6
At its May 21, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
considered the staff report and public testimony. The Planning Commission deliberated
over the CUP and its potential operational impacts on the surrounding areas. The
Commission’s discussion raised concerns about the number of loading spaces, vehicle
queuing, and the need for a separate vehicle entrance and exit. The Planning
Commission continued the items to its regular meeting on August 20, 2024. In response
to concerns raised, the applicant revised the plans and submitted an updated noise study,
an updated parking study, and a pick-up and drop-off operation.
At its August 20, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a continued
hearing, received a staff report, and took public comments. Upon concluding the hearing,
the Planning Commission took action to deny the project and directed staff to return with
a Resolution memorializing the decision (Attachment 1).
Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
May 21, 2024 The Planning Commission continued the hearing to August
20, 2023, providing an opportunity for the applicant to
address the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the
proposed project, including parking and loading, through
changes to the site plan and proposed operations.
August 20, 2024 The Planning Commission held a continued hearing for a
CUP request to operate a daycare and acted on the CUP,
directing staff to return with a Resolution for denial.
Site Information Table:
The following table describes the existing site characteristics.
Site Information
General Plan Community Commercial
Zoning Specific Plan Area, 7 (SPA-7)
Lot Size 16,254.99 sq. ft.
Existing Square Footage 7,214 sq. ft.
Surrounding Zoning
North: SPA-7, R-1
East: R-1
South: SPA-7
West: SPA-7
Page 17 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 6
Site Information
Surrounding Uses
North: Commercial, Single-Family
East: Single-Family
South: Commercial
West: Commercial
Discussion:
The applicant provided revised application materials, including a revised site plan with a
redesigned southern parking lot that added a new curb cut and a one-way drive aisle
accommodating two to three vehicles along the property frontage parallel to 2nd Street
(Attachment 2). To accommodate this change, the outdoor play area would be reduced in
size, the existing eight-foot perimeter wall demolished, and a new six-foot block wall
rebuilt on the north side of the drive aisle to enclose the playground. The applicant
provided an updated traffic analysis, a noise study, and a pickup and drop-off operations
plan. Although the site plan changes accommodate between two to three vehicles, the
changes also introduce new factors and potential conflicts that were not studied
previously nor answered in the Traffic Analysis or its Addendum (Attachment 3).
The Planning Commission considered the revised application materials, the staff report,
and public testimony at the August 20, 2024, meeting and found that the revised site plan
and the Traffic Analysis, Addendum, and management plan lacked sufficient detail to
satisfy the general CUP criteria Thus, the Planning Commission could not make the
required findings and denied the project.
Findings:
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.40.020 outlines general criteria for
all uses that require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In addition to the required findings
for all CUPs, specific requirements for nurseries and daycares shall be made pursuant to
HBMC Section 17.40.110. The Planning Commission was unable to make four of the
twelve required CUP findings and, therefore, denied the CUP.
1. Distance from existing residential uses:
2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking facilities, and its distance
from the proposed use;
The off-street parking is proposed in two parking lots on-site. The Traffic Analysis and
Addendum lacks data supporting the purported average loading times that would be
required to avoid issues, does not include a revised calculation of vehicle queuing, nor
assesses the turning movements and potential conflicts between pedestrians and
vehicles. There is insufficient information to conclude that the proposed off-street parking
facilities are adequate.
Page 18 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 6
3. Location of and distance to churches, schools, hospitals and public
playgrounds;
4. The combination of uses proposed;
5. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to
assure the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses;
The applicant proposed an operation and site plan changes to try and assure that the
daycare's operation would be consistent with the surrounding uses. These precautions
included: 1) staff facilitating pick up and drop off, 2) pick-up and drop-off schedules, and
3) extended hours of operation; 4) a vehicle queuing lane. Although the applicant has
proposed several operation and design measures to facilitate pick up and drop off, the
Traffic Analysis and Addendum lacks a sufficient analysis of the changes impacts on
queuing, loading time assumptions, and turning movements to ensure the compatibility
of the use with the surrounding uses.
6. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size
of streets serving the area;
The proposed site plan proposes a second driveway along 2nd Street and adds a drop-off
queuing lane in the southern parking lot. The Traffic Analysis and Addendum to the traffic
study asserts that this will be sufficient to handle the demand for loading and unloading
during the peak drop-off and pick-up times. However, the Traffic Analysis and Addendum
prepared did not assess the site plan changes to traffic flow on and off-site. 2nd Street is
a two-way street for the length of the property’s frontage before the traffic pattern changes
to a one-way street with westbound traffic. The Traffic Analysis and Addendum did not
adequately assess the interaction of the unique traffic pattern, the new driveway, queuing,
and circulation pattern, and whether it can adequately serve the business-generated
traffic volume as proposed or with additional conditions.
7. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with
existing establishments in the area;
8. The number of similar establishments or uses within close proximity to the
proposed establishment;
9. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use;
10. Impact of the proposed use to the city’s infrastructure, and/or services;
The proposed site plan adds a second driveway along 2nd Street and a drop-off queuing
lane to the southerly parking lot off 2nd Street. Although the Traffic Analysis and
Addendum asserts that the changes would be sufficient to handle the demand for loading
and unloading during the peak drop-off and pick-up times, it lacks sufficient analysis. The
Page 19 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 6
addendum prepared did not assess the impact of the site plan changes on traffic queues
or the traffic flow on and off-site. Second Street is a two-way street for the length of the
property’s frontage before the traffic pattern changes to a one-way street with westbound
traffic. The Addendum to the Traffic Analysis did not adequately assess the interaction of
the unique traffic pattern, the new driveway, queuing, and circulation pattern. It remains
unclear whether the abutting street could adequately serve the use.
11. Will the establishment contribute to a concentration of similar outlets in the
area;
12. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are
necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city.
General Plan Consistency:
PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017.
The Conditional Use Permit as proposed is not consistent with several PLAN Hermosa
goals and policies that are listed below.
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Findings
Policy 4.8 Neighborhood buffer.
Encourage all commercial property
owners bordering residential areas to
mitigate impacts and use appropriate
landscaping and buffering of residential
neighborhoods
The traffic analysis does not adequately
assess the impact of the site plan changes on
traffic queues or the traffic flow on and off-
site. Second Street is a two-way street for the
length of the property’s frontage before the
traffic pattern changes to a one-way street
with westbound traffic. Second Street has a
unique traffic pattern; the new driveway,
queuing, and circulation pattern were not
adequately studied to determine whether
impacts on the adjacent neighborhood would
be sufficiently minimized.
Policy 7.7. Private recreational,
cultural, and health care facilities.
Encourage compatible development of
private recreation, cultural, education,
institutional and health care uses along
corridors and in districts.
The traffic analysis does not adequately
assess the impact of the site plan changes
on traffic queues or the traffic flow on and
off-site. It remains unclear whether the use
can operate in a manner compatible with the
abutting corridors and districts.
Environmental Determination:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to a project that an
agency disapproves or rejects [Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15271]. There would be no construction or operation of a
Page 20 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 6
daycare due to the Planning Commission’s denial of the CUP, and as a result, there is no
potential for a reasonably foreseeable, direct or indirect, change to the environment.
Public Notification:
The project was continued to the August 20, 2024 hearing of the Planning Commission.
A public hearing notice is not required for items continued to a specific date. In recognition
of the community's interest in this application, the Community Development Department
provided a courtesy notification for the August 20, 2024, Planning Commission continued
public hearing. A total of 544 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, and
occupants and property owners of properties within a 500-foot radius on August 8, 2024.
A legal ad was also published on August 8, 2024, in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of
general circulation. Because the public hearing was closed, an additional public notice for
the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Resolution memorializing the
Commission’s action of August 20, 2024, is not required.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution No. 24-08
2. Project Plans
3. Supplemental Application Materials
Respectfully Submitted by: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Carrie Tai, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 21 of 124
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 24-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 23-13) TO
ALLOW A 7,214-SQUARE-FOOT PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE WITH AN
OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AT 210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA, 7 (SPA) ZONE, AND DETERMINATION THE PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS, an application was filed on October 12, 2023, by the applicant, Amir Mikhail,
requesting Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit (23-13) to allow a 7,214-
square-foot preschool and daycare with an outdoor play area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of May 21, 2024, considered all
testimony and evidence, both oral and written, that was presented to the Planning Commission
and continued the item to the August 20, 2024 regular meeting of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of August 20, 2024, considered all
testimony and evidence, both oral and written, that was presented to the Planning Commission.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the project and directed
staff to bring back a resolution memorializing the Planning Commission decision at its September
17, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to a project that is
disapproved (Public Resources Code Section 21080.b.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15237).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission determined,
pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.40.020 (General Criteria for All
Uses), that the property is not consistent with the required findings of the Municipal Code:
1. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking facilities, and its distance
from the proposed use; The off-street parking is proposed in two parking lots on-
site. The Traffic Analysis and Addendum lacks data supporting the purported average
loading times that would be required to avoid issues, does not include a revised
calculation of vehicle queuing, and does not assess the turning movements and
potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. There is insufficient information
to conclude that the proposed off-street parking facilities are adequate.
2. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to
assure the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses; The applicant proposed
Page 22 of 124
an operation and site plan changes to try and assure that the daycare's operation
would be consistent with the surrounding uses. These precautions included: 1) staff
facilitating pick up and drop off, 2) pick-up and drop-off schedules, and 3) extended
hours of operation. Although the applicant has proposed several operation and
design measures to facilitate pick up and drop off, the Traffic Analysis and Addendum
lacks a sufficient analysis of the changed impacts on queuing, loading time
assumptions, and turning movements to ensure the compatibility of the use with the
surrounding uses.
3. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size
of streets serving the area; The proposed site plan proposes a second driveway
along 2nd Street and adds a drop-off queuing lane in the southern parking lot. The
Traffic Analysis and Addendum to the traffic study asserts that this will be sufficient to
handle the demand for loading and unloading during the peak drop-off and pick-up
times. However, the Traffic Analysis and Addendum prepared did not assess the site
plan changes to traffic flow on and off-site. Second Street is a two-way street for the
length of the property’s frontage before the traffic pattern changes to a one-way street
with westbound traffic. The Traffic Analysis and Addendum did not adequately assess
the interaction of the unique traffic pattern, the new driveway, queuing, and circulation
pattern, and whether it can adequately serve the business-generated traffic volume as
proposed or with additional conditions.
4. Impact of the proposed use to the city’s infrastructure, and/or services; 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. The
proposed site plan adds a second driveway along 2nd Street and a drop-off queuing
lane to the southerly parking lot off 2nd Street. Although the Traffic Analysis and
Addendum asserts that the changes would be sufficient to handle the demand for
loading and unloading during the peak drop-off and pick-up times, it lacks sufficient
analysis. The addendum prepared did not assess the impact of the site plan changes
on traffic queues or the traffic flow on and off-site. Second Street is a two-way street
for the length of the property’s frontage before the traffic pattern changes to a one-
way street with westbound traffic. The Addendum to the Traffic Analysis did not
adequately assess the interaction of the unique traffic pattern, the new driveway,
queuing, and circulation pattern. It remains unclear whether the abutting street could
adequately serve the use.
Page 23 of 124
SECTION 2. Based on the evidence received at the public meeting, the Planning Commission
hereby further finds, determines, and declares that the project is inconsistent with the following
Goals and Policies of the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa).
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Findings
Policy 4.8 Neighborhood buffer.
Encourage all commercial property
owners bordering residential areas to
mitigate impacts and use appropriate
landscaping and buffering of
residential neighborhoods.
The traffic analysis does not adequately assess
the impact of the site plan changes on traffic
queues or the traffic flow on and off-site.
Second Street is a two-way street for the
length of the property’s frontage before the
traffic pattern changes to a one-way street
with westbound traffic. Second Street has a
unique traffic pattern; the new driveway,
queuing, and circulation pattern were not
adequately studied to determine whether
impacts on the adjacent neighborhood would
be sufficiently minimized.
Policy 7.7. Private recreational,
cultural, and health care facilities.
Encourage compatible development
of private recreation, cultural,
education, institutional and health
care uses along corridors and in
districts.
The traffic analysis does not adequately
assess the impact of the site plan changes on
traffic queues or the traffic flow on and off-
site. It remains unclear whether the use can
operate in a manner compatible with the
abutting corridors and districts.
SECTION 4. Based on the forgoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for
Conditional Use Permit 23-13, to operate a day care and preschool with an outdoor playground
located at 210 Pacific Coast Highway.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the
decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made
within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on the 17th of September 2024.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Page 24 of 124
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution PC 24-08 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 on September 17, 2024.
David Pedersen, Chair Carrie Tai, Secretary
Date
Page 25 of 124
Page 26 of 124
Page 27 of 124
Page 28 of 124
Page 29 of 124
1,200 SF1,800 SF
TOTAL PLAYGROUND
3,000 SF
Page 30 of 124
Page 31 of 124
Page 32 of 124
Page 33 of 124
Page 34 of 124
6'-0" CMU WALLW/ PLAS. FINISHPage 35 of 124
Conditional Use Permit & Parking Plan
Maple Tree Academy Hermosa Beach
Proposed Preschool/Daycare Use
Location: 200-210 Pacific Coast Hwy
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Request: To allow preschool/daycare use in existing car/body repair building.
Project scope to include interior and exterior upgrades, relocation of
floor area.
Proposed 14 parking spaces (11 parking spaces + 12 bike parking
spaces)
Existing: Existing commercial building (body repair & painting, and auto
sales)
Site zone SPA-7 (C-3)
Lot size: approximately 16,200 sf
Building area: 7,214 sf
Proposed: Preschool/Daycare use (Maple tree Academy)
Proposed building area: 7,214 sf
Parking: 14 spaces (included 12 bike parking spaces)
11 parking spaces provided/required
Page 36 of 124
CUP/Parking Plan Analysis and Findings
Background:
The current site is approved for body repair, painting, and auto sales per CUP 91-33.
The existing building is approximately 7,214 sf located at the corner of 2nd st and PCH.
The current zoning is SPA-7 (C-3) requires the approval of conditional use permit for
preschool/daycare use.
Lot size is approximately 16,200 sf, maximum of 10,000 sq. ft gross floor area FAR is
allowed. The existing/proposed FAR are under 10,000 sf. Lot has two different access
points; 2nd st and PCH – this includes vehicular and pedestrian access from both 2nd st
and PCH. The proposed use will utilize both access points for vehicles and pedestrians,
as well as available street parking .
Analysis:
A Conditional Use Permit intends to insure that “compatibility shall be maintained with
respect to the particular use on the particular site and in consideration of other existing
and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located.
The preschool/daycare use meets the CUP goals as it serves the residential
neighborhood adjacent to the site and is a better suited alternative to the existing body
repair use. The proposed use will accept children ages from 3 months to 6 years and
provide much needed service to the community.
Distance from existing residential use:
The site is located on the corner of PCH and 2nd st; uses to the north, south, and west
are commercial. The east side is adjacent to R-1 zone which the preschool/daycare is
planning to serve.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the proposed preschool operates
from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. The drop-off scheduled is between
7:30 – 9:00 am, and pick-up hours are between 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm. Parking areas will
be located off PCH and 2nd st away from the R-1 zone. The area adjacent to the R-1
zone has approximately existing 12 ft high block walls that will remain in place to
provide privacy and noise reduction.
It is anticipated that the preschool play area will not generate significant noise impacts
as playground use is proposed to be limited to 10:00 am – 4:00 pm on weekdays
(children will not be out this whole time). The proposed play area hours are well within
regular business hours to avoid early/late noise to the neighbors.
Page 37 of 124
Parking and traffic:
Impact related to traffic is not expected to have affect the area as the site has two
different parking lots; one off 2nd street and another off PCH. This distribution of parking
lots will significantly reduce traffic impact and will provide smooth circulation.
The project provides 11 parking spaces, and 12 bike parking spaces (total 14 spaces).
Bike parking will be utilized by local employees, in addition to local transportation
means. Proposed 11 parking spaces will be used mostly for parents pick-up and drop-
off. There is building access from each parking lot to facilitate drop-off and pick-up.
Parents will utilize the available street parking for the brief pick-ups and drop-offs; there
are three street parking spaces on 2nd st, in addition to other spaces available on 3rd st
that can be used for parents.
Parking requirements for preschool is 1 space/7 students. The applicant is anticipating
an enrollment of 70 students, increasing up to 98 students within one year of operation.
Staff will be onsite 30 minutes prior to drop-off period and will facilitate drop-off and
assure safety of the students and parents.
The relationship of proposed business-generated traffic volume and size of street
serving the area:
The applicant is anticipating an enrollment of 70 students, increasing up to 98 students
with one year of operation. Drop-off is expected between 7:30 am and 9:00 am, and
pick-up is expected between 4:00 and 5:30 pm. The site is served with two separate
parking lots connected to the building to assure proper vehicular distribution/circulation
and avoid traffic congestion. The proximity to R-1 zone will encourage many parent to
walk to the school through 2nd street for drop-off and pick – this is expected to greatly
reduce the amount of cars and traffic impact. In addition, parents are encouraged to use
available street parking that is immediately adjacent to the site on 2nd and 3rd st. The
combination of parking options and proximity to R-1 zone will together greatly reduce
any traffic impact.
Noise, odor, dust, and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use:
Odor, dust, and vibrations are not associated with the proposed use. Significant noise
impact will not occur as addressed previously with the existing high walls, location of
parking areas, and hours of operations.
77
77
Page 38 of 124
HBMC Standards for operation of preschool with more than 13 children:
1. A minimum of one (1) parking space for every seven (7) children.
This issue is addressed under parking and traffic section above. The new
preschool is expected to have a maximum of 98 students and adequate
parking/parking plan is provided.
2. In residential zones, only property adjacent to commercially zoned property
or property developed with a church or school facility shall be considered
for a day nursery, preschool, or childcare facility with thirteen (13) or more
children.
Not applicable, site is in SPA-7 (C-3) zone.
3. Adequate space for loading and unloading children shall be available or
shall be provided on the site.
This issue is addressed under parking and traffic section above. The new
preschool/daycare is expected to have a maximum of 98 students and adequate
parking/parking plan is provided.
4. Residential use of a day nursery, preschool, or childcare facility with
thirteen (13) or more children shall be prohibited.
The proposed preschool use does not include a residential use component.
5. All day care centers shall comply with state statutes and shall be licensed
by the state. (Prior code Appx. A, § 10-9)
Applicant will obtain and provide a copy of a state license.
77
77
Page 39 of 124
Updated Narrative
RE: Conditional Use Permit (CUP23-10) to operate a preschool at 210 Pacific Coast
Hwy.
The updated hours of operations are from 7 am to 6 pm as indicated in the tra4ic study.
Sta4 member to facilitate drop-o4s and pick-ups at the time of scheduled arrivals as
indicated in the tra4ic study.
Page 40 of 124
Pick-up & Drop-o- Operations Plan
1- The use of shared active sheet (e.g. google sheets)
a. Parents can access and choose drop-o: and pick-up times
b. 7 spaces available at any given time
c. Average 3 minutes for drop-o: or pick-up
d. The use of entry and exit points to facilitate circulation
i. Calculation below is an example of how the sheet would look like
ii. Many parents will either walk to the daycare, as well as siblings in one
vehicle.
Time Notes
Drop-off
7:00 am - 7:15 am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7:15 am - 7:30 am 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:30 am - 7:45 am 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:45 am - 8:00 am 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8:00 am - 8:15 am 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
8:15 am - 8:30 am 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
8:30 am - 8:45 am 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
8:45 am - 9:00 am 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
9:00 am - 9:15 am 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
9:15 am - 9:30 am 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
9:30 am - 9:45 am 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
9:45 am - 10 am Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional
Pick-up
2:00 pm - 2:15 pm 1 2 3 4 5 Optional Optional
2:15 pm - 2:30 pm 6 7 8 9 10 Optional Optional
2:30 pm - 2:45 pm 11 12 13 14 15 Optional Optional
2:45 pm - 3:00 pm 16 17 18 19 20 Optional Optional
3:00 pm - 3:15 pm 21 22 23 24 25 Optional Optional
3:15 pm - 3:30 pm 26 27 28 29 30 Optional Optional
3:30 pm - 3:45 pm 31 32 33 34 35 Optional Optional
3:45 pm - 4:00 pm 36 37 38 39 40 Optional Optional
4:00 pm - 4:15 pm 41 42 43 44 45 Optional Optional
4:15 pm - 4:30 pm 46 47 48 49 50 Optional Optional
4:30 pm - 4:45 pm 51 52 53 54 55 Optional Optional
4:45 pm - 5:00 pm 56 57 58 59 60 Optional Optional
5:00 pm - 5:15 pm 61 62 63 64 65 Optional Optional
5:15 pm - 5:30 pm 66 67 68 70 71 Optional Optional
5:30 pm - 5:45 pm 72 73 74 75 76 Optional Optional
5:45 pm - 6:00 pm 77 Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional
Student ID
Page 41 of 124
2- Utilize Procare app to message sta: for rescheduling and/or special
accommodation
3- Sta: member to facilitate during drop-o: and pick-up
Page 42 of 124
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach
CC: Mr. Amir Mikhail, Pacific Developments
FROM: Srinath Raju, P.E.
Christopher Muñoz
SUBJECT: Hermosa Beach Early Education Center Project - 210 Pacific Coast Highway
Traffic Operations and Parking Study Evaluation
DATE: April 24, 2024 REF: RA 764
Raju Associates was retained to provide an assessment of the proposed Hermosa Beach Early
Education Center Project (Project) to address the City’s request for evaluation of the following site
issues:
The proposed loading and unloading layout and demand.
Employee parking area, vehicle queueing, if any, and impact on abutting right-of -way.
Assess the demand turnover rate for load/unload of children during drop-off and pick-up.
Identify whether the parking lot can handle the peak demand or identify operational layout
or parking changes are needed. Identify if an alternative parking location(s), configuration,
or parking assignment is needed. In the event that there is a need for additional parking to
support the current demand for 77 children or a future expansion, explore off-site parking
arrangement on neighboring properties in accordance with Hermosa Beach municipal
code.
This technical memorandum provides a summary of the description of existing conditions, Project
description, summary of the Project’s trip generation estimates, and an evaluation and
assessment of the Project’s parking and loading/unloading area(s), and drop-off and pick-up
operations. Additionally, VMT screening analysis and updated traffic and queueing analysis using
new traffic counts at the Pacific Coast Highway/2nd Street intersection have been provided in this
memorandum.
Based on an assessment of the above, the Project will provide adequate drop-off/pick-up spaces
to accommodate the demand of the students. No traffic issues were identified at the Pacific Coast
Highway/2nd Street intersection.
444 E. Huntington Dr,
Suite 305
Arcadia, CA 91006
Voice: (626) 792-2700
Fax: (626) 792-2772
1
Page 43 of 124
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project site is located at 210 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Hermosa Beach,
California. The Project site is generally bounded by commercial and several residential uses to the
north, 2nd Street to the south, PCH to the west and residential use to the east. The Project site and
general vicinity are shown in Figure 1.
The existing site currently contains a retail auto showroom-body shop building. Two existing
surface parking lots would serve the Project. One parking lot is located north of the building and is
accessed from the driveway along PCH, while the other parking lot is located south of the building
and is accessed from a driveway located along 2nd Street. As proposed, this existing building will
be converted to a day care (early education center) facility.
Existing Street System
A brief description of the roadways serving the Project Site including functional class, number of
lanes, speed limits, and parking availability is presented in the following section.
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) – PCH (SR-1) is classified as a major arterial highway and
runs in a north-south direction. It defines the western frontage of Project Site. This
roadway generally provides five travel lanes, three lanes in the northbound direction and
two lanes in the southbound direction, during the morning peak commute period; and two
lanes in the northbound direction and three lanes in the southbound direction during the
evening peak commute peak period. Two travel lanes in each direction are provided
during the non-peak commute hours with restricted parking on both sides of the street.
Within the study area, restricted (non-metered) on-street parking is generally allowed on
both sides of the street. The posted speed limit along this facility is 30 miles per hour.
2nd Street – 2nd Street is a local roadway and defines the southern frontage of the Project
Site. Adjacent to the Project Site, it provides two travel lanes, one lane in the eastbound
and westbound directions. The roadway becomes one-way westbound approximately 150
feet east of PCH and provides neighborhood intrusion protection. The prima facie speed
limit is 25 miles per hour. Due to the topography of 2nd Street, 15 miles per hour warning
signs are posted along this roadway.
2
Page 44 of 124
3Page 45 of 124
Existing Pedestrian Circulation System
The pedestrian circulation system includes crosswalks, intersection traffic control, and sidewalks
available to serve pedestrians. PCH and 2nd Street offer pedestrian access and circulation
possibilities to the Project Site. Sidewalks are available on both sides of PCH and 2nd Street near
and adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site. The existing sidewalk/parkway along PCH
adjacent to the Project Site is approximately 8 feet wide, while the existing sidewalk/parkway
along 2nd Street is 5 to 8 feet wide. Pedestrian crosswalks adjacent to the Project Site are
available at the nearby intersections of PCH/1st Street, PCH/2nd Street and PCH/3rd Street.
Existing Transit Serving the Study Area
One bus line operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA/Metro) and one bus line operated by Redondo Beach - Beach Cities Transit (BCT) currently
serve the vicinity of the Project Site. A list of these transit lines is provided below and illustrated
in Figure 2.
Metro Line 232 – Metro Line 232 provides service from Long Beach to LAX and travels
primarily along PCH within the study area.
BCT Line 109 – BCT Line 109 provides service from Redondo Beach Riviera Village to
the LAX City Bus Center and travels primarily along Hermosa Avenue with the study
area.
Bus stops serving Metro Line 109 nearest to the Project Site are located at the corners of the
intersection of PCH/5th Street and PCH/Herondo Street; as well as bus stops located at the
corners of the intersection of Hermosa Avenue/2nd Street that serve BCT Line 109.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located on the north-east corner of the intersection of PCH and 2nd Street in the
City of Hermosa Beach, California. The Project consists of an early education center (day care)
with a maximum enrollment of 77 students. A total of 11 vehicle parking spaces will be
available on site at the two existing surface parking lots. Five vehicle parking spaces would be
provided in the PCH parking lot, while 6 vehicle parking spaces would be provided in the 2nd
Street parking lot. The Project site plan is shown in Figure 3.
4
Page 46 of 124
5Page 47 of 124
2,435 SF / 35
SF= 70 OCCS1,335 SF / 35 SF= 38 OCCSCOMPACTCOMPACTNOPARKINGCOMPACTADAVAN2,600 SF / 35 SF= 75 OCCS1,142 SF / 35 SF= 33 OCCSCOMPACTSANDBOXSANDBOX7'-6"17'-8"18'-0"5'-0"10"10"8'-6"G.D.MIRCRODRAWER DWG.D.G.D.
MIRC
RO
DRAW
ERDW8'-4 1/2"8'-6"1'-3 1/2"3'-5 1/2"18'-0"18'-0"4'-6 1/2"5'-4"25'-2"(E) BUILDING(E) RETAIL SHOWROOM / BODY SHOP TOBE CONVERTED TO (N) PRE-SCHOOL1-STORYTYPE V-B (NON SPRINKLERED)DAYCARE / INFANTPLAYGROUNDPRE-SCHOOLPLAYGROUNDRE-STRIPE (E) PARKINGLOTRE-STRIPE (E) PARKINGLOT7'-6"7'-6"8'-6"2'-6"8'-6"9'-0"21'-4" EXSTING CURB CUT
17'-3" EXISTIN
G
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
BIKEBIKEBIKE
BIKE
18'-0"29'-1 1/2"15'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE35'-11"40'-6 1/2"DROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING
DROP OFF /PICK UPPARKINGDROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING36" W.GATEP.A.P.A.P.A.P.A.P.A.P.A.(E) P.A.P.A.P.A.
P.A.5'-1 1/2"UP36" W.GATE36" W.GATE36" W.GATE(N) ELECT.BIKE
BIKEBIKEBIKEBIKE
BIKE
2% SL
(1) 3 C.Y. BIN &(1) 35 GAL. CART OF ORGANICRECYCLE 11'-10 1
/2"
7'-0"8"
8'-4"
2% MAX.SLOPE
2% MAX.SLOPEP.A.10'-0" MIN. CLR. PERHBMC 17.46.060
10'-0" MIN. CLR. PE
R
HBMC 17.46.060
8'-9"(E) SIGNAL &
LIGHT POLE(E) FIRE HYDRANT(E) SIGNAL & L
IGHT POLE(E) SIGNAL & LIGHT POLE8'-0"1'-0"PROP. LINEPROP. LINEPROP. LINE
PROP. LINE PROP. LINEPROP. LINE PROP. LINEPROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
8"10'-1"1'-4"
8"5'-7"P.A.DROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING6Page 48 of 124
PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Based on the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.110 (A) – Day Nursery,
Preschools, and After School Child Care with Thirteen (13) or more Students, the Project would
need to provide 1 space for every seven (7) students. Therefore, the parking requirement for the
Project is 11 spaces. The Project is providing a total of 11 parking spaces, satisfying the parking
code requirement.
PROJECT PARKING LAYOUT
As shown in Figure 3, the Project is proposing to provide 5 parking spaces in the PCH parking
lot located north of the Project building consisting of one standard parking space, two compact
parking spaces, one designated drop-off/pick-up (standard) space and one ADA van accessible
parking space. Additionally, this parking lot would provide 10 bicycle parking spaces. The
existing approximately 17-foot driveway along PCH would continue to provide access to this
parking lot.
The Project is proposing to provide 6 parking spaces in the 2nd Street parking lot located south
of the Project building consisting of two standard tandem parking spaces (a total of 4 spaces),
one compact drop-off/pick-up space and one standard drop-off/pick-up space. The existing
approximately 21-foot driveway along 2nd Street would continue to provide access to this
parking lot.
Overall, a total of 8 parking spaces (including one ADA parking space) would be provided for
staff/employees and 3 parking spaces would be designated for student drop-off/pick-up
(unloading/loading).
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The Project consists of a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 77 students. Utilizing the
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, the Project’s trip
generation was determined. Table 1 presents details of the Project’s trip generation including type
of use, size, applicable rate, and trip generation estimates. Other calculations within the table also
provide for trip generation reductions from walk trips.
7
Page 49 of 124
From Table 1, it can be observed that the Project’s trip generation would result in a net total of
approximately 289 daily trips of which approximately 53 trips (28 inbound and 25 outbound) would
occur during the morning peak hour and 53 trips (25 inbound and 28 outbound) would occur
during the evening peak hour.
The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, also provides hourly distribution of vehicles
entering and exiting a typical day care facility (see Attachment A). Based on these percentages,
an hourly distribution of vehicles entering and exiting the Project Site is provided in Table 2. As
indicated in Table 2, the peak hour during the morning drop-off period occurred between 7:00
AM and 8:00 AM with a total of 28 inbound trips and 25 outbound trips. This is consistent with
the morning peak hour trip generation shown in Table 1.
It was also assumed from the ITE hourly distribution that the pick-up period occurred over a
four-hour period between the hours of 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM. From Table 2, the peak hour
during the evening pick-up period occurred at 5:00 PM with a total of 25 inbound trips and 28
outbound trips. This is consistent with the evening peak hour trip generation shown in Table 1.
PROJECT DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP EVALUATION
This section provides an evaluation of the proposed drop-off and pick-up operations, an
assessment of the demand turnover rate for unloading/loading students during drop-off and
pick-up periods and identifies whether the parking lot can handle the estimated peak demand.
This section also provides recommendations for the parking and operational layout to better
serve the needs of the Project Site.
Proposed Drop-Off and Pick-Up Operations
As currently proposed, student drop-offs and pick-ups would occur in both parking lots. The
PCH parking lot provides one parking space designated for drop-offs and pick-ups. Vehicles
would enter from the driveway along PCH and park in the designated drop-off/pick-up space.
The parent(s) would exit the vehicle and walk their child(ren) into the facility (drop-offs) or pick-
up their child from the facility, return to their vehicle and exit right onto PCH.
8
Page 50 of 124
TABLE 1ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily AM Peak HourPM Peak HourSizeTrips IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTALProposed ProjectDay Care Center77 students 321 31 28 59 28 31 59Walk Trips (10%) (32) (3) (3) (6) (3) (3) (6)Project Net Trip Generation Total 289 28 25 53 25 28 53Trip Rates [1]Day Care Center (ITE Land Use 565) Trips per student[2] 53% 47% [2] 47% 53% [2][1] Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, ITE 2021.[2] Trip generation estimates for Day Care Center (ITE Land Use 565) was calculated using the following equations:Where:Daily T = 3.56 (X) + 47.23 Ln = Natural logarithmAM Peak Hour: T = 0.66 (X) + 8.42 T = Two-way volume of traffic (total trip-ends)PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.87 Ln (X) + 0.29 X = Number of students9
Page 51 of 124
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED HOURLY DISTRIBUTION
Vehicle Trips
Time Period Total Entering Exiting
7:00 - 8:00 AM 53 28 25
8:00 - 9:00 AM 38 19 19
9:00 - 10:00 AM 14 8 7
2:00 - 3:00 PM 21 10 10
3:00 - 4:00 PM 21 11 10
4:00 - 5:00 PM 40 20 19
5:00 - 6:00 PM 53 25 28
[1] It was assumed from the ITE hourly distribution that the drop-off period occurred between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM and the pick-up period occurred between the hours of 2:00 PM and
6:00 PM.
* Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Hourly Distribution of Entering and Exiting
Vehicle Trips by Land Use Table, included in Attachment A.Drop-Off Period [1]Pick-Up Period [1]10
Page 52 of 124
The 2nd Street parking lot provides two parking spaces designated for drop-offs and pick-ups.
Due to the neighborhood traffic protection feature along 2nd Street, parents will be directed to
enter 2nd Street from PCH to access the parking lot. Vehicles would enter from the driveway
along 2nd Street and park in the designated drop-off space. The parent(s) would exit the vehicle
and walk their child(ren) into the facility (drop-offs) or pick-up their child from the facility, return
to their vehicle and exit right onto 2nd Street.
Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Space Turnover Rate
For the purposes of this evaluation, a drop-off demand turnover rate of 5 minutes per vehicle
per space during the morning peak hour was assumed. This is based on observations at other
day care facilities where the demand turnover rate was 3-5 minutes. A pick-up demand turnover
rate of 3-4 minutes (or 4 minutes) per vehicle space during the evening peak hour was
assumed. This pick-up demand turnover rate of 3-4 minutes was also based on observations at
other day care facilities.
Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Space Capacity vs Demand
Table 3 provides a summary of the drop-off/pick-up space capacity by each schedule shift. As
indicated in the table, based on a turnover rate of 5 minutes per vehicle per space and
assuming a uniform arrival pattern, each space can accommodate up to 12 vehicles within each
60-minute drop-off morning period. The Project is providing a total of 3 drop-off/pick-up spaces
and, therefore, would be able to accommodate a demand of approximately 36 vehicles during
each 60-minute drop-off period. Similarly, the Project would be able to accommodate
approximately 45 vehicles in the 60-minute pick-up evening time.
Based on the results of the trip generation evaluation, the Project is anticipated to generate
approximately 25 drop-offs during the morning drop-off peak hour and approximately 25 pick-
ups during the evening pick-up peak hour. Therefore, the proposed 3 drop-off/pick-up spaces
would be adequate to serve the Project’s projected demand.
City staff has requested that random arrivals be used and probabilities that the demand is three
(3) or less and four (4) or more be determined. Random arrivals typically follow Poisson
11
Page 53 of 124
TABLE 3
DROP-OFF/PICK-UP SPACES CAPACITY
Drop-Off Peak Hour Minutes
7:00 - 8:00 AM 60 36 vehicles*
(3 spaces x 60min/5 min)
PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR DEMAND 25 vehicles
Pick-Up Peak Hour Minutes
5:00-6:00 PM 60 45 vehicles*
(3 spaces x 60min/4 min)
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR DEMAND 25 vehicles
Number of Vehicles
(Capacity)[2]
[1] A turnover rate of 5 minutes per vehicle per space was assumed during the
morning peak hour drop-off time period.
* Based on the provision of 3 drop-off/pick-up spaces.
[2] A turnover rate of 4 minutes per vehicle per space was assumed during the
evening pick-up peak hour time period.
Number of Vehicles
(Capacity)[1]
12
Page 54 of 124
Distribution. The Poisson Probability Density Function gives the probability of an event
happening a certain number of times (k) within a given interval of time or space. Table 4
provides the Poisson distribution for random arrivals. As indicated in Table 4, there is an
approximately 91 percent probability that the demand will be three (3) or less (parents dropping-
off/picking-up their child(ren) at one time). The probability that the demand is four (4) or more is
approximately 9 percent. Therefore, since more than 90 percent of the time, the demand would
be three (3) or less, there would be adequate drop-off/pick-up spaces provided on site.
Although there is a small percentage of the peak times that the demand would be greater than
the three (3) available drop-off/pick-up spaces, this would not have any impact of emergency
vehicles. There would be adequate space for these emergency vehicles to get past other
vehicles on 2nd Street, similar to what currently occurs.
PROJECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) AND OTHER ANALYSIS
The city staff requested that the Transportation Study also address VMT analysis and
intersection level of service (LOS) and queueing analysis at PCH and 2nd Street. The city staff
directed the applicant to conduct the VMT analysis using State guidelines. The following
section addresses these elements.
VMT Analysis
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued guidance on the technical
aspects of SB 743 implementation. As part of the requirements, a new performance metric
(VMT) was established for measurement of significant impacts under CEQA. The OPR’s
Technical Advisory, dated December 2019, stated that projects that generate less than 110
daily trips would be deemed to not cause significant transportation impacts.
Further, the advisory stated under VMT Mitigation and Alternatives section that potential
measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include the following:
Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and
daycare.
13
Page 55 of 124
TABLE 4
POISSON DISTRIBUTION - RANDOM ARRIVALS FUNCTION
Probability(event)k P value Cumulative P value
P(0) 0 0.186373976 0.186373976
P(1) 1 0.31310828 0.499482256
P(2) 2 0.263010955 0.762493211
P(3) 3 0.147286135 0.909779346
P(4) 4 0.061860177
P(5) 5 0.020785019
P(6) 6 0.005819805
P(4) or more 0.090220654
Probability of Demand 3 or less = 0.91 OR 91%
Probability of Demand 4 ormore = 0.09 OR 9%
Poisson Probability Density Function
is P(k) = (X^k)*(e^-X )/ k!
Mean value X = 1.68
14
Page 56 of 124
The proposed Day Care project includes 77 students replacing an existing use. The existing
use could be retail or the last-known use (auto sales). Using the latest ITE 11th Edition Trip
Generation Rates / Equations, the net trip generation estimates for the proposed Project with
existing retail use credit and with existing auto sales credit were prepared. Tables 5 and 6
provide the net project trip generation for daily, AM and PM peak hours using existing retail
credit and existing auto sales credit, respectively.
From Table 5, it can be observed that the project would generate fewer daily trips compared to
the existing retail (65 less daily trips). Additionally, the project would generate less PM peak
hour trips (3 trips less). During the AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 19
trips inbound and outbound. Based on the project traffic assignment, it was estimated that the
project would not cause any operational issues at the intersection of PCH and 2nd Street.
From Table 6, it can be observed that the project would generate a total of 94 daily trips.
However, since the project would generate less than 110 daily trips, the project would be
presumed to not cause any significant transportation impacts, according to the Governor’s office
of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory.
Finally, based on the net morning and evening peak hour trip generation and distribution, given
the small amount of additional southbound left-turning movement traffic at the PCH/2nd Street
intersection, it was estimated that there would be minimal operational effects associated with
the Project and that the queue would not extend beyond the storage pocket. No further
transportation analysis is necessary.
Intersection LOS and Queueing Analyses
Weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour traffic counts were compiled from data
collected at the study intersection in April 2024, included in Attachment B. These traffic volumes
reflect typical weekday operations during current year 2024 conditions. The intersection lane
configurations and Existing (2024) peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. The existing
signal timing information was obtained from a recently completed traffic study (PCH and 2nd
Street – Proposed Starbucks Transportation Analysis Memorandum, General Technologies
Solutions, December 29, 2021, revised January 12, 2022) in the City of Hermosa Beach and
verified using field observations.
15
Page 57 of 124
TABLE 5ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily AM Peak HourPM Peak HourSizeTrips IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTALProposed ProjectDay Care Center77 students 321 31 28 59 28 31 59Walk Trips (10%) (32) (3) (3) (6) (3) (3) (6)Existing UseRetail(7,214) s.f.(393) (10) (7) (17) (31) (31) (62)Walk Trips (10%) 39 112336Project Net Trip Generation Total (65) 19 19 38 (3) 0 (3)Trip Rates [1]Day Care Center (ITE Land Use 565) Trips per student[2] 53% 47% [2] 47% 53% [2]Retail < 40ksf (ITE Land Use 822) Trips per 1,000 s.f.54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% [3][1] Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, ITE 2021.[2] Trip generation estimates for Day Care Center (ITE Land Use 565) was calculated using the following equations:Where:Daily T = 3.56 (X) + 47.23 Ln = Natural logarithmAM Peak Hour: T = 0.66 (X) + 8.42 T = Two-way volume of traffic (total trip-ends)PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.87 Ln (X) + 0.29 X = Number of students[3] PM trip generation estimates for Retail (ITE Land Use 822) was calculated using the following equation:Where:PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.71 Ln (X) + 2.72 Ln = Natural logarithm T = Two-way volume of traffic (total trip-ends) X = Number of students16
Page 58 of 124
TABLE 6ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily AM Peak HourPM Peak HourSizeTrips IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTALProposed ProjectDay Care Center77 students 321 31 28 59 28 31 59Walk Trips (10%) (32) (3) (3) (6) (3) (3) (6)Existing UseAuto Sales - Used(7,214) s.f.(195) (11) (4) (15) (13) (14) (27)Project Net Trip Generation Total 94 17 21 38 12 14 26Trip Rates [1]Day Care Center (ITE Land Use 565)Trips per student[2] 53% 47% [2] 47% 53% [2]Auto Sales - Used (ITE Land Use 841) Trips per 1,000 s.f.27.06 76% 24% 2.13 47% 53% 3.75[1] Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, ITE 2021.[2] Trip generation estimates for Day Care Center was calculated using the following equations:Where:Daily T = 3.56 (X) + 47.23 Ln = Natural logarithmAM Peak Hour: T = 0.66 (X) + 8.42 T = Two-way volume of traffic (total trip-ends)PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.87 Ln (X) + 0.29 X = Number of students17
Page 59 of 124
18Page 60 of 124
The intersection capacity analysis and queue analysis were conducted based on the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized intersection methodology utilizing Synchro 11 software. The
HCM signalized methodology calculates the average control delay, in seconds, for each vehicle
passing through the intersection.
LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from
excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized
as the minimum acceptable level of service in urban areas. The LOS definitions for signalized
intersections are provided in Table 7.
Existing (2024) LOS Analysis. The Existing (2024) traffic volumes presented in Figure 4 for
AM and PM peak hours were used in conjunction with the level of service methodologies
described above, and the current intersection lane configurations (also illustrated in Figure 4), to
determine the existing operating conditions at the analyzed intersection. The study intersection,
PCH at 2nd Street, consists of two closely spaced intersections that operate under one
controller. For this unique condition, Synchro 11 software cluster editor was utilized to simulate
this condition.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the intersection capacity analysis for existing conditions. The
table indicates the existing average control delay for each intersection during the morning and
evening peak hours and the corresponding LOS. As illustrated in the table, the study
intersection is currently operating at LOS B during both the morning and evening peak hours.
The operational calculation worksheets for Existing (2024) conditions are provided in
Attachment C.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. The Project’s trip distribution was based on
various factors such as project site location, points of access of the project driveways,
availability of major and secondary arterials connecting to the regional roadway system as well
as professional judgment and local knowledge of travel patterns within the study area.
Based on these distribution assumptions, location and points of access, and Project trip
generation estimates (AM: 28 inbound trips, 25 outbound trips and PM: 25 inbound trips, 28
outbound) traffic estimates of project-only trips were developed. Note that the Project traffic
assignments include walk trip credit and do not include existing use credit. The resulting net
Project-only trips are also shown in Figure 5.
19
Page 61 of 124
TABLE 7LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUEUE ANALYSISExisting (2024)Existing (2024) withSBL NBLConditionsProject ConditionsIntersectionStorage Length (feet)Storage Length (feet)Peak HourDelay [1]LOS [2]SBL Queue Length [3]NBL Queue Length [3]Delay [1]LOS [2]SBL Queue Length [3]NBL Queue Length [3]1W. PCH & 2nd Street (west leg)-- AM8.2A--8.2A--1E. PCH & 2nd Street (east leg)25' 20' AM12.8B2'41'13.3B15'41'1W. PCH & 2nd Street (west leg)-- PM15.4B--15.5B--1E. PCH & 2nd Street (east leg)25' 20' PM8.1A1'80'8.8A10'83'SBL = Southbound Left-TurnNBL = Northbound Left-Turn*These intersections are controlled by one traffic signal controller and have been evaluated as such utilizing Synchro 11 software intersection cluster editor.[1] Delay based on HCM signalized intersection methodology reported in average seconds per vehicle.LOS: Average Delay (seconds/vehicle)LOS A: < 10.0 secondsLOS B: > 10.0 and < 20.0 secondsLOS C: > 20.0 and < 35.0 secondsLOS D: > 35.0 and < 55.0 secondsLOS E: > 55.0 and < 80.0 secondsLOS F: > 80.0 seconds[3] 95th-Percentile queue length from Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology using Synchro 11 software.[2] Level of Service definitions for signalized intersections (source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016):20
Page 62 of 124
21Page 63 of 124
Existing (2024) with Project Traffic Volumes. The Existing (2024) traffic volumes were
combined with the Project-only (net) traffic volumes to obtain the Existing with Project traffic
volume forecasts presented in Figure 6.
Existing (2024) with Project LOS Analysis. The Existing (2024) with Project traffic volumes,
presented in Figure 6, were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay. Table 7
presents the results of the LOS analysis at the study intersections for existing conditions without
and with Project. As summarized in Table 7, Existing (2024) with Project conditions analysis
indicates that the Project’s traffic does not change the levels of service at the study location
compared to Existing (2024) conditions (without Project) during both the morning and evening
peak hours. The operational analysis calculation worksheets for Existing (2024) with Project
conditions are provided in Attachment C.
Queue Analysis. The city staff requested that the Transportation Study also provide a
southbound left-turn queueing analysis at PCH and 2nd Street intersection. The HCM
methodology for signalized intersections (in Synchro software) was utilized to calculate vehicle
queuing for the southbound left-turn. The operational analysis reports the 95th percentile queue
length (in feet) for the signalized intersections. This is a conservative analysis and does not
represent what the average driver would experience, but it is a standard commonly used in
traffic engineering design to determine lengths of turn lane pockets.
Table 7 summarizes the study intersection’s southbound left-turn queues for Existing (2024)
conditions and Existing (2024) with Project conditions. The southbound left-turn pocket has a
storage length of approximately 25 feet. As indicated in Table 7, the southbound left-turn has a
queue length of 2 feet during the morning peak hour and 1 foot during the evening peak hour
under Existing (2024) conditions. With the addition of Project traffic, the southbound left-turn is
projected to have a queue length of approximately 15 feet during the morning peak hour and
approximately 10 feet during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the southbound left-turn pocket
can accommodate the addition of the Project’s traffic. No spillover from the southbound left-turn
pocket into the through lane is anticipated.
22
Page 64 of 124
23Page 65 of 124
Additionally, the city has now requested the northbound left-turn queueing analysis. Table 7 also
summarizes the study intersection’s northbound left-turn queues for Existing (2024) conditions
and Existing (2024) with Project conditions. The northbound left-turn pocket has a storage
length of approximately 20 feet. As indicated in Table 7, the northbound left-turn queue length
extends beyond the storage length under Existing (2024) conditions during both the morning (41
feet queue) and evening (80 feet queue) peak hours. The addition of Project traffic (one trip
during both the morning and evening peak hours) would have no effect to minimal effect on the
queue length during the morning peak hour (no change in queue length), and evening peak
hour (3 feet increase in queue length), respectively.
Recommendations
The following recommended changes to the parking layout and operations have been provided
in order to accommodate the Project’s estimated demand during the drop-off/pick-up periods
and provide safer and organized drop-off/pick-up operations.
The Project should provide one centralized drop-off/pick-up area. This can be
accomplished by removing the drop-off/pick-up space from the PCH parking lot. This
space would be designated as a standard parking space. All drop-off/pick-up activities
should occur at the 2nd Street parking lot. This will organize vehicles dropping off or
picking up students to/from one area, thereby improving operations and safety.
The Project should designate one additional drop-off/pick-up space in the 2nd Street
parking lot. This space can be provided behind the tandem spaces, as shown in Figure
7. A total of 3 spaces would be designated as drop-off/pick-up spaces. This would result
in relocating one standard parking space to the Project’s parking lot along PCH.
Based on comments from the city, the compact space in the 2nd Street parking lot would
no longer be designated as a drop-off/pick-up space. An additional drop-off/pick-up
space would be provided behind the remaining tandem space, as shown Figure 7.
24
Page 66 of 124
2,600 SF / 35 SF= 75 OCCS1,142 SF
/ 35 SF= 33 OCCSCOMPACTSANDBOX36" W.GATEDROP OFF
/PICK
UPPARKINGDROP OFF /PICK UPPARKINGDROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING
DROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING 25Page 67 of 124
CONCLUSION
The Project would convert an existing retail vehicle showroom/body shop building into a day
care center facility that would have a maximum enrollment of 77 students. The Project is
anticipated to generate approximately 25 vehicle drop-offs during the morning drop-off peak
hour and approximately 25 vehicle pick-ups during the evening pick-up peak hour. After
implementation of the recommendations, the Project would provide a total of 3 drop-off/pick-up
spaces at the Project’s 2nd Street parking lot, which would be adequate for the proposed day
care facility.
Based on Poisson distribution of random arrivals, there is an approximately 91 percent
probability that the demand at the drop-off/pick-up spaces would be three (3) or less during
peak times. The demand would have approximately 9 percent probability that it would be four
(4) or more during peak times. Therefore, the recommended 3 drop-off/pick-up spaces would
satisfy the Project’s projected demand.
The proposed Project would be exempt from VMT analysis since the total net daily trips
associated with the Project is less than 110 trips. The OPR guidelines also state that uses such
as the proposed child day care project increases access to common goods and services,
thereby reducing VMT and providing potential VMT mitigation. No further VMT analysis would
be required for the Project.
Based on a level of service (LOS) evaluation at the PCH/2nd Street study intersection, the
intersection is projected at LOS B during both the morning and evening peak hours under
Existing (2024) with Project conditions, similar to Existing (2024) conditions. The queueing
analysis at this location indicates that the southbound left-turn pocket can accommodate the
addition of the Project’s traffic and that no spillover from the southbound left-turn pocket into the
through lane is anticipated. The effect of Project traffic on the PCH/2nd Street intersection
operations would be minimal.
26
Page 68 of 124
ATTACHMENT A
Page 69 of 124
ATTACHMENT A
Land Use Code
Land Use
Setting
Time Period
# Data Sites
Time Total Entering Exiting
7:00 - 8:00 AM 17.9% 19.5% 16.3%
8:00 - 9:00 AM 13.0% 13.2% 12.8%
9:00 - 10:00 AM 5.0% 5.4% 4.6%
10:00 - 11:00 AM 2.7% 2.6% 2.9%
11:00 - 12:00 PM 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
12:00 - 1:00 PM 2.4% 2.1% 2.6%
1:00 - 2:00 PM 4.3% 4.1% 6.9%
2:00 - 3:00 PM 7.2% 6.7% 6.9%
3:00 - 4:00 PM 7.4% 7.5% 7.1%
4:00 - 5:00 PM 13.8% 13.6% 14.0%
5:00 - 6:00 PM 17.7%16.7%18.7%
Weekday
19
% of 24-Hour Vehicle Trips
Hourly Distribution of Entering and Exiting Vehicle Trips by Land Use
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual , 11th Edition
565
Day Care Center
General Urban/Suburban
Page 70 of 124
ATTACHMENT B
Page 71 of 124
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4591
Thu, Apr 18, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #:1EAST & WEST: CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTLLANES:130 1 3001001 0 0000
7:00 AM 34600 022010160113 0 714 000007:15 AM 35531 02165140431 0 800 000007:30 AM 55640 02608170330 5 865 000007:45 AM 65312 12728210315 4 854 000008:00 AM 44791 028412200626 7 821 000008:15 AM 94350 033812200620 3 825 00000
8:30 AM 84540 030318160361 3 812 00000
8:45 AM 45261 030114290321 5 886 00000
VOLUMES 424,0025 12,194871530292017276,577 00000
APPROACH % 1% 99% 0% 0% 96% 4% 84% 0% 16% 31% 27% 42%
APP/DEPART 4,049 /4,182 2,282 /2,243 182 /664/146 0BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES 242,0093 11,1544078018811193,365 0000APPROACH % 1% 99% 0% 0% 97% 3% 81% 0% 19% 21% 29% 50%PEAK HR FACTOR 0.895 0.854 0.923 0.633 0.973APP/DEPART 2,036 /2,106 1,195 /1,180 96 /438/75 04:00 PM 5 368 1 2 410 14 19 0 11 5 0 1 836 000004:15 PM 11 367 1 0 475 9 18 0 12 6 1 3 903 10001
4:30 PM 63322 044412160623 3 826 00000
4:45 PM 5 386 2 0 516 11 21 0 12 5 2 3 963 00000
5:00 PM 13 316 1 0 415 6 13 0 15 3 1 5 788 00000
5:15 PM 11 376 1 0 517 20 22 0 21 3 3 4 978 00000
5:30 PM 153271 049118171551 5 886 00000
5:45 PM 4 351 1 0 471 10 18 0 18 3 0 6 882 00000VOLUMES 702,82310 23,73910014411003211307,063 10001APPROACH % 2% 97% 0% 0% 97% 3% 59% 0% 41% 44% 15% 41%APP/DEPART 2,904 /2,997 3,841 /3,872 245 /13 73 /181 0BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES 441,4055 01,9395573153167 173,615 0000APPROACH % 3% 97% 0% 0% 97% 3% 57% 1% 42% 40% 18% 43%PEAK HR FACTOR 0.925 0.928 0.738 0.909 0.924
APP/DEPART 1,454 /1,495 1,994 /2,008 127 /640/106 0
Pacific Coast Hwy
NORTH LEG
2nd St WEST LEG EAST LEG 2nd St
SOUTH LEG
Pacific Coast Hwy
N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 2 2 2 6 0211 4 00112
7:15 AM 0 4 2 1 7 0421 7 00000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0001 1 000007:45 AM 0 8 0 0 8 0400 4 040048:00 AM 0 7 7 2 16 0531 9 02417
8:15 AM 0 7 6 8 21 065516 01135
8:30 AM 0 4 3 1 8 0421 7 00101
8:45 AM 0 6 5 1 12 054110 01102
TOTAL 038 25 1679 030171158 088521BEGIN PEAK HR 0158 7 30
4:00 PM 0 5 2 2 9 0411 6 01113
4:15 PM 0 8 6 2 16 075113 011134:30 PM 0 7 3 3 13 063110 010234:45 PM 0 7 4 1 12 0521 8 02204
5:00 PM 0 17 6 2 25 0165 1 22 01113
5:15 PM 0 9 7 2 18 086216 01102
5:30 PM 0 9 9 2 20 098118 00112
5:45 PM 0 9 5 1 15 083011 01214TOTAL071 42 15128 063338104 089724
038215 64AMPMAM7:30 AM
PM4:45 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER
7:30 AM
BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM
BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGSPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
U-TURNS
Pacific Coast Hwy
Queue NB AM; SB PM
Pacific Coast Hwy 2nd St 2nd St
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
Hermosa Beach
Pacific Coast Hwy
2nd St
Page 72 of 124
ATTACHMENT C
Page 73 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) - AM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)78 18 35 2028 1155 40
Future Volume (vph)78 18 35 2028 1155 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1744 1770 5085 5060
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1744 1770 5085 5060
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 80 19 36 2091 1191 41
RTOR Reduction (vph)000030
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 0 36 2091 1229 0
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 3 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 19.5 109.5 85.5
Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 19.5 109.5 85.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.14 0.78 0.61
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 246 3977 3090
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.02 c0.41 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.15 0.53 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 53.2 52.9 5.6 14.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.51 0.10 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.9 0.4 0.4
Delay (s)57.1 80.7 0.9 14.4
Level of Service E F A B
Approach Delay (s) 57.1 2.3 14.4
Approach LOS E A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 74 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) - AM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)8 30 2033 3 1 1172
Future Volume (vph)8 30 2033 3 1 1172
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1646 5084 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1646 5084 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 8 31 2096 3 1 1208
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 0 2099 0 1 1208
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 85.5 21.5 111.5
Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 85.5 21.5 111.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.61 0.15 0.80
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 3104 271 4049
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.41 0.00 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.68 0.00 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 18.1 50.2 3.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.32 0.01
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.2
Delay (s)54.7 19.3 66.3 0.2
Level of Service D B E A
Approach Delay (s) 54.7 19.3 0.3
Approach LOS D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 75 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) - AM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 36 2091 1232
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.15 0.53 0.40
Control Delay 57.8 81.5 0.9 14.4
Queue Delay 0.0 127.9 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 57.8 209.5 1.2 14.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 27 11 159
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 m41 12 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 149 37 168
Turn Bay Length (ft) 20
Base Capacity (vph) 267 246 3977 3092
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 221 896 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 1.44 0.68 0.40
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 76 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) - AM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 2099 1 1208
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.68 0.00 0.30
Control Delay 55.4 19.5 66.0 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.1
Total Delay 55.4 20.1 67.0 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 353 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 393 m2 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 262 37
Turn Bay Length (ft)25
Base Capacity (vph) 229 3105 271 4049
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 246 1564
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 563 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.83 0.04 0.49
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 77 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) - PM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)73 54 51 1422 1939 55
Future Volume (vph)73 54 51 1422 1939 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1706 1770 5085 5064
Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1706 1770 5085 5064
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 59 55 1546 2108 60
RTOR Reduction (vph)000020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 0 55 1546 2166 0
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 3 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 31.5 11.5 99.5 83.5
Effective Green, g (s) 31.5 11.5 99.5 83.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.08 0.71 0.60
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 145 3613 3020
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 c0.30 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 60.9 8.4 19.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.51 0.09 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 6.4 0.3 1.5
Delay (s)48.4 98.6 1.1 21.4
Level of Service D F A C
Approach Delay (s) 48.4 4.4 21.4
Approach LOS D A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 78 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) - PM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)16 24 1449 5 1 1992
Future Volume (vph)16 24 1449 5 1 1992
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 5083 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1678 5083 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 17 26 1575 5 1 2165
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 0 1580 0 1 2165
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 83.5 31.5 119.5
Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 83.5 31.5 119.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.60 0.22 0.85
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 3031 398 4340
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.31 0.00 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.52 0.00 0.50
Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 16.5 42.1 2.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.01
Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.3
Delay (s)66.4 17.2 53.5 0.3
Level of Service E B D A
Approach Delay (s) 66.4 17.2 0.3
Approach LOS E B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 79 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) - PM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 55 1546 2168
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.72
Control Delay 49.0 99.6 1.1 21.6
Queue Delay 0.0 124.1 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 49.0 223.7 1.2 21.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 42 8 388
Queue Length 95th (ft) 138 80 9 432
Internal Link Dist (ft) 149 37 168
Turn Bay Length (ft) 20
Base Capacity (vph) 383 145 3613 3022
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 119 667 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 2.12 0.52 0.72
Intersection Summary
Page 80 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) - PM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1580 1 2165
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.52 0.00 0.50
Control Delay 67.2 17.3 54.0 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.3
Total Delay 67.2 17.7 55.0 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 235 1 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 267 m1 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 262 37
Turn Bay Length (ft)25
Base Capacity (vph) 137 3033 398 4340
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 372 1230
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 791 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.70 0.04 0.70
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 81 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) with Project - AM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)79 19 36 2038 1161 40
Future Volume (vph)79 19 36 2038 1161 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1743 1770 5085 5060
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1743 1770 5085 5060
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 81 20 37 2101 1197 41
RTOR Reduction (vph)000030
Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 0 37 2101 1235 0
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 3 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 19.5 109.5 85.5
Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 19.5 109.5 85.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.14 0.78 0.61
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 246 3977 3090
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.02 c0.41 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.53 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 53.2 53.0 5.7 14.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.49 0.10 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.9 0.4 0.4
Delay (s)57.3 79.8 0.9 14.4
Level of Service E E A B
Approach Delay (s) 57.3 2.3 14.4
Approach LOS E A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 82 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) with Project - AM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)24 39 2035 10 8 1172
Future Volume (vph)24 39 2035 10 8 1172
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1676 5082 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1676 5082 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 25 40 2098 10 8 1208
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 0 2108 0 8 1208
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 85.5 21.5 111.5
Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 85.5 21.5 111.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.61 0.15 0.80
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 233 3103 271 4049
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.41 0.00 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.68 0.03 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 54.0 18.1 50.4 3.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.01
Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.2 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)56.9 19.3 58.0 0.2
Level of Service E B E A
Approach Delay (s) 56.9 19.3 0.6
Approach LOS E B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 83 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) with Project - AM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 37 2101 1238
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.53 0.40
Control Delay 57.9 80.6 0.9 14.4
Queue Delay 0.0 126.0 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 57.9 206.6 1.2 14.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 28 11 160
Queue Length 95th (ft) 115 m41 12 186
Internal Link Dist (ft) 149 37 168
Turn Bay Length (ft) 20
Base Capacity (vph) 267 246 3977 3092
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 220 892 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 1.42 0.68 0.40
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 84 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) with Project - AM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 2108 8 1208
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.68 0.03 0.30
Control Delay 57.6 19.5 58.4 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 9.8 0.1
Total Delay 57.6 20.3 68.1 0.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 355 6 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 396 m15 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 262 37
Turn Bay Length (ft)25
Base Capacity (vph) 233 3102 271 4049
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 246 1564
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 586 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.84 0.32 0.49
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 85 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) with Project - PM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)73 56 52 1428 1944 55
Future Volume (vph)73 56 52 1428 1944 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1705 1770 5085 5064
Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1705 1770 5085 5064
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 61 57 1552 2113 60
RTOR Reduction (vph)000020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 0 57 1552 2171 0
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 3 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 31.5 11.5 99.5 83.5
Effective Green, g (s) 31.5 11.5 99.5 83.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.08 0.71 0.60
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 145 3613 3020
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 c0.31 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.39 0.43 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 60.9 8.4 20.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.50 0.09 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 6.8 0.3 1.5
Delay (s)48.5 98.2 1.1 21.5
Level of Service D F A C
Approach Delay (s) 48.5 4.5 21.5
Approach LOS D A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 86 of 124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2024) with Project - PM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)34 31 1449 13 8 1992
Future Volume (vph)34 31 1449 13 8 1992
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1698 5079 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1698 5079 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 37 34 1575 14 9 2165
RTOR Reduction (vph)001000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 0 1588 0 9 2165
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 83.5 31.5 119.5
Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 83.5 31.5 119.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.60 0.22 0.85
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 139 3029 398 4340
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.31 0.01 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.02 0.50
Uniform Delay, d1 61.6 16.6 42.3 2.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.23 0.01
Incremental Delay, d2 12.8 0.7 0.1 0.3
Delay (s)74.3 17.2 52.1 0.3
Level of Service E B D A
Approach Delay (s) 74.3 17.2 0.5
Approach LOS E B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Page 87 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) with Project - PM
1: PCH & 2nd Street (West Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 57 1552 2173
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.39 0.43 0.72
Control Delay 49.1 99.3 1.1 21.6
Queue Delay 0.0 124.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 49.1 223.2 1.2 21.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 44 8 390
Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 83 9 434
Internal Link Dist (ft) 149 37 168
Turn Bay Length (ft) 20
Base Capacity (vph) 383 145 3613 3022
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 119 675 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 51
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 2.19 0.53 0.73
Intersection Summary
Page 88 of 124
Queues Existing (2024) with Project - PM
2: PCH & 2nd St (East Leg)04/23/2024
Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 1589 9 2165
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.02 0.50
Control Delay 75.1 17.3 52.4 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 9.6 0.3
Total Delay 75.1 17.7 62.0 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 237 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 269 m10 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 262 37
Turn Bay Length (ft)25
Base Capacity (vph) 139 3030 398 4340
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 371 1236
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 797 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.71 0.33 0.70
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Page 89 of 124
ADDENDUM MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Alexis Oropeza, City of Hermosa Beach
CC: Mr. Amir Mikhail, Pacific Developments
FROM: Srinath Raju, P.E.
Christopher Muñoz
SUBJECT: Hermosa Beach Early Education Center Project - 210 Pacific Coast Highway
Updated Site Plan Evaluation
DATE: July 18, 2024 REF: RA 764A
This addendum memorandum to the Raju Associates’ Technical Memorandum, dated April 24,
2024, titled Hermosa Beach Early Education Center Project – 210 Pacific Coast Highway, Traffic
Operations and Parking Study Evaluation, has been prepared to evaluate the updated access and
circulation associated with the 2nd Street parking lot for the proposed Hermosa Beach Early
Education Center Project (Project).
The City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission requested that the Project study additional
access and circulation options along the Project’s 2nd Street frontage. Pursuant to that discussion,
the applicant has prepared an updated access and circulation plan. Figure 1 shows the updated
Site Plan with the additional access/egress driveway and pick-up/drop-off aisle parallel to 2nd
Street.
It can be observed from Figure 1 that the updated Site Plan with an additional drop-off and pickup
aisle and an egress driveway to 2nd Street provides the following enhancements:
1. An additional two to three drop-off and pick-up spaces along the aisle will help
accommodate the potential critical surge during the peak times, facilitating approximately
six overall pick-up and drop-off spaces for the project site.
2. Circulation within the 2nd Street parking lot will be improved since vehicles will be able to
negotiate out of the parking spaces with more available room.
3. There are now all standard-sized parking spaces in the 2nd Street parking lot, allowing
more space for users.
Therefore, there would be enhanced access and circulation and improved pick-up/drop-off
operations with the updated Site Plan provisions, as indicated in Figure 1.
444 E. Huntington Dr,
Suite 305
Arcadia, CA 91006
Voice: (626) 792-2700
Fax: (626) 792-2772
Page 90 of 124
2,600 SF / 35 SF= 75 OCCS1,142 SF
/ 35 SF= 33 OCCSCOMPACTSANDBOX36" W.GATEDROP OFF
/PICK UPPARKINGDROP OFF /PICK UPPARKING
DROP OFF /PICK UP
PARKING
DROP OFF /
PICK UPPARKING Page 91 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT
1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com
August 12, 2024
South Bay Equities LLC
1721 Stewart Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Attention: Frank Bardi
Subject: 210 PCH Preschool
Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
Dear Frank:
Veneklasen Associates, Inc. (Veneklasen) has completed our review of the 210 PCH Preschool project located in
Hermosa Beach, California. This report predicts the exterior noise levels at the site using computer modeling. Using
this information, interior noise levels were calculated based on the exterior noise exposure and the construction types
proposed. From this, the exterior façade design was determined. Operational noise from future playground activities
at adjacent residences was also calculated. This report represents the results of our findings.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to determine the impact of the exterior noise sources on the 210 PCH Preschool
project located in Hermosa Beach, California. Veneklasen’s scope of work included calculating the exterior
noise levels impacting the site and determining the method, if any, required to reduce the interior and
exterior sound levels to meet the applicable code requirements of the State of California and the City of
Hermosa Beach.
The project consists of the conversion of 5,500 sf from retail to daycare in a 1-story type V-B Building. The
project will include rooms, kitchen, outdoor playgrounds, and public parking. The project is bounded by
existing residential and commercial uses to the north, residential uses to the west, 2nd Street to the south and
the Pacific Coast Hwy (PCH) to the west. Veneklasen understands that the client will remove the existing 8 –
16 feet perimeter wall by a new 6 feet CMU wall next to a new driveway which will provide acoustical
shielding to/from the outdoor playgrounds.
2.0 NOISE CRITERIA
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is the 24-hour equivalent (average) sound pressure level in which
the evening (7pm – 10pm) and nighttime (10 pm – 7 am) noise is weighted by adding 5 and 10 dB,
respectively, to the hourly level. Since this is a 24-hour metric, short-duration noise events (truck pass-by’s,
buses, trains, etc.) are not as prominent in the analysis.
Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) is defined as the steady sound pressure level which, over a given
period of time, has the same total energy as the actual fluctuating noise.
2.1 Interior Noise Levels - Residential
The State of California Building Code (Section 1206, “Sound Transmission”) and the City of Hermosa Beach
General Plan Noise Element (Table 6.3) states that interior CNEL values for school uses do not exceed 45 dBA
in any room.
If the windows must be closed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA, then a mechanical ventilating system or
other means of natural ventilation may be required.
Page 92 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 2
www.veneklasen.com
2.2 Exterior Noise Levels – Schools
The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Noise Element (Table 6.3) states an acceptable CNEL exterior noise
standard of 65 dBA CNEL which also applies to school playgrounds.
2.3 Exterior Operational Noise Levels – Playgrounds
The City of Hermosa Beach General Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.24 Noise Control,
states that “the following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter… Activities conducted
on public playgrounds, fully licensed and approved child day care facilities within residential areas as
permitted by law, and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to school athletic and school
entertainment events”.
In summary, the noise level coming from playgrounds to adjacent residential units is exempted from the
Municipal Code.
3.0 EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Noise Calculations – Computer Modeling
Veneklasen has utilized the Traffic Noise Model computer software program developed by the FHWA (Federal
Highway Administration TNM 2.5) in order to predict vehicular noise levels at project location. Traffic on
Pacific Coast Hwy is the primary source of noise affecting the site. Veneklasen also reviewed aircraft noise
sources, and these are insignificant at this site. Veneklasen has calculated noise and traffic levels for 10 years
in the future.
Traffic counts for local streets were obtained from the Caltrans official web page. The most and closest recent
annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the project site was found for Pacific Coast Why (year 2021) which is
shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 – Historic AADT Data at Project Site, Pacific Coast Why
Location Year AADT (North +
Southbound)
Average Increment per
Year (2021 to 2034)
AADT in 2034 (1%
increment per year)
Pacific Coast
Hwy and
Aviation Blvd
2021 104500
1% 118931
2022 105545
2023 106600
2024 107666
2025 108743
2026 109831
2027 110929
2028 112038
2029 113159
2030 114290
2031 115433
2032 116587
2033 117753
2034 118931
Table 2 shows the CNEL and daytime noise levels calculated at different locations:
Page 93 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 3
www.veneklasen.com
Table 2 – Calculated Sound Levels (per AADT 2034)
Location CNEL, dBA Leq Day (7am to
10pm), dBA
West Boundary (façades facing Pacific Coast Hwy, 20’
from the closest street lane) 75 72
East Boundary (project site facing adjacent residents) 68 66
Figure 1 – Aerial View of Project Site
3.2 Sound Barrier at Property Limit
A 6 feet CMU barrier is planned to be built to provide acoustical shielding to the outdoor playgrounds from
the traffic noise coming from the Pacific Coast Hwy and 2nd Street (see Figure 1 above) and an existing 12 – 16
feet perimeter wall will remain to provide acoustical shielding from the playground to adjacent residents to
the east.
3.3 Overall Exterior Exposure
Based on the computer model, Veneklasen calculated the noise level at different locations across the project
site. To simplify the presentation of the exterior noise levels, Veneklasen has separated the site into locations
based on the sound exposure and required design features. The predicted sound levels at each zone, shown
in Figure 2, are listed in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Exterior Noise Levels
Location Exterior Noise Level,
CNEL, dBA
Zone A 75
Zone B 72
Zone C 68 – 70
Zone D (Façade Facing the Playground Area) < 65
Playground Area < 65
Page 94 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 4
www.veneklasen.com
Figure 2 – Noise Zones
4.0 INTERIOR NOISE CALCULATION
4.1 Exterior Facade Construction
The client indicated that the exterior wall consists of exterior finish, plywood sheathing, wood studs, batt
insulation in the cavity, and one (1) layer of gypsum board.
Veneklasen’s calculations included the roof path, but this was insignificant in the interior noise level
calculated.
Veneklasen utilized the glazing ratings (glass, frame and seals) shown in Appendix I. Appendix I shall be the
acoustical specification for the exterior windows and doors.
4.2 Interior Average Noise Level (CNEL) – Residential
Veneklasen calculated the interior level within the preschool building given the calculated noise environment
and the exterior facade construction described above. Calculations were based on the plans dated July 15,
2024. Table 4 shows the predicted interior CNEL noise levels based on the windows and doors with STC
ratings as described in Appendix I.
Zone A
Zone D
Zone B Zone C
Zone C `
Playground
Page 95 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 5
www.veneklasen.com
Table 4 – Calculated Interior CNEL Noise Levels
Location Exterior Noise
Level, CNEL
Window/ Door
Rating
Interior Noise
Level, CNEL
Zone A 75 STC 37 ≤ 45
Zone B 72 STC 33 < 45
Zone C 68 – 70 STC 30 < 45 Zone D < 65
4.3 Mechanical Ventilation - Residential
Because the windows and doors must be kept closed to meet the noise requirements, mechanical or other
means of ventilation may be considered for all rooms in Zone A, B, C and D. The ventilation system shall not
compromise the sound insulation capability of the exterior facade assembly.
5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE CALCULATION
5.1 Exterior Average Noise Level (CNEL) at Playgrounds from Traffic Noise
Based on drawings dated July 15, 2024, two (2) playground areas are planned to be located at the southeast
side of the project site. Considering the shielding effect of the planned 6 feet CMU wall next to the driveway
(see Figure 1 above), the barrier is anticipated to attenuate the noise levels coming from the traffic by 6 dBA
and the predicted exterior CNEL for this recreation area will be below CNEL 65 dBA. Therefore, no additional
special design features are necessary to meet the city requirement.
Table 5 – Calculated Exterior Noise Levels at the Playground due to Traffic Noise
Location
Exterior Noise Level at the Playground Area
due to Exterior Ambient Noise (Traffic), CNEL
dBA
Attenuation
due to Barrier,
dBA
Playground Area 62 6
The following parameters have been considered on this calculation:
• Main noise source (Pacific Coast Hwy) to barrier distance: 90’ (approximately)
• Source height (cars and trucks, average): 6’
• Observer (receptor) to barrier distance: 25’
• Observer (receptor) height: 5’
• Barrier height: 6’
The calculated attenuation per octave band (dB) is shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6 – Calculated Barrier Attenuation
Attenuation (dB) per Frequency Band
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Global
5 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 6
5.2 Exterior Average Noise Level (Leq) from Playgrounds to Adjacent Residential Properties
Anticipating 30 children playing with raised at the playground, and the shielding effect of the existing 12 – 16
feet tall perimeter wall, the calculated noise levels at the adjacent residencies to the east are shown in Table
7 below.
Page 96 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 6
www.veneklasen.com
Table 7 – Calculated Exterior Noise Levels at Adjacent Properties due to Playground Activities
Location
Exterior Noise Level at
Adjacent Property due to
Playground Activities, dBA
Attenuation
due to Barrier,
dBA
Existing
Background,
dBA
Increase Above
Ambient, dBA
Adjacent Residential
Property 56 8 66 0
As shown above, the playground activities will not increase the existing ambient noise at the adjacent
residential properties. The barrier is anticipated to attenuate the noise levels coming from the playground by
8 dBA.
The following parameters have been considered on this barrier calculation:
• Main noise source (playground) to barrier distance: 25’ (approximately)
• Source height (kids playing): 4’
• Observer (receptor) to barrier distance: 8’ (approximately)
• Observer (receptor) height: 18’ (approximately)
• Barrier height: 16’
The calculated attenuation per octave band (dB) is shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8 – Calculated Barrier Attenuation
Attenuation (dB) per Frequency Band
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Global
5 6 6 7 8 10 13 16 8
6.0 SUMMARY
The following summarizes the acoustical items required to satisfy the noise criteria as described in this
report.
Interior Noise
• Exterior wall assembly is acceptable as described in Section 4.1.
• The roof assembly was included in our calculations and is not a significant path of sound and can
remain as designed.
• Windows and glass doors with minimum STC ratings as shown in Table 4 with STC ratings and
Transmission Loss values specified in Appendix I are required. Appendix I shall be the acoustical
specification for the exterior windows and doors.
• Residential mechanical ventilation, or other means of natural ventilation, may be required for all
units within Zone A, B, C and D.
Exterior Noise
• A 6 feet CMU wall is planned to be erected next to a future driveway.
• The predicted exterior CNEL at the playground areas is below CNEL 65 dBA. Therefore, no additional
design feature is necessary to meet the city requirement.
• The calculated noise from playground activities at adjacent residential properties will not increase
the existing ambient noise.
Page 97 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 7
www.veneklasen.com
Various noise design features may be utilized to satisfy the noise criteria described in this report. Alteration of
design features that deviate from requirements should be reviewed by the acoustical consultant.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Veneklasen Associates, Inc.
John LoVerde, FASA
Principal
Elias Montoya
Associate
Page 98 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 8
www.veneklasen.com
APPENDIX I – GLAZING REQUIREMENTS
In order to meet the predicted interior noise levels described in Section 4.1, the glazing shall meet the
following requirements:
Table 9 – Acoustical Glazing Requirements: Minimum Octave Band Transmission Loss and STC Rating
Nominal Thickness
Minimum Transmission Loss
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Min.
STC
Rating 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
1” dual 21 18 27 34 37 32 30
1” dual 22 21 30 36 37 36 33
1” dual 24 27 35 39 40 42 37
The transmission loss values in the table above can likely be met with the following glazing assemblies:
1. STC 30: 1/8” monolithic – 3/4” airspace – 1/8” monolithic
2. STC 33: 3/16” monolithic – 11/16” airspace – 1/8” monolithic
3. STC 37: 7/16" laminated – 3/8” airspace – 3/16” monolithic
An assembly’s frame and seals may limit the performance of the overall system. Therefore, the window and
door systems selected for the project shall not be selected on the basis of the STC rating of the glass alone,
but on the entire assembly including frame and seals. Additionally, the assemblies given above are provided
as a basis of design, but regardless of construction, the octave band Transmission Loss (TL) and STC value of
the system selected must meet the minimum values in Table 7 above.
Independent laboratory acoustical test reports should be submitted for review by the design team to ensure
compliance with glazing acoustical performance requirements. Laboratories shall be accredited by the
Department of Commerce National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Labs shall be pre-
approved by Veneklasen Associates. Tests shall be required to be performed in North America. Lab tests and
lab reports shall be in compliance with ASTM standard E90 and be no more than 10 years old from the date
of submission for this project.
If test reports are not available for a proposed assembly, the assembly, including frame, seals and hardware,
shall be tested at an independent pre-approved NVLAP-accredited laboratory to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of this report. Veneklasen shall be invited to witness acoustical testing completed and
reserves the right to exclude test reports from laboratories that are not pre-approved by Veneklasen.
Page 99 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 9
www.veneklasen.com
APPENDIX II – GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
Term Definition
Absorption A property of material referring to how much sound it absorbs (as
opposed to reflecting). In the context of this report, absorption refers
to the total quantity of absorption within the receiving space.
Absorption is measure in sabins.
A-weighting (dBA) The sound pressure level in decibels as measured in an A-weighting
filter network. The A-weighting de-emphasizes the low frequency
components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency
response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective
reactions to noise.
Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound equivalent to 20 times the
logarithm, to the base 10, of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to
the reference pressure of 20 Pa. Used to quantify sound pressure
levels.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The time-weighted average noise level during the stated measurement
period.
Sabin A unit used to describe absorption within a space. One sabin is equal
to the absorption of a one-square-foot open window.
Sound Pressure Level (SPL) The amplitude of sound when compared to the reference sound
pressure level of 20 Pa. SPL is measured in dB.
Sound Transmission Class (STC) A single-number metric used to describe the transmission loss
performance of a material or assembly across the frequency spectrum.
It is intended for use primarily when speech is the noise source.
Transmission Loss (TL) A measure of the reduction in sound level as a sound wave passes
through a material. The higher the transmission loss, the better the
material’s sound insulating properties.
Page 100 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 10
www.veneklasen.com
APPENDIX III – ACOUSTICAL CALCULATION METHODS
Decibel Addition
Decibels are based on a logarithmic scale; defined as the logarithmic ratio between a measured sound pressure level
and a reference sound pressure level. When decibels are added, they are not combined arithmetically, but
logarithmically. Decibels are added according to the following equation.
𝑹𝑷𝑳𝒕𝒏𝒕=𝟎𝟎𝒍𝒏𝒈(𝟎𝟎(𝑹𝑷𝑳𝟎𝟎𝟎⁄))+𝟎𝟎𝒍𝒏𝒈(𝟎𝟎(𝑹𝑷𝑳𝟎𝟎𝟎⁄))
Where:
SPLtot = Total Sound Pressure Level (dB or dBA)
SPL1, SPL2 = Sound Pressure Level 1, 2 (dB or dBA)
A-Weighting
A-weighting a spectrum is completed by applying standardized weighting factors to a frequency spectrum, either in
octave bands or third-octave bands. These resultant A-weighted levels are summed using decibel addition to generate
the overall A-weighted level, noted as dBA. In a report, spectral data is typically presented un-weighted, and the
overall level is presented with A-weighting.
The octave band A-weighting correction factors are shown in the table below:
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
A-weighting Correction Factor (dB) -26 -16 -9 -3 0 +1 +1 -1
Acoustical Shielding
The presence of adjacent buildings or facades, changes in terrain, parapets, and other similar barriers provide
acoustical shielding, reducing the sound level incident on the exterior facades. Common locations where acoustical
shielding occurs include, but are not limited to, the roof, the back, and sides of the building that are not directly facing
the noise source.
Acoustical shielding due to building geometry can be separated into two categories: reduction due to reduced area of
exposure (side of a building) and shielding from barriers (such as a parapet or sound wall).
Reduction as a result of reduced area of exposure is calculated according to the following equation:
∆𝑹𝑷𝑳=𝟎𝟎𝐥𝐨𝐠𝟎𝟎(𝜽𝒅𝒙𝒏
𝟎𝟖𝟎)
Where:
∆𝑆𝑃𝐿 = Change in Sound Pressure Level (dB)
θexp = Angle of exposure (degrees)
Page 101 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 11
www.veneklasen.com
Acoustical Attenuation due to Distance
Sound pressure level reduction due to distance is calculated according to the following equation:
𝑹𝑷𝑳𝟎=𝑹𝑷𝑳𝟎+𝑨𝑹𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒓𝟎
𝒓𝟎
)
Where:
SPL1 = Sound Pressure Level at Location 1 (dB or dBA)
SPL2 = Sound Pressure Level at Location 2 (dB or dBA)
CS = Source Coefficient; 20 for point source, 10 for a line source
r1 = Location 1 distance from source (ft.)
r2 = Location 2 distance from source (ft.)
In some situations, the CS value is between 10 and 20; selection of this number is an engineering judgment based on
the relationship between the source and receiver as well as the type of source.
Interior Noise Calculation
The interior noise calculation takes into account the exterior noise level, the transmission loss of the glazing (including
glass, frame, and seals), wall, and roof/ceiling systems, the finishes within the space, and noise exposure due to
building geometry and acoustic shielding. The interior sound level is calculated using the equation:
𝑹𝑷𝑳𝑰=𝑹𝑷𝑳𝑬+𝟎𝟎𝒍𝒏𝒈𝟎𝟎(𝑨)−𝟎𝟎𝒍𝒏𝒈𝟎𝟎(𝑹)−𝑹𝑳+𝟓
Where:
SPLI = the Interior Sound Pressure Level (dB or dBA)
SPLE = Exterior Sound Pressure Level (dB or dBA)
A = Surface Area exposed to Exterior Noise (sq.ft.)
R = Room Absorption Coefficient (sabins)
TL = Sound Transmission Loss of Exterior Façade Assembly (dB)
This calculation is performed for each exposed façade individually. The total interior sound level is found by using
decibel addition to sum the sound level from all exposed facades.
Sound Barrier Calculation
The sound attenuation provided by a barrier varies according to the locations (or geometry) of the sound source, the
barrier edge and the receptor, as shown below:
Where:
hs = Source height (ft)
rs = Distance between the sound source and the top of the barrier (ft)
hr = Receiver height (ft)
r = Distance between the top of the barrier and the receiver (ft)
Page 102 of 124
Veneklasen Associates
210 PCH Preschool; Hermosa Beach
Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis
Veneklasen Project No. 8519-001
August 12, 2024–Page 12
www.veneklasen.com
h = Barrier height (ft)
d = Distance between the source and the receiver (ft)
The attenuation calculation is performed for each frequency band individually (in dB) and is given by:
𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒅𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒈𝒏𝒏(𝒅𝑨)=𝟓+𝑨𝒍𝒏𝒈𝟎𝟎(√𝟎𝝅𝑵
𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒈√𝟎𝝅𝑵)
Where:
C = 20 (for point sources) and 15 (for line sources)
N (Fresnel Number) = ±2
𝜆(𝑟𝑟+𝑟+𝑑)
𝜆 = Frequency wavelength
tanh = Hyperbolic tangent function
The total sound attenuation is found by using decibel addition to sum the sound level from all attenuated frequency
bands.
Page 103 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CDD-049
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
REQUEST FOR A MURAL DETERMINATION (MD 24-01) FOR A 750-SQUARE-
FOOT PAINTED DISPLAY ON THE EASTERLY WALL OF AN EXISTING CHURCH
LOCATED AT 730 11th STREET (GUIDESTONE CHURCH)
CEQA: Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act. (Contract Planner, Sophia Matheney)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 24-17 finding the
artistic rendering consistent with the definition of a mural in Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code (HBMC) Section 17.50.030, and determine that the project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Executive Summary:
The applicant is proposing a 750-square-foot painted display on the exterior of the eastern
wall of an existing church building located at 730 11th Street (Guidestone Church). Staff
recommends the Planning Commission determine that the artistic rendering is consistent
with HBMC Section 17.50.030 definition of a mural and determine the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Background:
The property is located at 730 11th Street and has a zoning designation of General and
Highway Commercial (C-3). The property is currently developed with a church. The
church building is two stories and the exterior is painted white with black finishes. The
easterly façade of the building, faces Pacific Coast Highway and is adjacent to the Ready,
Fit, Go restaurant spans a total of 106 feet by 15 feet, for a total of 1,590 square feet.
The proposed sign copy, reading “Guide Stone Church experiencing the victorious life,”
is not a part of the mural approval and would be reviewed as a separate ministerial sign
application, requiring compliance with the development standards.
Site Information Table:
The following table describes the existing site characteristics.
Site Information
General Plan Community Commercial (CC)
Zoning General and Highway Commercial (C-3)
Page 104 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 4
Site Information
Lot Size 7,920 square feet
Existing Square Footage 2,022 square feet
Surrounding Zoning
North: General Highway and Commercial (C-3)
East: General Highway and Commercial (C-3)
South: General Highway and Commercial (C-3)
West: Two-Family Residential (R-2)
Surrounding Uses
North: Church Parking Lot
East: Commercial
South: RV Park
West: Residential
Other Site Information:
Pursuant to HBMC Section 17.50, murals approved by the Planning Commission may be
permitted. The Planning Commission may waive specific provisions relating to total sign
area, coverage, height, type and style, if it determines that the proposed rendering
constitutes a mural.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting a 750-square-foot painted display on a portion of the easterly
façade of the building facing Pacific Coast Highway. The display would feature scenes of
Hermosa Beach, including its pier, ocean, palm trees, and a sunset (Attachment 2).
The applicant submitted a complete application for mural review on August 6, 2024. The
applicant is requesting the painted display be determined to be consistent with HBMC
Section 17.50, which provides standards for number of wall signs, sign area, and wall
coverage for ‘murals’. Section 17.50.030 defines “Mural”, as a “pictorial representation
not specifically identifying goods or services offered by the business on the premises”.
Discussion:
The graphic artist, Drica Lobo, is inspired by both the local landscape and the church’s
values. Based on the artist's description (Attachment 3), the use of bold colors in the
mural symbolizes optimism and vitality, echoing the church’s mission to bring hope to the
community. The artist goes to say that through contrasts and gradients, she will convey
the ideas that obstacles and limitations can be transformed into opportunities for creativity
and growth. Furthermore, the imagery will reflect the belief that creative gifts are meant
to be used to uplift others. The proposed painted display is a pictorial representation not
specifically identifying goods or services offered by the church, therefore falling under the
HBMC definition of a mural.
The proposed mural will be painted along the easterly building elevation. The mural is
proposed to be 15 feet by 50 feet, for a total of 750 square feet. The proposed mural will
Page 105 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 4
occupy about 47% of the total easterly wall. Moreover, the proposed mural will enhance
the building’s aesthetic by breaking up monotony and creating visual interest.
General Plan Consistency:
PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017.
The requested mural determination is consistent with the PLAN Hermosa goals and
policies in the table below.
General Plan Consistency
Goals & Policies Findings
Land Use and Design Element
Goal 11: A proud and visible identity as
an arts and cultural community
Policy 11.1 Locally appropriate art.
Prioritize public art that reinforces the
identity of Hermosa Beach, incorporating
the culture, people, neighborhoods and
ideas.
Policy 11.2 Creative expression in the
built environment.
Encourage the infusion of creative
expression within the city’s built
environment to create a memorable urban
landscape that respects the past and
builds for the future.
Policy 11.8 Public art in private
development
Actively encourage private development to
contribute to the cultural and economic
health and the public realm through
incorporation of public art.
The project will integrate elements that
reinforces the identity of Hermosa Beach
by incorporating the city’s local scenery—
such as the pier, ocean, and palm tree—
that reflect the city’s neighborhoods
characteristics
The project would cover 750 square feet
of the church’s exterior easterly wall,
transforming it into a vibrant and
memorable urban landscape. The mural
will feature elements of the city’s local
scenery—such as the pier, palm trees,
ocean, and sunset—rendered in the
muralist’s distinctive style.
The building is privately owned, and the
tenant proposing the project is committed
to enhancing cultural vitality by
incorporating public art into their
development.
Staff recommends the approval of the mural with the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The mural shall be constructed and installed in strict accordance with the design
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, not including the sign copy.
Any modifications to the approved design must receive prior approval from the
Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall obtain a separate approval for any sign copy in accordance
with applicable regulations.
Page 106 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 4
3. Any acts of vandalism occurring on the site must be addressed, and the affected
areas must be cleaned or repaired within 48 hours of discovery.
4. The applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to obtain all
necessary encroachment permits for any work occupying or impacting the public
right-of-way.
Environmental Determination:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption, Existing Facilities as defined in section
15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of minor exterior alterations to an existing
building. 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.
Public Notification:
Public notice is not required pursuant to HBMC Section 17.50.140. Therefore, a public
notice for this matter has not been distributed.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution No. 24-17
2. Site Plan and Mural Rendering
3. Mural Description
Respectfully Submitted by: Sophia Matheney, Contract Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Carrie Tai, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 107 of 124
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 24-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING A 750-SQUARE-FOOT
PAINTED DISPLAY ON THE EAST WALL OF AN EXISTING CHURCH
LOCATED AT 730 11TH STREET (GUIDESTONE CHURCH) IS A MURAL AND
IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
WHEREAS, an application was filed on August 6, 2024 by the applicant Brett
Armstrong, seeking Planning Commission determination whether a proposed display
covering 750-square-foot painted display on the eastern wall of an existing church is
consistent with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) definition of “Mural” for the
building located at 730 11th Street.
WHEREAS, HBMC Section 17.50.030 defines a mural as “a pictorial representation not
specifically identifying goods or services offered by the business on the premises.”
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of September 17, 2024
considered all testimony and evidence, both oral and written, that was presented to the
Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, the proposed display is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act defined in CEQA Section 15301 Class 1 Existing Facilities, as the
project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. The proposed display is
painted directly onto the easterly facade of the existing building and would not result in a
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission determines that the display meets the
definition of a mural as set forth in HBMC Section 17.50.030, because the display does not
include commodification elements tied to the commercial use, and the proposed displays are
artistic depictions.
SECTION 2. Based on the evidence received at the public meeting, the Planning
Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares that the project is consistent with
the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa) because the display is a mural consistent with HBMC
Page 108 of 124
Section 17.50.030.
General Plan Consistency
Goals & Policies Findings
Land Use and Design Element
Goal 11: A proud and visible identity as an
arts and cultural community
Policy 11.1 Locally appropriate art.
Prioritize public art that reinforces the
identity of Hermosa Beach, incorporating the
culture, people, neighborhoods and ideas.
Policy 11.2 Creative expression in the
built environment.
Encourage the infusion of creative
expression within the city’s built
environment to create a memorable urban
landscape that respects the past and builds
for the future.
Policy 11.8 Public art in private
development
Actively encourage private development to
contribute to the cultural and economic
health and the public realm through
incorporation of public art.
The project would integrate elements that
reinforces the identity of Hermosa Beach by
incorporating the city’s local scener—such
as the pier, ocean, and palm trees—that
reflect the city’s neighborhoods.
The project would cover 750 square feet of
the church’s exterior easterly wall,
transforming it into a vibrant and
memorable urban landscape. The mural
would feature elements of the city’s local
scenery—such as the pier, palm trees,
ocean, and sunset—rendered in the
muralist’s distinctive style.
The building is privately owned, and the
tenant proposing the project is committed
to enhancing cultural vitality by
incorporating public art into their
development.
SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Mural Determination Case No. MD24-01 and determines the painted display is a mural,
subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The mural shall be constructed and installed strictly per the design reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission, not including the sign copy. Any modifications
to the approved design must receive prior approval from the Planning Commission.
Page 109 of 124
2. The applicant shall obtain a separate approval for any sign copy in accordance with
applicable regulations.
3. Any acts of vandalism occurring on the site must be addressed and the affected areas
cleaned or repaired within 48 hours of discovery.
4. The applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to obtain all
necessary encroachment permits for any work that will occupy or impact the public
right-of-way.
SECTION 4. 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. 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 this 17th day of September, 2024.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing PC Resolution 24-17 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 September 17, 2024.
________________________________ ________________________________
David Pedersen Carrie Tai
Chair Secretary
________________________________
Date
Page 110 of 124
Page 111 of 124
MuralProposal forGuidestoneChurch
D R I C A L O B O .C O M
7 30 11th S t re et
H er mo sa Bea ch, C A
P r e pa red Fo r :
Br e tt A r mst ro ng
Page 112 of 124
Intro duc ti on
Celebrating Hermosa Beach:
A Mural of Optimism and
Community
As a professional artist local
to Hermosa Beach, I’m thrilled
to present this proposal for a
mural at Guidestone Church.
Inspired by the natural beauty
of our city and aligned with
the core beliefs of the church,
this mural aims to celebrate
creativity, faith, and the
vibrant spirit of our
community.
Page 113 of 124
The proposed mural will cover the east
side wall of Guidestone Church, spanning
approximately 2250 square feet. It will
serve as a beacon of optimism and a
testament to the beauty of Hermosa
Beach. Through bold colors, dynamic
compositions, and ethereal gradients,
the mural will capture the essence of our
coastal landscape while inspiring viewers
to imagine a better future. Added the
church’s logo and motto.
V i s i on
Drica Lobo
BR AZI LI AN AR T IS T , MU RA LI ST & W RIT E R ,
BAS E D IN HER M O SA BEACH, C A
OurTeam
Page 114 of 124
Co nc ep t
Drawing inspiration from
both the local landscape and
the church's values, the
mural will incorporate
elements that speak to
creativity, faith, and
community. It will feature
scenes of Hermosa Beach,
including its iconic pier,
ocean, palm trees, and
breathtaking sunset. These
images will be rendered in
my signature style,
characterized by vibrant
hues, intricate details, and a
sense of movement.
Page 115 of 124
The use of bold colors in the
mural symbolizes optimism
and vitality, echoing the
church's mission to bring hope
to our community. Through
contrasts and gradients, I will
convey the idea that obstacles
and limitations can be
transformed into opportunities
for creativity and growth. The
imagery will also reflect the
belief that our creative gifts are
meant to be used to uplift
others.
Symbolism
Page 116 of 124
Timel ine &Logi stic s
I propose to begin
painting the mural in the
month of June, with a
projected completion time
of two to four weeks. As
an experienced muralist
with a portfolio of public
art across Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach,
and Manhattan Beach, I’m
confident in my ability to
execute this project
efficiently and with
high quality.
Page 117 of 124
Bud g et
The total cost of the
project is estimated at
$9200, which includes
materials, labor, and
equipment rental. I
request an initial payment
of half the total amount to
commence the project,
with the remaining
balance due upon
completion. The average
equipment rental cost is
approximately $700-900.
Page 118 of 124
Bud g et
In conclusion, I’ m excited
about the opportunity to
create a mural that not only
enhances the aesthetic appeal
of Guidestone Church but also
serves as a source of
inspiration and joy for the
community. By infusing the
mural with the vibrant spirit of
Hermosa Beach and the
timeless message of faith and
creativity, we can create a
work of art that truly
resonates with viewers and
brings life to Pacific Coast
Highway.
Page 119 of 124
Testimonials
Click for More
Page 120 of 124
Testimonials
Click for More
Page 121 of 124
Thank you for considering this proposal. I lookforward to the opportunity to collaborate withGuidestone Church on this meaningful project.
DRICALOBO.COM
sayhello@dricalobo.com
FB: /dricaloboart
IG: @dricalobo.art
310.912.1674
1644 Hermosa Avenue #7
Hermosa Beach, CAPage 122 of 124
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CDD-054
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA
(Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the October 15, 2024 Planning
Commission tentative future agenda.
Attachment:
Planning Commission October 15, 2024 Tentative Future Agenda
Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant
Approved: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director
Page 123 of 124
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\15485649107\15485649107,,,Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for October 2024.docx
Revised 09/11/2024 3:48 PM
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
October 15, 2024
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM
Project Title Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
921 5th Street 2-Unit Condominium Project, Conditional Use
Permit, Precise Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map (Public Hearing)
10/5/24 10/15/24
138 1st Street 2 Unit Condominium Project, Conditional Use
Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a previously
approved Precise Development Plan (tentative)
(Public Hearing)
10/5/24 10/15/24
Tri-Annual Report for March 1, 2024 – August 31, 2024
(Staff Item) n/a 10/15/24
Zoning Code Study Session (Staff Item) n/a 10/15/24
Upcoming and Pending Projects
Tri-Annual Review – Public Hearing in November 2024
301 Pier Avenue – Recoverie Wellness Studio
3415 Palm Drive – 5-Unit Project, Precise Development Plan
Page 124 of 124