HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-23 PC AGENDA CONTINUATION OF ADJOURNED MEETINGSPlanning Commission
City of Hermosa Beach
Adjourned Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA
90254
Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, February 23, 2017
Adjourned Meeting
(Continuation of the February 22, 2017 Meeting)
1
February 23, 2017Planning Commission Adjourned Meeting Agenda -
Final
CONTINUATION OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017 MEETING
Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in The City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review on the City's web site at
www.hermosabch.org. Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices:
Network ID: CHB-Guest, Password: chbguest
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours
of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately
upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours
from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City's website.
If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on this agenda, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices will be
available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development Department
at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time to inform us
of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
PUBLIC HEARING
4.REPORT
17-0114 Public Hearing to Recommend Certification of the PLAN Hermosa Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Recommend Adoption of PLAN
Hermosa with Suggested Changes
Recommendation:1. Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental
Impact Report, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for PLAN Hermosa as identified in Attachment 1.
2. Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt PLAN Hermosa, the
integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach,
confirm that the implementation actions adequately carry out the goals and policies of
PLAN Hermosa, and direct staff to submit the Coastal Land Use Plan to the California
Coastal Commission for Certification as identified in Attachment 2
5. Adjournment
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 4/9/2024
2
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Regular Meeting of February 22, 2017
Public Hearing to Recommend Certification of the PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and Recommend Adoption of PLAN Hermosa with Suggested Changes
Recommended Action:
1.Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report,adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for PLAN Hermosa as identified in Attachment 1.
2.Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt PLAN Hermosa, the integrated
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach, confirm that the
implementation actions adequately carry out the goals and policies of PLAN Hermosa, and
direct staff to submit the Coastal Land Use Plan to the California Coastal Commission for
Certification as identified in Attachment 2
Background:
In July 2013,the City of Hermosa Beach initiated the process of updating and integrating the City’s
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan,collectively referred to as PLAN Hermosa.The City has
received two grants for this effort,from the Strategic Growth Council for a ‘Comprehensive Blueprint
for Sustainability and a Low Carbon Future’and from the Coastal Commission for Local Coastal
Program Assistance.
The work products prepared for PLAN Hermosa thus far, including background reports, issue papers,
and community engagement materials and results are available on the City’s webpage at
<http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767>. Previous activities as well as plans already
adopted by the City and other background resources may also be reviewed at this webpage.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
An EIR is an informational document to provide the public and decision makers with information on
the environmental effects of proposed actions.The EIR evaluates the direct physical environmental
effects that may occur through the implementation of PLAN Hermosa as well as the indirect physical
effects,based on “significance thresholds”adopted or accepted by agencies or by the City,which
serve as benchmarks for determining if a component action will result in a significant adverse
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 10
powered by Legistar™3
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
environmental impact.
The City of Hermosa Beach prepared the PLAN Hermosa Program EIR (State Clearinghouse
#2015081009)in its capacity as lead agency under CEQA and in compliance with CEQA.The EIR
consists of the Notice of Preparation,the Draft EIR including technical appendices,the Responses to
Comments,Final Corrections and Additions,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,and the
Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Recommending the adoption of PLAN
Hermosa.
Planning Commission Role:
An EIR must be certified before the decision-makers can rely on it in deciding whether or not to
approve a project.The Planning Commission’s first role is to make a recommendation to the City
Council on whether to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.Certification is appropriate when
the document:(1)has been completed in compliance with CEQA;(2)was presented to decision-
makers for consideration prior to approving the project;and (3)that the EIR reflects the City’s
independent judgment and analysis.The recommended findings are set forth in the resolution in
Attachment 1 and summarized below in this staff report.The Planning Commission will also need to
provide feedback on whether the alternatives identified in the EIR are feasible.In making the
findings,the Planning Commission should consider whether the alternatives can feasibly be
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account
economic,environmental,legal,social,and technological factors.The Planning Commission should
also consider whether the alternatives successfully achieve the stated project objectives and lessen
environmental impacts compared to the proposed project.
EIR Development Proceedings:
Notice of Preparation
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,the City,acting as Lead Agency,circulated a
Notice of Preparation (NOP)for the project on August 7,2015,beginning a 30-day review period.As
part of the scoping process,the City prepared a description of the project,identified proposed project
objectives, and identified the potential environmental issues to be evaluated.
A public scoping meeting was held to take public comment on the NOP at the Planning Commission
meeting on August 18,2015,in the Hermosa Beach City Council Chambers.The NOP and letters
received in response to the NOP from both public agencies and members of the public are included in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Following the Notice of Preparation period,the City prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)evaluating PLAN Hermosa’s potential direct,indirect,and cumulative environmental impacts
on the following issues:
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 2 of 10
powered by Legistar™4
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
·Aesthetics and Visual Resources
·Air Quality
·Biological Resources
·Cultural Resources
·Geology and Soils
·Greenhouse Gas Emissions
·Hazards and Hazardous Materials
·Hydrology and Water Quality
·Land Use and Planning
·Mineral Resources
·Noise and Vibration
·Population, Housing, and Employment
·Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities
·Transportation
The DEIR also analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project:Alternative 1 -Retain Existing
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan is the No Project Alternative;Alternative 2 -Achieve Carbon
Neutrality by 2030 is the 2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative;and Alternative 3 -Stronger Retention of
Visual and Cultural Resources is the Character Retention Alternative.The Character Retention
Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 72-day public comment period beginning October 26,2016 and
ending on January 5,2017.As part of the Draft EIR review process,the Planning Commission held a
special meeting on November 21, 2016 to take public comment on the Draft EIR.
Final Environmental Impact Report
The City received comment letters from public agencies and the public regarding the Draft EIR.This
document responds to the comments received,as required by CEQA.As prescribed by CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132,the lead agency (in this case,the City of Hermosa Beach)is
required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed
the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments.This Final EIR contains individual
responses to each comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR.In accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c),the written responses describe the disposition of significant
environmental issues raised.The City and its consultants have provided a good faith effort to respond
in detail to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments.This Final EIR,included as
Attachment 1A contains four new sections as follows:
·Section 1.0 Introduction:provides an overview of the EIR process and describes the contents
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 3 of 10
powered by Legistar™5
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
·Section 1.0 Introduction:provides an overview of the EIR process and describes the contents
of the Final EIR;
·Section 2.0 Responses:to Comments includes a list of commenters,copies of written
comments (coded for reference),and the responses to those written and oral comments made
on the Draft EIR.
·Section 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR:incorporated minor edits to the Draft EIR as a result of
the comments received or staff-initiated changes.
·Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:provides a program for reporting or
monitoring regarding the implementation of mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa,if it is
approved,to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in the
EIR. This is also provided as Attachment 1B.
The Final EIR was circulated on February 9,2017 and all required notifications were provided
pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5).
Modification of Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures
Following release of the Final EIR,city staff has reviewed in further detail and is recommending
modifications to the following mitigation measure proposed as part of the Cultural Resources Section
of the FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The proposed change is as follows:
MM 4.4-4f
•Original:For historic resources that may be adversely impacted,conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and application of
the State Historical Building Code shall be required to protect significant character-defining
features and protect the eligibility of potential historical resources.
•Recommended Modification:Staff recommends that this mitigation measure be removed in its
entirety.While the intent of the mitigation measure was to apply to designated historical
landmarks,the wording could be interpreted more broadly and would effectively prohibit any
changes to buildings considered to be potential historic resources.This was not the intent of
the measure,and to the extent it covers designated landmarks,it would be duplicative of
CEQA requirements and not necessary.Additionally,a measure that arguable could prevent
any changes to even potential historic resources could impede the City’s ability to meet its
sustainability goals,which rely to some extent on new technologies and sustainable features
that are often included in new construction and substantial remodels.The findings that this
mitigation measure is infeasible are included in the Project Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Attachment 1C,are
presented for adoption by the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission as the City’s findings
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.)and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et seq.)
relating to the Project.The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Planning
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 4 of 10
powered by Legistar™6
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
relating to the Project.The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Planning
Commission regarding the Project’s environmental impacts,mitigation measures,alternatives to the
Project,and the overriding considerations,which in this Planning Commission’s view,justify approval
of PLAN Hermosa,despite environmental effects that cannot be mitigated below a level of
significance.Planning Commission input is needed to make findings related to the alternatives to the
proposed project.
Tribal Consultation
In accordance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)and Government Code 69352.3,and Assembly Bill 52 (AB
52)and Government Code 21000,the City of Hermosa Beach requested a list of Tribal Organization
contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission in April 2014.The City of Hermosa Beach
sent notifications to the appropriate tribal organizations in January 2015 in compliance with SB 18,
and again in August 2015 to comply with AB 52.The City has complied with the requirements for tribal
consultation and the findings of consultation process can be found in Attachment 1C.
Findings to Recommend Certification:
Based on the facts and the entire record of the proceedings,the Planning Commission can make the
findings needed to recommend certification and adopt the resolution provided as Attachment 1:
Finding 1 -The document was prepared in accordance with CEQA.An EIR must have the following
elements to comply with CEQA, all of which are included in the FEIR:
1.Table of Contents
2.Summary of proposed actions and consequences
3.Project Description (location,statement of project objectives,description of project
characteristics,uses of the EIR,agencies that will rely on EIR and approvals required to
implement the project)
4.Description of physical environmental setting
5.Consideration and discussion of environmental impacts,including those impacts that will be
significant
6.Consideration and discussion of mitigation measures proposed to minimize impacts
7.Consideration and discussion of reasonable range of alternatives
8.Statement of effects found not to be significant
9.Statement of all federal,state and local agencies and organizations and individuals consulted
in EIR preparation
10.Discussion of cumulative impacts
11.Revisions to the Draft EIR
12.Contents and recommendations received on the Draft EIR
13.List of organizations and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR
14.Responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process
Finding 2 -The document was presented to decision-makers for consideration prior to approving theCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 5 of 10
powered by Legistar™7
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
Finding 2 -The document was presented to decision-makers for consideration prior to approving the
project.The City has made all documents related to environmental review public and accessible on
the City’s website and has notified the public of meetings and opportunities for comments through
direct mailings,newspaper notices and public announcements via other various media.The City has
accepted public comments on the Notice of Preparation of the EIR,and the DEIR itself.The City has
also:(1)held multiple meetings for the public to learn about and provide comments on the EIR and
project;(2)made City staff and the project manager available to answer individual questions;and (3)
the City Council is currently scheduled to have additional public meetings on this project.
Finding 3 -The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.Pursuant to Section
15091 (a)(1)of the CEQA Guidelines,changes or alterations have been required in the project that,
to the extent feasible,substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
These changes or alterations are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.In
accordance with Section 15091 (d),and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines,which require a
public agency to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring required changes or conditions of
approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects.All of these findings are included in
the EIR resolution and the attached CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
PLAN Hermosa
Planning Commission Role:
The Planning Commission’s second responsibility is to make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding adoption of PLAN Hermosa to serve as the City’s integrated General Plan and Coastal
Land Use Plan.This recommendation can be made following review and consideration by the
Planning Commission of the December 2015 PLAN Hermosa Public Review Draft,and any changes
recommended by the Planning Commission (as identified in Attachment 2B)by making findings that it
is (1)consistent with and reflective of the City’s continuing goals,policies,actions and intent to adopt
a general plan for the physical development of the City;(2)meets the requirements of,and is in
conformance with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act,(3)has
offered the public an opportunity to participate in the development of the plan through public hearings
or other means deemed appropriate by the City.The recommended findings are set forth in the
resolution in Attachment 2 and summarized below in this staff report.Staff is also asking the
Planning Commission to consider whether the Draft Implementation Actions identified in Attachment
2C carry out the intent of the goals and policies of PLAN Hermosa,and adequately consider the
modifications to PLAN Hermosa recommended by the Planning Commission.
December 2015 Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa:
The Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa,provided as Attachment 2A,was made available to theCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 6 of 10
powered by Legistar™8
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
The Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa,provided as Attachment 2A,was made available to the
public on December 15,2015.Digital copies of the document were posted on the City’s website,and
hard copies were available for review at the Community Development Counter of City Hall,the Police
Department,the Community Center and the Hermosa Beach Library.Hard copies were also made
available to the community free of charge from the Community Development Department.A city-wide
mailing was produced and sent to all addresses within the City in January 2016 to let the community
know about opportunities to provide input or participate in meetings related to PLAN Hermosa.
Written comments on the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa were encouraged to be submitted
between December 15,2015 and February 25,2016 and were presented for consideration by the
City’s Commissions during their review of PLAN Hermosa.Opportunities to provide verbal comments
at the following public meetings:
•January 25,2016 -Joint Study Session of the Planning Commission,Public Works
Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,and Emergency Preparedness Advisory
Commission
•January 26, 2016 - Study Session of the City Council
•February 5-6, 2016 - Community Open House and Walking Tours
City Commission Review:
Following the release of the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa,the Planning Commission,Public
Works Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,and Emergency Preparedness Advisory
Commission held public meetings to review the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa between
March 2016 and June 2016 on the following dates:
•March 15, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
•March 28, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
•April 5, 2016 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting (Parks + Open Space Element)
•April 18, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
•April 19, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Mobility Element)
•April 25, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Mobility Element)
•May 9, 2016 - EPAC Meeting (Public Safety Element)
•May 16, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Sustainability + Conservation)
•May 18, 2016 - Public Works Commission Meeting (Mobility Element)
•June 15, 2016 - Public Works Commission Meeting (Infrastructure, Public Safety Elements)
•June 20,2016 -Planning Commission Study Session (Governance,Parks +Open Space,
Infrastructure Elements)
•June 21, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Public Safety Element)
Through these meetings,all of the Commissions have recommended modifications to the document.
The changes to PLAN Hermosa that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
include input from the Public Works Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,and
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 7 of 10
powered by Legistar™9
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
include input from the Public Works Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,and
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission and are detailed in Attachment 2B,the Matrix of
Commission Comments and Suggested Changes.
Implementation Actions:
At the time the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public comment in October 2016,
the City also prepared a set of proposed Implementation Actions,detailed in Attachment 2C.These
Implementation Actions were drafted following the City’s Commissions’Review of PLAN Hermosa,and
considered Commission comments on the goals and policies to create a work program to be
implemented following formal adoption of PLAN Hermosa.
Findings to Recommend Adoption:
Based on the facts and the entire record of the proceedings,the Planning Commission can make the
findings needed to recommend adoption of PLAN Hermosa and adopt the resolution provided as
Attachment 2:
Finding 1 -PLAN Hermosa is consistent with and reflective of the City’s continuing goals,policies,
actions and intent to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the City.PLAN Hermosa
includes comprehensive revisions to all previous elements of the General Plan,with the exception of
the Housing Element.PLAN Hermosa contains each of the seven required topics under Government
Code Section 65302, as follows:
A.Land Use,contained in the Land Use +Design Element,describing the general distribution
and location of land uses, standards of population density and building intensity;
B.Circulation,contained in the Mobility Element,describing the general location and extent of
existing and proposed thoroughfares and transportation routes,correlated with the land use
element;
C.Housing;is not included in this update and was certified by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development on October 18, 2013.
D.Conservation,contained in the Sustainability +Conservation Element for the conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources;
E.Open Space,contained in the Parks +Open Space Element;identifying areas intended to
preserve natural resources,serve outdoor recreational needs,and demand/opportunity for
recreational trails;
F.Noise,contained in the Noise Element,analyzing current and projected noise levels from
vehicles and stationary sources,providing noise contour maps for these sources,and
discussing possible solutions to address noise problems;
G.Safety,contained in the Public Safety Element,for the protection of the community from
seismic hazards, flooding, and other risks.
Finding 2 -PLAN Hermosa meets the requirements of,and is in conformance with the policies and
requirements of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.PLAN Hermosa contains each of the
required topics for a Local Coastal Program as detailed in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 8 of 10
powered by Legistar™10
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
required topics for a Local Coastal Program as detailed in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act
(Public Resources Code Division 20 Section 30200) as follows:
A.Public Access,containing policies regarding recreational opportunities,development projects,
public facilities and lower cost visitor and recreational facilities within the Land Use +Design,
Mobility, Parks + Open Space and Infrastructure Elements;
B.Recreation,including protection of certain water-oriented activities,protection of oceanfront
land for recreational use,and priority of development purposes within the Land Use +Design
and Mobility Elements;
C.Marine Environment,containing policies regarding water quality,hazardous substance spills,
movement of sediment,construction altering natural shoreline,water supply and flood control
contained within the Sustainability + Conservation, Public Safety, and Infrastructure Elements;
D.Land Resources,including environmentally sensitive habitat areas,productivity of soils,and
archaeological or paleontological resources contained within the Governance,Land Use +
Design, Sustainability + Conservation, Parks + Open Space Elements;
E.Development,containing policies regarding existing developed area,scenic and visual
qualities,maintenance and enhancement of public access,minimization of adverse impacts,
public works facilities,and priority of coastal-dependent developments within the Governance,
Land Use + Design, Parks + Open Space, Public Safety, and Infrastructure Elements;
F.Industrial Development,including location or expansion of coastal-dependent industrial
facilities,and renewable energy development contained within the Land Use +Design and
Sustainability + Conservation Elements.
Finding 3 -The public was provided with multiple opportunities to participate in the development of
the PLAN through public hearings or other means deemed appropriate by the City.The Hermosa
Beach community has had the opportunity to participate in the development and refinement of PLAN
Hermosa through many avenues,including nineteen City Council/Commission meetings to date
(including Planning Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,Public Works Commission,and
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission),five community workshops,three educational
series sessions,two citywide mailings,an online engagement opportunity,walking tours,and
numerous press releases and reports in local papers about the process.At the direction of the City
Council,the City Manager also appointed a fifteen-member General Plan Working Group,consisting
of at least one representative of every City Commission as well as members of key community
groups.The Working Group held more than a dozen meetings during the development of the PLAN
Hermosa,during which the group provided feedback regarding key policy topics and input on the
community engagement process.With regards to PLAN Hermosa,the City has:(1)held multiple
meetings for the public to learn about and provide comments on PLAN Hermosa;(2)made City staff
and available to answer individual questions and discuss the project;and (3)the City Council is
currently scheduled to have additional public meetings on this project.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions and Carbon Neutrality
A copy of the memo provided to the Planning Commission during the November 21,2016 Study
Session has also been included to evaluate the scenarios and options available for setting goals relatedCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 9 of 10
powered by Legistar™11
Staff Report
REPORT 17-0114
Session has also been included to evaluate the scenarios and options available for setting goals related
to greenhouse gas reduction and carbon neutrality. This is provided as Attachment 3.
Attachments:
1.Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City Council Certification of the PLAN
Hermosa EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Report and CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
A.Final Environmental Impact Report (consisting of the Notice of Preparation,Notice of
Availability,the Draft EIR including technical appendices,the Responses to Comments,
Final Corrections and Additions,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Attachment 1.B),and the Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Attachment 1.C))
B.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C.Draft Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2.Planning Commission Resolution on PLAN Hermosa
A.December 2015 Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa
B.Matrix of Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
C.PLAN Hermosa Draft Implementation Actions
3.Evaluation of Carbon Neutrality in PLAN Hermosa
4.Public Comments Submitted to the Planning Commission since January 5, 2017
Respectfully Submitted by: Leeanne Singleton, General Plan Coordinator
Concur: Kim Chafin, Senior Planner
Approved: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 10 of 10
powered by Legistar™12
Page 1 of 4 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (“EIR”), ADOPT A MITIGIATON MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLAN HERMOSA, THE
INTEGRATED GENERAL PLAN AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. In July 2013, the City of Hermosa Beach initiated a comprehensive update to
the General Plan, including integration of the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan. This update includes
comprehensive revisions to all previous elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the
Housing Element, which was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development on October 18, 2013. The three-and-a-half year update process has resulted in the
preparation of PLAN Hermosa, which includes General Plan Elements on Governance, Land Use
+ Design, Mobility, Sustainability + Conservation, Parks + Open Space, Public Safety, Noise, and
Infrastructure. PLAN Hermosa also covers California Coastal Act topics of Public Access,
Recreation + Visitor Serving Facilities, Water Quality Protection, Environmentally Sensitive
Habitats + Natural Resources, Planning + Development, Archaeological + Cultural Resources,
Scenic + Visual Resources, Coastal Hazards, Shoreline Erosion + Protective Devices, and Energy
+ Industrial Development.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City,
acting as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the project on August 7,
2015, beginning a 30-day review period. As part of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
scoping process, the City held a public scoping meeting at the Planning Commission meeting on
August 18, 2015, in the Hermosa Beach City Council Chambers. The NOP and letters received in
response to the NOP from both public agencies and members of the public are included in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 72-day review period beginning
Attachment 1
13
Page 2 of 4 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
October 26, 2016 and ending on January 5, 2017. As part of the Draft EIR review process, the
Planning Commission held a special meeting on November 21, 2016 to take public comment on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was made public on February 9, 2017. All required notifications
were provided pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5) and all comment
letters were incorporated into the Final EIR.
SECTION 3. In accordance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Government Code 69352.3,
and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Government Code 21000, the City of Hermosa Beach
requested a list of Tribal Organization contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission in
April 2014. The City of Hermosa Beach sent notifications to the appropriate tribal organizations in
January 2015 in compliance with SB 18, and again in August 2015 to comply with AB 52. The
City has complied with the requirements for tribal consultation and the findings of consultation
process can be found in Attachment C to this resolution.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission held public
meetings to review the 2015 Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa between January 2016 and
June 2016, and have recommended modifications to the document. The changes to PLAN
Hermosa that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council, includes input from the
Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Emergency Preparedness
Advisory Commission, can be found as Attachment B to the PC Resolution No 17-____ and are
included as part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for City Council consideration.
The proposed changes to the project largely clarify and define policy language without changing
the intent of the PLAN’s goals and objectives. Pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the changes would not result in any new significant environmental impacts nor
substantially increase the severity of significant impacts described in the EIR and a recirculation of
the EIR is not necessary. As explained further in Attachment C, Hermosa Beach Planning
Commission Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Recommending the
adoption of PLAN Hermosa, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA requiring recirculation of a
Draft EIR have been met.
Attachment 1
14
Page 3 of 4 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SECTION 5. The City of Hermosa Beach prepared the PLAN Hermosa Program EIR
(State Clearinghouse #2015081009) in its capacity as lead agency under CEQA and in compliance
with CEQA. The Final EIR, provided as Attachment A consists of the NOP, Notice of Availability,
the Draft EIR including technical appendices, the Responses to Comments, Final Corrections and
Additions, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Project Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations Recommending the adoption of PLAN Hermosa. Hereafter, these
documents will be referred to collectively as the “Final EIR.” These Findings are based on the
entire record before the Planning Commission, including the Final EIR.
SECTION 6. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided written proposed responses to public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR ten (10)
days prior to certification of the Final EIR.
SECTION 7. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on the PLAN
Hermosa and FEIR was advertised in The Easy Reader Newspaper on February 16, 2017.
Notification of the Public Hearing was also shared with the local press and was also distributed via
the City’s eNotify, Nixle and Nextdoor communication systems to the Hermosa Beach community.
SECTION 8. In accordance with CEQA Section 21082, the Planning Commission
independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and the administrative record relating to the
proposed project. The Final EIR constitutes an accurate and complete statement of the
environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment
of the Planning Commission and it hereby recommends the City Council adopt the facts and
analysis in the Final EIR and in the Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Recommending the adoption of PLAN Hermosa and certify the Final EIR. The omission of some
detail or aspect of the Final EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the Planning
Commission.
SECTION 9. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning
Commission finds that changes or alterations have been required in the project that, to the extent
feasible, substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. These
changes or alterations are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In
Attachment 1
15
Page 4 of 4 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
accordance with Section 15091 (d), and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require a
public agency to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring required changes or conditions of
approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
incorporated herein as Attachment B.
SECTION 10. In accordance with CEQA Section 21081, specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project have been identified that outweigh the
significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Attachment C). The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council make the
findings described in the Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Recommending the adoption of PLAN Hermosa.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED BY A MOTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH ON THIS ___ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017.
______________________________
Ken Robertson, Secretary
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Michael Flaherty, Chairman
Date
Attachment 1
16
city of hermosa beach
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2015081009 • February 2017
PLAN Hermosa........................................................
17
18
C ITY OF H ERMOSA B EACH
PLAN H ERMOSA
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH #2015081009
Prepared for:
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
1 KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 1150
OAKLAND, CA 94612
FEBRUARY 2017
19
20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR ......................................................................................... 1.0-1
1.2 Intended Uses of the EIR .............................................................................................................. 1.0-2
1.3 Organization and Scope of the Final EIR ................................................................................. 1.0-2
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
2.2 Commenter List ............................................................................................................................. 2.0-1
2.3 Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ .2.0-2
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3.0-1
3.2 Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................................................................................................. 3.0-1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.1 Mitigation Montoring Program ................................................................................................... 4.0-1
4.2 Monitoring Authority and Enforcement Responsibility .......................................................... 4.0-1
4.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsiblity ....................................................................................... 4.0-1
4.4 General Monitoring Procedures ................................................................................................ 4.0-1
4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Table ............................................................................ 4.0-2
APPENDICES
ADDED TO APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT (ON CD)
Appendix A1 – Hermosa Beach Market Analysis
Appendix A2 – Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise
Appendix B1 – Natural Resources
Appendix B2 – Special-Status Species
Appendix B3 – Historic Resources
Appendix B4 – Primary Record Report
Appendix B5 – Windshield Survey Results
Appendix B6 – Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment
Appendix B7 – City of Hermosa Beach 2013–2021 Housing Element
APPENDIX H (TRIBAL CONSULTATION)
21
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
ii
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHR California Historical Resource
EIR environmental impact report
GHG greenhouse gas
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
mgd million gallons per day
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MW megawatt
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
REC renewable energy certificate
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
TIS Traffic Impact Study
VMT vehicle miles traveled
22
1.0 INTRODUCTION
23
24
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
1.0-1
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132).
The City of Hermosa Beach (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the
proposed PLAN Hermosa (SCH No. 2015081009), which includes the implementation of a
citywide General Plan and Local Coastal Program (proposed project). The City has the principal
responsibility for approving the proposed project.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the proposed project that
led to the preparation of this Final EIR.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was issued August 7, 2015. The NOP was
circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit
comments. These comment letters are included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. A scoping meeting
was held on August 18, 2015. The review period for the NOP ended on September 8, 2015.
DRAFT EIR
A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was posted on the City’s website and distributed to
interested parties on October 26, 2016. The Draft EIR was released for public and agency review
for a 72-day review period ending on January 5, 2017. The Planning Commission held a hearing
on November 21, 2016, to receive comments on the Draft EIR. Comments received during the
public review period are addressed in this Final EIR.
The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting,
identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as
well as an analysis of project alternatives. The Draft EIR was provided to interested public
agencies and the public and was made available for review at City offices and on the City’s
website.
FINAL EIR
The City received comment letters from public agencies and the public regarding the Draft EIR.
This document responds to the comments received, as required by CEQA. As prescribed by
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency (in this case, the City of Hermosa
Beach) is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who
have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This Final EIR
contains individual responses to each comment received during the public review period for the
Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe
the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The City and its consultants have
provided a good faith effort to respond in detail to all significant environmental issues raised by
the comments. This document also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in
Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This document constitutes the Final EIR.
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
This document, together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150), will comprise the Final EIR for this project. The City will review
25
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
1.0-2
and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the
City may certify the Final EIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if
it: (1) shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and (2) provides
sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its
environmental consequences.
Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or
reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by
written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of
project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
1.2 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of PLAN Hermosa to the greatest
extent possible. This EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as
the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions
associated with the project. Please refer to Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a
detailed discussion of PLAN Hermosa.
1.3 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR
This document is organized in the following manner:
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Section 1.0 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and describes the required contents
of the Final EIR.
SECTION 2.0 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Section 2.0 includes a list of commenters, copies of written comments (coded for reference),
and the responses to those written and oral comments made on the Draft EIR.
SECTION 3.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Section 3.0 lists the revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received and other
staff-initiated changes.
SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Section 4.0 provides a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the implementation of
mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation
measures are implemented as defined in this EIR.
26
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
27
28
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for PLAN Hermosa (proposed project) was
prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The City of
Hermosa Beach is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project and
has the principal responsibility for approving the project.
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that
focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which the project’s significant effects might be avoided or mitigated.
This section also notes that commenters should include an explanation and evidence supporting
their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect is not considered
significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on
environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written
response must address the significant environmental issue raised and must be detailed,
especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not
accepted. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written
response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues
associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by
commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15204).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comments results in
revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the Draft EIR or as a
separate section of the Final EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR are incorporated as Section 3.0 of this
Final EIR.
There were numerous comments from individuals concerning PLAN Hermosa itself, with particular
emphasis on carbon neutrality. Comments on PLAN Hermosa that are not germane to the
analysis of environmental impacts do not require detailed responses in this Final EIR, as provided
under CEQA. However, general responses are included for completeness and to inform the
decision-making process. Comments that provide suggestions or questions regarding goals and
policies in PLAN Hermosa are presented for consideration in a separate document and will be
included in staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council.
2.2 COMMENTER LIST
The following commenters submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The comment period for
the Draft EIR began October 27, 2016, and ended January 5, 2017. Confirmation of lead agency
compliance with CEQA for public review of the Draft EIR was received from the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research on October 26, 2016.
29
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-2
Letter Code Commenter Date
Agencies
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 December 20, 2016
CSDLAC County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County January 5, 2017
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission December 21, 2016
CLAFD County of Los Angeles Fire Department November 16, 2016
Tribes
GBMI Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians October 30, 2016
Individuals
ADLS Steve Adler November 24, 2016
BARP Peggy Barr November 17, 2016
BERC Claudia Berman January 2, 2017
FORR Robert Fortunato November 21, 2016
GRED David Grethen November 21, 2016
KRUA Arthur Krugler December 4, 2016
MORG G & J Moriyama November 19, 2016
MOWB Bette Mower November 18, 2016
PALJ Jens Palsberg November 20, 2016
SARK Ken Sarno November 2, 2016
SCHH Heather Schneider December 2, 2016
TATP1 Pam Tatreau December 5, 2016
TATP2 Pam Tatreau December 31, 2016
TUTC Coco Larson-Tuttle December 12, 2016
Planning Commission Meeting
PUBM Transcript from Planning Commission Public Hearing on Draft EIR November 21, 2016
2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses
to those comments in table form at the end of this section.
30
AGENCIES
31
32
CALTRANS-1
CALTRANS-2
CALTRANS-3
33
CALTRANS-4
CALTRANS-5
34
CSDLAC-1
CSDLAC-2
35
CSDLAC-2
cont.
CSDLAC-3
36
NAHC-1
37
NAHC-1
cont.
38
39
40
41
CLAFD-1
42
CLAFD-1
cont.
CLAFD-2
CLAFD-3
43
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-16
This page intentionally left blank.
44
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-17
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
CALTRANS-1 The commenter recommends that the City refer to the California Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines for vehicle miles traveled
analysis in CEQA.
The OPR website and guidelines regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis in
CEQA documents were reviewed in conjunction with the preparation of the
project’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Draft EIR (pp. 4.14-19 through 4.14-20)
summarizes how Senate Bill (SB) 743 will change the way in which transportation
impacts may be evaluated by jurisdictions. While the VMT analysis in the EIR is
consistent with draft guidelines being prepared by OPR in response to SB 743, its
implementation is still evolving and has not yet been incorporated into the CEQA
Guidelines. As such, the City of Hermosa Beach does not have adopted
thresholds for evaluating a project’s VMT. Because the recommendations for new
analysis metrics and thresholds of significance are still under development by
OPR, the VMT metrics presented in the City’s Draft EIR are for informational
purposes, as noted on page 4.14-32 in the Draft EIR, and the City has relied on
adopted level of service (LOS) standards to determine potential impacts.
CALTRANS-2 This comment references Table 4.14-19 (Caltrans Signalized Intersection Impact
Criteria), which is on page 4.14-34 in the Draft EIR. The table identifies three
impact thresholds. The comment states that the threshold in the table is incorrect,
but does not indicate which threshold is incorrect.
Per Caltrans’ TIS guidelines, Caltrans intersections along the Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH) in the study area were analyzed using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methodology. While Caltrans’ TIS guidelines provide screening
criteria to determine whether a TIS is needed, its guidance does not include
criteria to determine whether the project’s trip generation should be considered
“significant” under CEQA. For purposes of the Draft EIR analysis, PLAN Hermosa
would create a significant impact at a signalized intersection if it causes the
intersection to degrade to LOS D, E, or F from LOS C or above. The City, as the
CEQA lead agency, worked with its traffic consultant to establish the thresholds
used in the Draft EIR, which are consistent with standards used in other recent
environmental documents in the city, including the TIS for the E&B Oil
Development Project EIR.
CALTRANS-3 The City and its project consultants selected a project evaluation scenario for the
Caltrans intersections along the PCH that included lane repurposing consistent
with the policies and objectives in PLAN Hermosa and that would document the
potential impacts of substantial modifications to the intersections’ operating
capacity. Specific information for each intersection is included in Appendix G in
the Draft EIR, based on the master planning documents available at the time of
the analysis. The plans referred to are still under development. Caltrans has not
yet completed its Project Study Report for improvements to the PCH, so no formal
reference is available for that plan. However, the Request for Programming is
available at:
http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5706.
45
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-18
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
The Aviation Boulevard Master Plan is also under development. Documentation
of a public meeting for the project’s early conceptualization is available at:
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=2462&
meta_id=126846.
As noted on page 4.14-39 in the Draft EIR, PLAN Hermosa would contribute to
significant impacts at the intersections of the PCH with Artesia Boulevard and
Aviation Boulevard. Opportunities for physical mitigations (by the City) are limited
by alignment issues, Caltrans’ plans for the PCH intersections noted in planning
documents, and inconsistency with local adopted plans. For those reasons, there
is no feasible mitigation available to the City to mitigate PLAN Hermosa impacts,
and the City is not proposing any specific mitigation for PCH intersections at this
time. However, the City will continue to work with Caltrans in the context of the
PSR and future engineering studies when specific projects are advanced.
CALTRANS-4 The commenter suggests four additional policies be added to PLAN Hermosa.
The suggested policies address coordination between the City and Caltrans
concerning state facilities, as well as the City’s transportation impact fee
program. The suggested policies do not propose specific measures that, if
implemented, would further reduce transportation network impacts identified in
the Draft EIR. PLAN Hermosa actions include substantial implementation of
Transportation Demand Management measures that are expected to reduce
the expected growth in traffic compared with the 2040 without PLAN Hermosa
scenario. Therefore, cumulative impacts on both local and state facilities will be
reduced.
It is not clear from the comment how the suggested policies would further
reduce these impacts. However, the commenter’s suggested changes are
provided in a separate document and will be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider their incorporation into PLAN Hermosa.
CALTRANS-5 PLAN Hermosa does not propose any specific projects that would directly affect
state roadways or drainage systems, nor would it result in the movement of
goods requiring a Caltrans transportation permit. This comment is not directed to
the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. City staff acknowledges
Caltrans requirements, and the City would be responsible for ensuring private or
public projects that may be developed in the city comply with applicable design
standards and permitting. Additionally, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID)
Ordinance, green streets policy, Enhanced Watershed Management Plan, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit ensure
stormwater is controlled, which is explained in greater detail in Section 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.8-8.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
CSDLAC-1 This is an informational comment about the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County wastewater collection and treatment system. It is not specifically
directed to the analysis in the Draft EIR, but does include information about
capacity and flows. City staff reviewed the description of facilities in the Draft EIR
(pp. 4.13-32 and 4.13-39) relative to the information presented in the comment
46
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-19
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
and did not find any discrepancies, with one minor exception. The Draft EIR
(p. 4.13-32) reported an average flow of 263.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to
the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (based on information provided by the
district in its Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter [Draft EIR Appendix B]),
while this comment indicates an average flow of 254.1 mgd, presumably
reflecting more current information. This discrepancy does not affect the
conclusion in the Draft EIR about impacts on wastewater facilities, because the
capacity of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant remains at 400 mgd, and the
more current information reflects a decrease in average flow, meaning the plant
is further away from reaching capacity than was previously presented. However,
the Draft EIR has been revised with this information (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to
the Draft EIR). With regard to comment 4 in the letter, the flows presented in the
Draft EIR (p. 4.13-39) were calculated by district staff and provided in its NOP
comment letter.
CSDLAC-2 This is an informational comment about the district’s sewerage fee program. It
does not address the analysis in the Draft EIR.
CSDLAC-3 This comment notes that the future capacity of the Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant is based on the regional growth forecast prepared and adopted by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and therefore capacity
of the plant is limited to the approved growth identified by SCAG. As described
in Draft EIR Section 4.12, Population, Housing, and Employment, the City of
Hermosa Beach provided input to SCAG in the preparation of the Regional
Growth Forecast adopted as part of the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan
on the population, household, and employment buildout proposed under PLAN
Hermosa, and SCAG accepted that input in full, making the local and regional
growth forecasts identical for growth by the year 2040.
Based on the flow estimates provided by the district in its NOP comment letter,
PLAN Hermosa’s contribution to the wastewater system would represent less than
an additional 0.1 percent contribution to flows to the system. This increase would
have a negligible impact on system capacity (Draft EIR p. 4.13-39).
Native American Heritage Commission
NAHC-1 The Draft EIR fully evaluated potential impacts on tribal cultural resources in
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. The City of Hermosa Beach has also complied
with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation requirements. The
Executive Summary document provided to the NAHC by the State Clearinghouse
included a CD containing the Draft EIR, which contains the specific information
the commenter asserts was missing from the EIR.
As stated in the Draft EIR (p. 4.4-1), information for the analysis in the Cultural
Resources section of the Draft EIR was based on a technical report titled
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment and Historic
Resources Existing Conditions Report to support PLAN Hermosa, prepared by PCR
Services Corporation and included in the Draft EIR as Appendix C-7. The
assessment included an archaeological resources records search through the
California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal
Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC), and a Sacred Lands File search through the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), among other items
47
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-20
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
(Draft EIR p. 4.4-1).
The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-5) described the requirements for SB 18 and AB 52 tribal
consultation requirements and how the City has complied with those
requirements. In August 2014, the City received information from the NAHC
pursuant to SB 18 indicating a search of the results of a Sacred Lands File search
and the names of tribal representatives. As stated on page 4.4-5, the City
requested consultation with Native American tribes in compliance with SB 18 in
January 2015, and again under AB 52 in August 2015. In addition to the tribal
consultation process, the City has sent notifications to each of the listed tribal
organizations offering opportunities to comment on the NOP and the Draft EIR.
Copies of all communications with the NAHC and the tribal organizations listed
by the NAHC in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 requirements have been
provided in a new Appendix H added to the Final EIR. The documents in
Appendix H are confidential to comply with AB 52 and protect the confidential
information provided by California Native American Tribes. They are included in
the administrative record for the EIR and are on file with the City of Hermosa
Beach.
potential for implementation of PLAN Hermosa to adversely affect Native
American resources and human remains. As stated on page 4.4-11, no known
archaeological resources (historic or prehistoric) have been recorded within the
city. The Draft EIR noted that these findings, however, do not preclude the
possibility of encountering undiscovered archaeological resources during
construction, given the proven prehistoric and historic occupation of the region,
the identification of surface and subsurface archaeological resources near the
PLAN Hermosa planning area (e.g., Old Salt Lake and CA-LAN-1872), and the
favorable natural conditions (e.g., Pacific Ocean) that would have attracted
prehistoric and historic inhabitants to the area. The archaeological monitoring of
numerous construction projects throughout the region in recent decades has
demonstrated the existence of deeply buried archaeological deposits,
especially in locations of rapid Holocene deposition such as alluvial fans. The
Draft EIR (p. 4.4-12) also noted that the discovery of Native American human
remains, including cases of multiple burials, is not uncommon in the region (e.g.,
Malaga Cove).
The City concluded impacts would be less than significant and would not require
mitigation measures because PLAN Hermosa includes a comprehensive policy-
based approach for determining whether tribal resources or remains may be
present in an area in which ground disturbance could occur and how potential
impacts would be mitigated. For example, implementation action LAND USE-23
48
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-21
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
(Draft EIR p. 4.4-10) directs that the City require archaeological investigations for
all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for
areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural
resources. As part of the implementation action, the City will require the
preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined
based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if
feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation,
data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance. The
Draft EIR (pp. 4.4-11 through 4.4-12) explained how this process would work: an
initial archaeological study (Phase I Assessment), at a minimum, would consist of
the following tasks to identify known archaeological resources in a given project
site: a cultural resources records search through the South Central Coastal
Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, a
pedestrian survey of the project site, a review of the land use history, and
coordination with knowledgeable organizations or individuals (e.g., Hermosa
Beach Historical Society, Native American tribes). If warranted, additional
analyses such as archaeological test excavations and/or remote sensing
methods would be implemented to identify resources.
To more explicitly address tribal requests for a Native American monitor to be
present during ground-disturbing activities, the City proposes amending
implementation action LAND USE-23 as follows (new text underlined):
All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation
activities on previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct
archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to
determine is sensitive for cultural resources. Additionally, as the lead
agency for future discretionary projects, the City is required under AB 52
to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with
those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal
consultation or archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and
consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk
for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether
any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that
risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to
complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any
ground disturbance activity and/or requiring a qualified archaeologist or
tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance
activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered
archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city,
state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if
feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation,
curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further
disturbance.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
CLAFD-1 The commenter states PLAN Hermosa does not appear to have any impact on
the emergency responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The
comment does not affect the conclusions in the Draft EIR concerning fire
49
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-22
AGENCIES
Comment # Response
protection impacts (Impact 4.13.2-1 [pp. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8] in Section 4.13,
Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities).
CLAFD-2 This commenter states the statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department Forestry Division. The comment does not address the technical
analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR.
CLAFD-3 The commenter states that the Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County
of Los Angeles Fire Department has no comments at this time.
50
TRIBES
51
52
Subject: Plan Hermosa: City of Hermosa Beach Beach General Plan and
Local Coastal Program Update
please see atatchment
Sincerely,
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation
PO Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
cell: (626)9264131
email: gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com
website: www.gabrielenoindians.org
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
Sun 10/30/2016 1:59 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:Matt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno ; Christina Swindall ; Henrypedregon
; Gary Stickel ;
2 attachments ﴾737 KB﴿
IMG_4746.jpg; Subject‐ Plan Hermosa‐ City of Hermosa Beach Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update .docx;
53
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-29
TRIBES
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation
Comment # Response
GBMI-1 The commenter summarizes information about the ancestral and traditional
territories of the Kizh villages such as Engnovangan, and has included an
excerpt from a 1978 publication about the Gabrieleño. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-2)
notes the significance of this village in Hermosa Beach.
The Draft EIR (Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 on pp. 4.4-10 through 4.4-12) evaluated
the potential for implementation of PLAN Hermosa to adversely affect Native
American resources and human remains. As stated on page 4.4-11, no
known archaeological resources (historic or prehistoric) have been recorded
within the city. The Draft EIR noted that these findings, however, do not
preclude the possibility of encountering undiscovered archaeological
resources during construction, given the proven prehistoric and historic
occupation of the region, the identification of surface and subsurface
archaeological resources near the PLAN Hermosa planning area (e.g., Old
Salt Lake and CA-LAN-1872), and the favorable natural conditions (e.g.,
Pacific Ocean) that would have attracted prehistoric and historic inhabitants
to the area. In addition to the specific examples cited by the commenter for
a project in Los Angeles and Hawaiian Gardens, the archaeological
monitoring of numerous construction projects throughout the region in recent
decades has demonstrated the existence of deeply buried archaeological
deposits, especially in locations of rapid Holocene deposition such as alluvial
fans. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-12) also noted that the discovery of Native
American human remains, including cases of multiple burials, is not
uncommon in the region (e.g., Malaga Cove).
As noted in response NAHC-1, the City is proposing to amend
implementation action LAND USE-23 to more explicitly detail the tribal
consultation process and include direction as to when a Native American
monitor would be required to be present on-site during ground disturbance
activities. This implementation action, as amended, would ensure the
consultation requirements of AB 52 are followed by the City as the lead
agency and that requirements are clear related to the presence of Native
American monitors during ground-disturbing activities in which a tribe or
archaeological investigation indicate the potential for tribal resources to be
found.
GBMI-2 As described on page 4.4-5 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, in the Draft EIR,
the City requested consultation with Native American tribes in compliance
with SB 18 in January 2015 and again under AB 52 in August 2015. The City
notified all of the relevant tribal organizations identified by the Native
American Heritage Commission for the City of Hermosa Beach. In a letter
dated May 19, 2014, the NAHC provided a list of the tribes that claim
traditional or cultural affiliation with the area surrounding Hermosa Beach,
including the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians,
Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe, Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians, and
Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation. All of the groups identified by the NAHC will
continue to be notified of projects in Hermosa Beach and offered an
opportunity to consult with the City in accordance with AB 52.
54
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-30
This page intentionally left blank.
55
INDIVIDUALS
56
57
Carbon Neutral
Dear Councilmembers
Upon reviewing the general plan towards the goal of becoming "carbon neutral" I am pleased that you have taken a thoughtful approach
to this endeavor. However, after my review I find this far beyond the scope of your elected positions to ratify any part of this proposal
without asking the community for permission. Additionally, I would like to know what benefit the City of Hermosa would have for being
the "1st" to be carbon neutral?
1. Do we receive tax benefits for implementing this plan?
2. Do the savings offset the expense of implementing this plan? If so, how many years will it take?
3. If there are no financial benefits to going carbon neutral why purchase carbon offsets?
4. If we have the money for carbon offsets wouldn't that money be more beneficial to the environment if we promoted worthy
environmental causes? For example: we could promote the need that we as consumers actually consume less. Clearly it is better for the
environment over all to use a gasoline powered car until it no longer can be used... rather than turning the car in and purchasing an
electric car. If you wish I can provide many studies that speak to over consumption with regards to autos, computers, phones etc.
As stated before, I applaud all of you for undertaking this lofty goal, however, I believe many of your suggestions should be open to a
vote and not dictated by our City Council.
Thank you
‐‐
Steve Adler
steve adler
Thu 11/24/2016 12:17 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
ADLS
-1
58
comments on carbon neutrality
11/17/2016
RE: Carbon Neutrality/EIR
Enough is Enough!
There have been 4 “studies” on the feasibility of Hermosa Beach becoming Carbon Neutral. And in
October the council approved yet another $7500 for an additional study…when all of the 4 previous
ones came to a similar conclusion: The only way to be Carbon Neutral is to either purchase carbon
offset credits or produce renewable energy in order to offset emissions.
Neither of these options is a sound management or fiscal decision.
First of all, purchasing carbon offset credits (RECs) is NOT being carbon neutral {EIR 4.615}: Just by
merely purchasing RECs you can’t create CLEANER energy or CLEANER air. RECs do nothing to
actually lower greenhouse gases (GHG) but merely shift money from the city to the pockets of the
brokers representing Carbon Neutrality or CCAs, who are usually the consultants pushing this agenda
on cities. RECs are merely deals on paper that cost Hermosa Beach taxpayers more money.
Secondly, producing renewable energy on our own (thru a CCA) is not sound judgement. There is no
guarantee that the energy we will generate/receive will be any more renewable or CLEANER than what
we already receive from SCE. SCE is currently regulated by the state and federal governments to have
CLEANER/RENEWABLE energy. The most recent statistics I was able to find for SCE were from 2014
and it is required to increase yearlyin 2014 we received 27% CLEAN energy and 24% RENEWABLE.
[source: 2014 Power Content Label Southern California Edison]
The actual break down looked like this:
27% is CLEAN
33% is moderately CLEAN
Peggy Barr
Thu 11/17/2016 3:44 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty
<mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; David Pedersen
<dpedersen@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Jeff Duclos
<jduclos@hermosabch.org>; Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Mayor Pro Tem Justin Massey
<jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Stacey Armato <sarmato@hermosabch.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>;
John Jalili <jjalili@hermosabch.org>;
BARP
-1
BARP
-2
59
12/5/2016 comments on carbon neutrality Leeanne Singleton
40% is unspecified*****
And 24% of this power is RENEWABLE
***** My understanding of the definition of unspecified, includes things they can’t really measure, like the
input onto the grid of the CLEAN solar power that our household and many others generate.
So far I have only been addressing the Hermosa Beach City as its own entity. But if the EIR is passed to
include "community wide carbon neutrality" {EIR 6.09, 6.010} Hermosa Beach residents and taxpayers
are due to see huge increases in costs with instituting :
the establishment of greenhouse gas impact fees {EIR 4.616} which will drive up the cost of
developmentultimately passed on to us as consumers.
the requirement to install renewable energy projects on homes and businesses, mandating retrofits to
existing buildings to improve energy efficiency {EIR 4.613} costing the homeowners money and again
ultimately the business passing the cost onto consumers.
the elimination of the use of natural gas within the city
new modified parking standards to disincentive gasoline powered cars, making it more onerous and/or
expensive to park – ultimately driving down our tax base from businesses.
We cannot have these provisions hard coded as part of our General Plan, providing the foundation
for future policies. If we do we are just setting ourselves up for misery, bankruptcy, a decrease in our
quality of life and worst of all an infringement on personal property rights.
I reiterate…Enough is Enough!
Please consider your decision thoroughly; it affects everyone for generations to come!
Peggy Barr
BARP
-2
cont.
BARP
-3
60
Carbon Reduc�on % 2005
Level
2020 2030 2040 2050
California ‐15 ‐49 ‐80
Hermosa Sustainabity Project 2011 ‐15
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality PLAN end date 2040 ‐66
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Goal 2 @ 2030 ‐66
PLAN Hermosa Project Alterna�ve 2020 ‐66
PLAN Hermosa DEIR Comments
Here are a few comments for the PLAN Hermosa DIER related to the Carbon Neutrality topic:
Are the assumptions made on today's technology or do you factor in technological changes that
may occur over the next 20+ years? It's my understanding that they are based on today's
technology. Therefore, please specify that clearly upfront.
I found the comparisons between the PLAN and State requirements confusing. It would be good to
have some type of table so that people can compare the PLAN options to State requirements. I did
a quick table of an example. The EIR should have something like this and have a clearer
statement of how we line up to the State requirements. It took me many hours to realize that PLAN
Hermosa end date of 2040 is in line with California's current requirements.
Thank you,
Claudia Berman
Claudia Berman
Mon 1/2/2017 3:41 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
BERC-1
61
Plan Hermosa Meeting tonight and Palo Alto to get $1 million
City Clerk Would you please forward this email to the Planning commission and I ask that this email be included as a
supplemental
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners and Staff,
Thank you for all the good work you are doing on Plan Hermosa. I know you are aware of the importance of this plan in setting the course for
the city in the coming decades. While reviewing Plan Hermosa you will inevitably get questions as to why we are pursuing a carbon neutrality
goal.
If health of our residents, sustainability of our environment and disaster preparedness are not compelling enough reasons, than the economics
should be. Plan Hermosa was partially funded by $410K from the Strategic Growth Council because we are pursuing the goal of Carbon
Neutrality.
Many other initiative have been and will be funded because we differentiate ourselves from competing cities by aspiring to this Carbon Neutral
goal. A recent example is the UCLA‐MBA study where a group of local residents who are working toward their MBA heard about our Carbon
neutral goal and are doing a business plan for our city that is conservatively valued at $160,000 for $7,500.
By keeping this ambitious goal at the forefront of our consciousness, we can help the city be more efficient in its operations and better for our
residents ‐ while getting funding to help our local economy. As you can see in the email below, Palo Alto, who has a similar Carbon Neutral
goal, just recently got $1 million to study how to reduce traffic.
Please support an aggressive Carbon Neutral 2030 goal for our city and let me know let me know if you have any question or concerns.
Respectfully,
Robert Fortunato
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: City of Palo Alto <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:39 PM
Subject: Climate Action: Taking Our Next Big Step ‐‐ 80 x 30!
To:
Robert Fortunato
Mon 11/21/2016 12:32 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@hermosabch.org>; Michael Flaherty
<MFlaherty@hermosabch.org>; Rob Saemann <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>; Marie Rice <mrice@hermosabch.org>; David Pedersen
<dpedersen@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; Elaine Doerfling <edoerfling@hermosabch.org>;
FORR
-1
62
BRT
November 2016
Climate Action: Taking our Next Big Step
Palo Alto: Designing Our
Path to 2030
Palo Alto has long been ahead of the pack in sustainability,
adopting one of the first municipal climate action plans in the U.S.
in 2007, delivering carbon neutral electricity, and partnering with our
community to develop a vision for an innovative, carbon neutral city
of the future. Poised to take the next step as a climate and
sustainability leader with one of the boldest municipal climate
goals in the country...[Read More...]
Regional Consortium Wins $1
Million Federal Grant for
Technologybased Commute
Alternatives
One of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan's (S/CAP) key
focus areas is to rethink mobility. Road transportation represents
about 61% of Palo Alto’s carbon footprint. Last month, the City of
Palo Alto, as part of a regional consortium of stakeholders, won a
$1 million federal grant for a demonstration project to reduce single
occupant vehicle driving from 75 percent to 50 percent in the Bay
area. [Read More]
Palo Alto and Sustainability News of interest
Governor Brown signs major climate bill, requiring the state
to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030
City of Palo Alto received the 2016 California Energy
Efficiency Industry Council Energy Champion Award, in
recognition for adopting a new Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Ready
"Reach Code", which goes into effect January 1, 2017
The second phase of the Cool Block pilot program is about to
get underway and additional neighborhood blocks are invited
to participate
Palo Alto and leading U.S. cities partner on guidelines for
smart cities to ensure the responsible and equitable
deployment of smart city technologies
City of Palo Alto Utilities ranks in the national top 10 for most
solar watts per customer
Council Adopts 80 x 30
Goal and Framework for
Climate Action Plan
The City Council adopted the
general framework of the
Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan (S/CAP) at its
meeting on Monday, April 18,
which identifies a Greenhouse
Gas Emissions reduction goal
of 80 percent by 2030. [Read
More]
Get Involved. S/CAP at
the next City Council
Meeting on November
28th.
On Monday, November 28th,
the City Council will meet to
review the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
and decide upon formal
adoption of the plan. The
agenda for the meeting will
be posted here. As always,
you're invited and welcome to
share your perspectives (just
be sure to fill out a comment
card).
Share Your Priorities for
2017 with Palo Alto City
Council
What are the priorities you
would like to see the Palo Alto
City Council adopt in 2017?
You are invited to share your
thoughts on Open City Hall.
[Read more]
63
Considering Solar? Sign up now to take advantage of Palo
Alto’s Current Net Metering program.
For more timely sustainability news and updates...
...follow Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend on Twitter @PaloAltoCSO
The City has a variety of enews topics that may be of interest to you. Join
other enews topics, update your subscriptions, modify your password or e
mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber
Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you
have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact
subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by the City of Palo Alto.
This email was sent to using GovDelivery, on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton Ave · Palo
Alto, CA 94301 · 6503292100
Powered by
GovDelivery
‐‐
Robert Fortunato
President
www.ForStrategy.com
Our commitment to leadership, innovation and sustainability is reflected in our Green Idea House
"Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done,
and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done" Paul Hawken
64
HB Planning Commission - PLAN EIR - 11/21/2016 - D. Grethen
(Comments in bold italics. Introductory/background info in plain text)
Figure 4.6-3 is a useful way to depict state-driven carbon reduction goals and
measures as related to local neutrality goals, as well as potential offsets.
But the following accompanying description of may need to be even more
precisely explained to be more clear to describe how the numbers add up.
Per report: “As depicted in Figure 4.6-3 (Emissions Reductions Needed to Meet State
and Local Targets), the impact of state legislation on local emissions in 2040 would leave
a remaining gap of 48,800 MTCO2e to be reduced by local policy to achieve state goals
and a remaining gap of 95,420 MTCO2e to achieve a carbon neutral goal by 2040 as
proposed in the draft of PLAN Hermosa.”
More significantly, the following questions associated with Figure 4.6-3
should be addressed:
Why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy to meet state
goals?
Why is state legislation insufficient to meet state goals?
Is there something specific about Hermosa Beach that results in state
legislation not being sufficient for Hermosa Beach to not meet state goals?
These insights might help the city better understand its challenges, regulatory
role, and degree of local initiative necessary to achieve carbon reduction goals.
Figure 4.6-3 and its accompanying discussion also indicate the following
conclusions, which could imply large environmental impacts:
The city will already be significantly challenged to meet state goals through
local measures beyond what will be driven by state legislation (this is
indicated by the size of the blue shaded region of the figure compared to the
size of the pink shaded region)
The city will be greatly additionally challenged in order to achieve full carbon
neutrality beyond what it must do to meet the state goals, with neutrality
approximately doubling the size of the total challenge (this is apparent since
the size of the green shaded region is roughly the size of the blue shaded
region)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subsection underlined as “Renewable Energy Generation” on Page 4.6-21
highlights how renewable energy may be generated for local use in the following
ways, some local and some remote:
Installations on homes and businesses (local)
Carbon neutral municipal facilities (local)
Locations appropriate for additional renewable energy technologies and to
GRED1-1
GRED1-2
65
“allow by right” (local)
Community choice aggregation (CCA - remote)
The decision to use remotely- versus locally-generated renewable energy
to achieve carbon reductions will be a large determinant of impacts to the
local environment, residents, and businesses.
Rough order of magnitude estimates for potential land use impacts should
be provided for scenarios where municipal (and entire community) carbon
reduction/neutrality goals are met by use of local solar energy to fully
supply the total kW-hr energy needs every day, plus any additional
renewable energy generation needed in lieu of purchasing carbon offsets
(e.g. Alternative 2).
The estimates should specify the following for both the municipality and entire
community:
Total land/mounting area to achieve municipal (and community) carbon
neutrality with all electricity generated locally for solar.
Total available rooftop mounting area on municipal (and community
residential/business) buildings
Amount of additional land/mounting area that would be needed to be provided
in municipal (and community) open spaces
This would provide an initial feasibility assessment for local solar and help
determine whether most of the city’s renewable energy is likely to be locally
generated, or whether we would heavily rely on remotely located sources (e.g.
via CCA). This could also provide further insight about potential local impacts
such as glare and ability to preserve local city character.
Additionally, it should also be identified what specific locations in the city
might be “appropriate for additional renewable energy technologies” and
where they might be “allowed by right” as stated on Page 4.6-21.
The availability of locations would determine feasibility or whether land use
modification impacts occur. The city is already well developed and rather
dense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel consumption Table 4.13-7 includes electric vehicle electricity use in kW-hr,
as well as assumed fuel efficiencies.
The basis for the electric vehicle use estimate should be supported
clarified including the following:
Which corresponding level of carbon reduction this usage supports (full
neutrality vs. 66% of 2005 levels
Fraction and amount of increase in the fraction of citywide vehicles that are
GRED1-2
cont.
GRED1-3
66
electric (extent of gasoline vehicle replacement assumed or needed)
Anything else that might better relate this table to the GHG Section 4.6 of EIR
These estimates would help to better understand the amount of supporting
infrastructure needed (e.g. charging stations and parking area) and potential
resident impacts (e.g. home electricity and vehicle replacement)
The basis for the 77 mpg fuel efficiency estimate should be described and
supported.
The accuracy of fuel efficiency forecasts directly affects carbon emissions
predictions. Fuel efficiency could also determine the extent of conversion to
electric vehicles driven based on how it motivates vehicle owners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG mitigation measures MM4.6-1a, b, and c call an active/adaptive
management approach for tracking progress towards state carbon reductions
goals, potentially including regulatory corrective measures.
Mitigation measures potentially resulting in regulation to meet state-driven
carbon reduction goals may be appropriate if necessary to assure legal
compliance, but would not be appropriate to meet local voluntary goals for
complete carbon neutrality. The proposed mitigations listed above seem
to be consistent with state goals and measures (legislation and orders).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6.0.5 entitled “Environmentally Superior Alternative“ identifies the
Character Retention alternative as environmentally superior to the other
alternatives presented, including 2030 Carbon Neutrality.
Among the alternatives presented, I would not object to Character
Retention Alternative 3. I do not support the 2030 Carbon Neutrality
Alternative 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2 in Section 6 is defined by two simultaneous changes to the baseline
(acceleration to 2030 and no carbon offset purchases) whose respective impacts
are not at all readily distinguishable in the report. The lack of distinction also
hinders public discourse in this area.
The report needs to better distinguish between the impacts of acceleration
to 2030, versus the effects of not allowing carbon offset purchases,
perhaps by adding a column to an existing table, or with a new table.
Table 6.0-4 compares carbon reductions for the 2040 versus 2030 (with offsets)
scenarios. The most glaring difference between the scenarios is seen by
GRED1-3
cont.
GRED1-4
GRED1-5
GRED1-6
67
comparing the ‘Community Solar’ and ‘Purchase Offsets’ line items in the table.
The main difference in HOW the carbon goals are met between the two
scenarios is that the offsets in 2040 are roughly exchanged for a large
increase in local energy generation. This is a large impact to land use,
with other impacts such as glare and aesthetics also identified in the
report.
Note: This also relates to other comments provided about land and solar area.
Section 6 includes impacts for each environmental area including Land Use
Planning on Page 6.0-22.
Why is there no discussion under Land Use Planning for Alternative 2
given that elsewhere in the report it is shown that the amount of local
energy generation needed would increase by a factor of about 5x? Please
include in Land Use section or elsewhere in the report if more appropriate.
Additionally, Page 6-35 states as follows (underline added here):
“Alternative 2 could pose greater impacts to aesthetics and biological resources due to
increased use of renewable energy systems such as solar, wind, or ocean-based
renewable energy sources, and greater impacts to cultural resources due to greater
alteration or demolition of designated or potentially eligible historic resources to
construct high energy performance buildings. While the impacts to aesthetics, biological
resources, and cultural resources may be greater than with PLAN Hermosa, it is unknown
whether they would rise to the level of being considered a significant impact, because
the specific design and location of additional renewable energy projects cannot be
determined at this time”
The above underlined excerpt seems to limit the depth of certain impact
assessments in a way that is not very satisfying. That is why the solar
scenario calculations are requested per other comments provided here. I
can see how ocean wave/tidal technology may not yet be so well
understood, but solar is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6 includes Alternative 2 for 2030 Carbon Neutrality, which means the
community has 14 years, not 24 years to reach neutrality after 2016.
The rate of carbon reductions, based on the amount of reduction and
reduced length of time to achieve, would be additionally challenging and
likely especially impacting since the amount of time to meet goals is
reduced by a factor of about 1.7x. Given the amount of reduction to
achieve carbon neutrality is about 2x what is needed by city initiatives
beyond state goals and measures (Fig. 4.6-3), this means carbon reduction
must occur at a rate of nearly 4x what might normally be needed based on
state measures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRED1-6
cont.
GRED1-7
GRED1-8
68
Alternative 2 in Sec 6 identifies impacts including the following effects on
residences.
Replacement of gas heating systems, water heaters, and stoves
Expense and delays to retrofit their homes for energy purposes prior to sale
(unless onus for upgrades could be placed on homebuyer after sale)
Home electrical system impacts for electric vehicle charging.
If homeowners lose discretion in the way they manage their property, this
could have adverse environmental impacts. For example, if replacements
or changes to home appliances, utility infrastructure, or building
conversions are mandated to occur before these resources have exhausted
their naturally useful lifetimes, there would be environmental impacts
associated with the prematurely generated wastes.
GRED1-9
69
PLAN EIR ‐ Additional Grethen Comments
HB PLAN EIR Comments ﴾Transportation/General﴿ ‐ Dec 2016 ‐ D. Grethen
﴾Comments/Recommendations in bold italics. Introductory/background info in plain text﴿
Transportation:
Tabulated data along with Figs 4.14‐8 and ‐9 indicate worsening traffic levels or service ﴾LOS﴿ for 2040 including PCH, Artesia, Aviation,
Prospect, and Manhattan Avenue. Accompanying discussion indicates reasons why the impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable,
emphasizing limitations of potential mitigation measures. But it was not clearly certain just what is the root cause of the LOS degradation
impacts. Is it mostly driven by the identified planned elimination of a lane of traffic in each direction of PCH in Hermosa Beach? Or is it more
driven by other factors, such as increased regional traffic through Hermosa Beach, ﴾e.g. more Redondo residents using Prospect﴿?
Please provide an enhanced analytical explanation of reasons for degraded LOS in Hermosa Beach, especially for those roadways where LOS is
as low as D or E ﴾or even C﴿, including on Prospect.
General:
As a general EIR comment, it would be good if more explanations could be provided about what are the driving causes for environmental
differences due to the PLAN ﴾or between now and 2040﴿. The comment above about LOS is a specific example that spurred this general
comment.
Throughout the EIR, as a goal and to the extent practical, please attempt include more insight about reasons for results, not just stating the
results and showing the supporting data. Such insights and identification of root causes might be useful to guide additional future analyses and
efforts to seek mitigation. If this info is in certain appendices, perhaps add references to those.
GRED
2-1
70
Comments; EIR / City Planning Commission
From; Arthur H Krugler, Professional Chemical and Mechanical Engineer.
Forty years of experience in power generation and fuels; 26 years in process plant engineering.
Attendee and speaker @ Nov. 21 hearing ‐ invited by Tracy Hopkins.
Provided copies of my booklet; POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT SEAT; CO2 and Global Warming
You commission members impressed me with your attention to the EIR and the speakers;
And also your understanding of the magnitude of the EIR proposals.
My comments as an observer:
1 The elephant in the room is the State Mandate on Carbon Neutrality; the Clean Power Plan.
This could force major and expensive changes on the city and residents.
I do not see enough information of how self‐generation of power could save so much money.
“A pessimist is someone who has financed an optimist”.
Ozone and Methane rules are also significant.
2 My handout, “POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT SEAT; . . ” is a condensation of years of study.
Yes, NOAA data shows a sudden warming of the small North Pole area which started in 1980. see pages 1 and 20.
I am neither denier, nor acceptor, nor challenger of modelers but a careful analyzer of data.
3 Ice core data shows our planet had started the cool down portion of the 110,000 year cycle ﴾ see pages 1 and 19 ﴿ some 10,000 years ago.
Magma activity, ﴾ volcanoes and undersea vents ﴿ has caused a 35 year long 10 degree rise at the North Pole temperature, which is very likely
ending.
Earthquake activity near the North Pole, responding to Magma movement, increased in 1970 and has abruptly stopped.
The North Pole ice could return very quickly.
4 CO2 levels will continue to rise along with the increased use of natural gas fuel but temperatures will cool.
5 I expect to see many news reports this year and next like those in the LA Times today, Sunday Dec 4;
Page A‐20 “Aloha, Old Man Winter; Hawaii peaks get 2 feet of snow" ‐ 'last year had none'
Page B‐5; "Water year is off to a good start”; Northern Sierra Nevada sees wettest fall since 1984’, 200% above average.
Expect snow storms and floods in Central and Eastern US. Cold arctic air meets warm humid Caribbean air with predictable results.
An 'ice age' requires heavy snowfall for many years to create the thick ice layer.
However, LA Times front page news continues; Page A‐19 ‐ Opinion;
“OUR REPUBLIC OF CLIMATE”; ‘California is a role model leading the nation ‐ and even the world’.
Actually, we need to develop and install a new generation of nuclear plants to provide the power for desalination and heating in this cold world,
as well as the ever increasing energy uses. Energy efficiency and alternate sources where economical are excellent also.
Leaving fossil fuel in the ground will also leave the asphalt we need to replace roads and roofs.
Arthur H Krugler
Should any of you commissioners be interested in further discussion, I am available 24/7.
Further bio information is available @
Art Krugler
Sun 12/4/2016 8:28 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
KRUA
-1
KRUA
-2
71
Untitled
This carbon neutrality business is a bunch of bologna.
G & J Moriyama
Sat 11/19/2016 1:46 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
MORG-1
72
City owned building Prospect and 6th St.
I have read the PLAN Hermosa draft and the General Plan and see references to maintenance and upgrades to City facilities,
parks, etc. The structures in the City yard are referenced and I agree, they are in dire need of renovation. There is a building
being used for storage next to Ft. Lots of Fun at 6th and Prospect. It has been allowed to deteriorate and is now an eyesore
and a blight in our neighborhood. It is not in an industrial area it is in a residential neighborhood with children, homes, dogs,
parks, etc. and as such, is a HIGHLY VISIBLE structure. I do not see this building referenced in any of the documents under
review. I invite you to do a driveby, take a look and tell me if you agree or disagree that this structure (peeling, cracked
stucco, mold and mildew growing up the sides) should be a HIGH PRIORITY item. I guarantee you that no one in City
government would want this structure in its condition in their neighborhood.
I am asking that language be included in the planning documents that specifically references this building just as Clark
Stadium, 8th Street, Plaza, fire station, library and other sites are referenced.
Since this building has some historical significance (it was originally a school), perhaps it could be painted with one of the
lovely murals I see in the downtown area, showing children playing and arriving for school as they would have back in 1925
when it was constructed.
If there is another channel I should use to bring this to the attention of those who could bring about this request, please give me
that information and I will pursue the issue further.
Bette Mower
Fri 11/18/2016 1:52 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
MOWB
-1
73
From: Jens Palsberg
Date: November 20, 2016 at 4:41:54 PM PST
To: Peter Hoffman <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, Michael Flaherty <mflaherty@hermosabch.org>, Rob Saemann
<rsaemann@hermosabch.org>, Marie Rice <mrice@hermosabch.org>, David Pedersen <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>
Subject: a carbon neutral community
Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission,
Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Rob Saemann, Marie Rice, and David Pedersen,
Thank you for all you do for Hermosa Beach.
I like PLAN Hermosa, which spells out worthwhile opportunities
and has a forward‐looking approach. I am particularly excited
about the vision of a carbon neutral community. This vision
attracted me and my UCLA Executive MBA team to do our final
project on aspects of the vision, as detailed in the attached plan.
The Hermosa Beach City Council voted in favor of the project
on September 28, 2016. The project will run from January to June 2017.
I believe that PLAN Hermosa's vision of a carbon neutral community
will continue to garner interest and excitement in the future.
Sincerely,
Jens Palsberg
Professor, UCLA Computer Science Department
PALJ-1
74
General Plan Air Quality Section
The refineries surrounding us should not be omitted from the air quality section of the plan. The
particulates and gasses emitted during surprise flares and other unanticipated refinery events in
Torrance and El Segundo definitely lower the air quality in surrounding cities. To what extent
and for how long our city's air quality is affected would vary depending on the nature and
duration of the event. The problem is, we never know what the effects are because the refineries
certainly won't tell us and we don't measure or analyze the air ourselves.
In addition, lowprobability but very deadly refinery emergencies related to the use of acid
catalysts could require a rapid response by the city to minimize injury and loss of life. While this
could be classified more as an emergencypreparedness issue than a matter of air quality, it
underscores the need to continuously monitor our own air for sudden changes, using city
controlled and calibrated equipment. It also reinforces the dual threats posed by regional
refineries.
The general plan should affirmatively recognize these threats (as should the planning of all
nearby cities) and not just rest on regional trends and averages. Therefore the plan should
incorporate:
Cityowned and observed air monitoring equipment
Enhanced city relationship with AQMD and other regulatory agencies
Involvement by the city in efforts to mitigate or remove refinery risks by both community
groups and other neighbor city governments.
Ken Sarno
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Ken Sarno
Wed 11/2/2016 3:06 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
SARK
-1
75
Carbon neutrality
It is very very rare that I send comments to the city council, but I feel so strongly that I had to send this
email. While we all need to do our part for the environment, I am strongly against Hemosa's proposed
plan for Carbon Neutrality. I am against Hermosa buying carbon offsets. I am against the elimination of
the use of natural gas. What is the proposed alternative? I am against establishing a CCA. Putting
requirements on new building is one thing, but to mandate retrofits to existing buildings is not ok. We
have all lived in Hermosa for many many years and now you want to change the rules. All of these
things will increase costs to home owners, prohibitively for many. How about going with a more positive
approach of passing on savings and benefits to people who voluntarily make the proposed changes to
their home, not penalizing others who don't.
Sincerely,
Heather Schneider
Hermosa resident
Heather Schneider
Fri 12/2/2016 3:01 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
SCHH-
1
76
NO 100% Carbon Neutrality
This is my letter to the Beach Reporter:
Unless the HB Council can be convinced otherwise, it is about to adopt PLAN HERMOSA’s general plan which includes making Hermosa Beach
100% Carbon Neutral. I feel the City Council is over stepping its authority and infringing on my Constitutional and Property Rights. While
“Going Green” should be encouraged, it should not be mandatory. A big step to that plan is changing to Community Choice Aggregation for
our energy source. It is an expensive undertaking and not without risks. The PLAN would mandate expensive retrofits on new construction,
rebuilds and selling a home. It even effects what kind of car you drive. If compliance is not met, one must pay a penalty ﴾yet to be determined﴿
in the form of credits to offset emissions. Residents have no vote in the matter. I feel that it is irresponsible of the Council to agree on such an
extreme PLAN which will likely have negative impact on our property values. Kudos to HB Planning Commissioner Rob Saemann, for his
common sense presentation at the last Council Meeting. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Jr_eiKQUY&t=26s .
PLAN HERMOSA seems determined on being “the first” to be Carbon Neutral. Our 1.4 sq. miles won’t be a speck in the Global Carbon
Footprint. Unless, you are competing in the Olympics or sports event, I don’t see the need to be “first”. You can learn a lot by others mistakes.
It is time for PLAN HERMOSA to re‐evaluate its PLAN. I LOVE Hermosa Beach, but dislike the radical direction it is headed. As the old saying
goes, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”.
Pam Tatreau
Hermosa Beach
Pam T
Mon 12/5/2016 8:25 AM
TATP
1-1
77
Carbon Neutrality
PLAN HERMOSA is a group of individuals faced with determining and planning the future of H.B. I applaud their efforts to improve the
health and environment of our city. However, I do NOT feel the “Carbon Neutrality” should be a part of that plan. Mandating expensive
retrofits to new construction, rebuilds and selling a home is too extreme. “Carbon Neutrality” is better suited to a newly planned
community where homes are built with solar panels and electrical appliances. People moving into that community are aware that there
may be restrictions placed on the vehicles they drive. A BIG step in the “Carbon Neutrality Plan” is changing to Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA) for our energy source. It is an expensive undertaking and not without risks. Even our City Planners raised some
valid concerns. “Carbon Neutrality” is too extreme for our little beach community and should be revised or deleted from the Plan. I feel
that “Carbon Neutrality” is the goal of a few people and NOT the goal of the residents. Changes of this magnitude should NOT be
decided by a few people. Why must residents try to convince the City Council not to support these changes? Many residents are still
unaware of these changes which are about to affect their daily lives. If you really wanted to know how residents felt, you would not be
afraid to put the measures on a ballot for a vote. I am beginning to lose faith in our community. I thought that I still lived in a democracy
or is my beloved Hermosa Beach turning into a dictatorship? Thank you for your time.
Pam Tatreau
Hermosa Beach
Pam T
Sat 12/31/2016 9:01 AM
TATP
2-2
78
Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
Hello. My name is Coco Larson‐Tuttle and my husband is Bruce Tuttle. We live at 1139 7th Place, Hermosa Beach. My husband is
handicapped ﴾visually impaired and in a wheelchair﴿. I wanted to be sure that handicapped access is addressed in the general
plan. Currently there are limited access streets that are safe for wheel chair travel and only a few streets ﴾PCH﴿ that have audible
alarms for crossing at lights. I would implore the city to consider handicapped people when decisions regarding the general plan
are being made.
Thank you,
Coco Larson‐Tuttle
Sent from my iPad
Coco Tuttle
Mon 12/12/2016 5:32 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
TUTC
-1
79
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-55
INDIVIDUALS
Comment # Response
Steve Adler
ADLS-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal. It is
not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the
Draft EIR.
The specific questions raised by the commenter do not require further
consideration for purposes of the EIR’s evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions impacts but are addressed in a separate document that will be
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider
incorporating into PLAN Hermosa.
Peggy Barr
BARP-1 This comment addresses PLAN Hermosa Sustainability + Conservation Element
Policy 1.4 (carbon offsets as needed), which appears on page 4.6-15 in the
Draft EIR. The commenter suggests “purchasing carbon offset credits (RECs) is
not carbon neutral.” It should be noted that “RECs” are not the same as
carbon offsets; an REC is a renewable energy certificate. Neither PLAN
Hermosa nor the Draft EIR refer to RECs.
Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, evaluates the ability of PLAN Hermosa
to reduce community GHG emissions to meet statewide GHG reduction goals,
equivalent to 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040, the threshold of
significance used in the analysis. While this section of the Draft EIR identifies
carbon offsets as a strategy to meet a local carbon neutral goal by 2040,
carbon offsets are not necessary, nor are they included in the analysis showing
how the City will meet the long-term state goals.
BARP-2 In addition to general policy comments on carbon neutrality, the commenter
expresses an opinion about the production of renewable energy or
participation in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), stating there is no
guarantee that the energy the City will generate or receive will be any more
renewable or cleaner than what is already received from Southern California
Edison (SCE). The commenter also provides a summary of SCE’s power content
mix in 2014, stating that 27 percent is clean, 33 percent is moderately clean, 40
percent is unspecified, and 24 percent of the power is renewable.
The Draft EIR’s GHG emissions analysis considered the emissions generated by
SCE’s current electricity mix, the effect of state legislation such as the
Renewables Portfolio Standard (requiring 50 percent renewables by 2030), and
the potential GHG reductions that would be achieved through
implementation of a future CCA program, increased local renewable energy
generation, and improved energy efficiency.
Because the exact effect of each strategy on reducing GHG emissions cannot
be determined until specific details of each program and policy are
determined by the City Council and programs are implemented, the Draft EIR
recommends three GHG-related mitigation measures: re-inventory community
GHG emissions and evaluate implementation progress every five years at a
minimum (mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b) and revise PLAN Hermosa and/or
80
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-56
the City’s Climate Action Plan should the City determine that Hermosa Beach
is not on track to achieve the applicable state GHG reduction goals.
BARP-3 The commenter expresses an opinion about the effects that a carbon
neutrality goal will have on residents and taxpayers with regard to specific
policies contained in PLAN Hermosa. The comment is not directed to the
adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The specific
comments do not require further consideration for purposes of the EIR’s
evaluation of GHG emissions impacts, but are provided for consideration by
the City Council and Planning Commission in their review and adoption of
PLAN Hermosa.
Claudia Berman
BERC-1 The commenter suggested more detailed information regarding the
technology assumptions used in the GHG emissions analysis should be
provided to enhance the utility/readability of the Draft EIR, along with a table
that compares PLAN Hermosa to the various GHG reduction goals set by local
plans and state legislation. The Draft EIR has been revised to incorporate this
information into Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see Chapter 3.0,
Revisions to the Draft EIR).
Robert Fortunato
FORR-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. An attachment to the comment letter outlined the
City of Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan efforts, which are
informational but are not relevant to PLAN Hermosa or the adequacy of the
analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR. No further response is required, but
the information will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration.
David Grethen
GRED1-1 The commenter notes the usefulness of Figure 4.6-3 (Emissions Reductions
Needed to Meet State and Local Targets) on page 4.6-20 in Section 4.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Draft EIR, but suggests that the following
questions should be addressed associated with the emissions reduction data
presented in the figure: why does state legislation need to be augmented by
local policy to meet state goals; why is state legislation insufficient to meet
state goals; and Is there something specific about Hermosa Beach that results
in state legislation not being sufficient to meet state goals?
The commenter’s questions are not directed to the adequacy of the technical
analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. However, the questions are relevant to
the policy and decision-making process for local GHG reduction goals. These
issues are addressed in a separate document and will be presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council to consider their incorporation into
PLAN Hermosa.
GRED1-2 The commenter suggests that the decision to use remotely generated versus
locally generated renewable energy to achieve carbon reductions will be a
large determinant of impacts, and suggests that rough order-of-magnitude
estimates to supply the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy needed, and any
additional renewable energy generation needed to avoid purchasing offsets,
81
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-57
should be provided to support the impact analysis.
Draft EIR Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities,
identifies the current and projected electricity use in Hermosa Beach, under a
business-as-usual scenario and with implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies.
The table below illustrates the rough order of magnitude of renewable energy
needed to offset electricity use (including electric vehicle charging).
Electricity Use Only
2040
Business-as-Usual
Scenario
With Implementation of
PLAN Hermosa Policies
Residential (kWh) 54,696,400 33,363,500
Nonresidential (kWh) 55,142,800 40,102,000
Electric vehicle (kWh) — 9,959,700
Total electricity use (kWh) 109,839,200 83,425,200
Average kWh generated annually
per kW of solar
1,488 1,488
kW solar needed 73,817 56,065
MW solar needed 73.82 56.07
kWh – kilowatt-hour; kW – kilowatt; MW – megawatt
-- The business-as-usual scenario does not anticipate energy use by electric vehicles to be tracked
separately or represent a significant portion of the electricity consumption.
As indicated by the data, to offset all Hermosa Beach electricity use in 2040,
with the implementation of other PLAN Hermosa policies to reduce electricity
use (e.g., building codes and energy conservation programs), approximately
56 megawatts (MW) of solar electricity would need to be installed.
The feasibility of solar energy to provide more than 50 MW of electricity can be
roughly estimated using Google’s Project Sunroof, an interactive web-based
tool that estimates the technical solar potential of all buildings in a region or
community. For Los Angeles County, as a whole, a rooftop is considered viable
if it receives 75 percent or more of the maximum annual sun. In Hermosa
Beach, approximately 77 percent of rooftops in the city are considered viable
(Project Sunroof data explorer (October 2016) [https://www.google.com/get/
sunroof/data-explorer/). It should be noted that the Project Sunroof data only
consider rooftops and do not consider parking lots or the potential use of
roadways for solar energy generation. Additionally, Project Solar focuses only
on solar and does not consider the potential of wind, tidal, or wave energy
technologies to meet local electricity demand.
If the City were to offset all emissions sources through the generation of
renewable energy, it would take the equivalent of 390 million kWh annually or
approximately 262 MW of solar capacity. Given the limited land area in
Hermosa Beach, there is a higher likelihood that some of the energy would
have to be generated outside of the city’s boundaries to achieve this
scenario.
This analysis does not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR related to the
feasibility of achieving GHG emissions reductions through implementation of
82
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-58
PLAN Hermosa policies because the capacity to generate energy locally was
already considered in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Additionally, this
analysis does not change the conclusions of the potential effects of
Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative), included in Draft EIR Section
6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030,
which indicates there could be potentially greater impacts associated with
aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources due to increased
renewable energy generation (locally or elsewhere).
GRED1-3 The commenter suggests that additional context or information should be
provided associated with Table 4.13-7 (Fuel Consumption Associated with the
Future Development Potential Under PLAN Hermosa), which is on page 4.13-62
in Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities, in the Draft
EIR, specifically which corresponding level of carbon reduction this usage
supports (full neutrality versus 66 percent of 2005 levels); fraction and amount
of increase in the fraction of citywide vehicles that are electric; and anything
else that might better relate this table to Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, in the Draft EIR.
Table 4.13-7 was developed using the same assumptions used for the GHG
emissions analysis in Section 4.6 in the Draft EIR, which shows that PLAN
Hermosa will reduce emissions locally by at least 66 percent by 2040 and that
achievement of carbon neutrality may occur through the purchase of offsets.
By 2040 it is estimated that in Hermosa Beach approximately 75 percent of new
vehicles will be electric or carbon-free vehicles, compared to approximately 5
percent in 2015. This information, along with all other assumptions associated
with the calculation of energy or fuel use and GHG reductions, is also detailed
in Appendix E-1 in the Draft EIR.
As indicated in Table 4.13-7, the average fleet fuel efficiency is projected to be
55 miles per gallon by 2040; the projection is based on state and federal fuel
efficiency standards. The reduction of transportation fuel consumed (77
percent) is a result of greater fuel efficiency from conventionally fueled
vehicles, a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled through land use
changes, and a greater shift to electric vehicles.
This information has been added to Section 4.13, Public Services, Community
Facilities, and Utilities (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR).
GRED1-4 As noted in the commenter’s letter, mitigation measures MM 4.6-1a, 1b, and 1c
are intended to ensure consistency with the state’s GHG reduction goals,
which are based on the scientific consensus of the emissions reductions
needed to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. As articulated on page
4.6-17 in the Draft EIR, the City of Hermosa Beach has identified that the
impact of PLAN Hermosa would be significant if it would generate GHG
emissions that exceed long-term state targets, roughly equivalent to emissions
that are 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040. The mitigation measures are
focused on ensuring compliance with long-term GHG reduction goals that
exceed state goals. If the City sets GHG reduction goals that exceed state
goals, the City could establish additional monitoring mechanisms separate
from the EIR. The comment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the
EIR; therefore, no additional response is required.
GRED1-5 This comment references Subsection 6.0.5, Environmentally Superior
83
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-59
Alternative, of the Draft EIR, which identifies Alternative 3 (Character Retention
Alternative) as the environmentally superior alternative. The commenter’s
preference for Alternative 3 is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No
additional response is required.
GRED1-6 The commenter suggests that a better distinction between the impacts of
accelerating a carbon neutral goal to 2030 versus the effect of not allowing
carbon offset purchases should be made in Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral
Alternative). The commenter also suggests that an increase in local renewable
energy generation would have impacts on land use that should be discussed
in the environmental analysis of Alternative 2.
Table 6.0-4 (Comparison of Emissions Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs. 2040),
referenced by the commenter, illustrates the major changes in annual carbon
reduction between the two scenarios presented under the Community Solar,
Land Use and Transportation Alternatives, Additional Transportation Strategies,
and Purchase Offsets categories.
While it would be up to the City’s decision-makers to determine exactly what
policy direction should be explored in alternative scenarios, a scenario which
accelerates carbon neutrality to 2030, but still includes the use of carbon
offsets, would appear to be similar to the 2040 scenario already presented. A
2040 scenario that forgoes the use of carbon offsets would appear similar to
the 2030 scenario, perhaps with slightly smaller reductions needed from the
community solar strategy due to greater reductions from energy efficiency
strategies.
A rough order-of-magnitude analysis was presented in Response GRED1-2 to
demonstrate the amount of renewable energy generation needed to meet
various GHG reduction scenarios. The 2030 scenario presented as Alternative 2
in the Draft EIR assumes that 134 MW of solar, or other renewable energy
production (wind, tidal, wave) equivalent to 200 million kWh annually, would
be needed to achieve the resulting emissions reductions presented in Table
6.0-4. A large portion of this renewable energy has the potential to be
generated locally, although the analysis indicates that some of this energy
may be developed elsewhere, which may have potentially greater impacts
on aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, as noted in
Responses GRED1-2 and GRED1-7.
GRED1-7 This comment references the Land Use and Planning analysis for Alternative 2,
which is on page 6.0-22 in the Draft EIR. The commenter notes that there is no
discussion related to additional area needed for renewable energy
generation and suggests that the analysis should be able to determine the
potential impact of solar on certain resource areas, such as aesthetics,
biological resources, and cultural resources.
For the purposes of the EIR analysis, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, the evaluation of land use impacts is limited to whether or not the
action would physically divide an established community, or whether it would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. Because renewable
energy resources such as solar and wind can already be accommodated on
rooftops or parking lots, or can serve as shade structures as an accessory to
the primary use of a property (described in Section 17.46.220 of the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code), there is limited potential for the development of these
84
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-60
generally small-scale resources to prevent the primary function or use of a
property that would alter established land use patterns.
With regard to potential impacts from larger-scale solar development on
aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, these impacts are
difficult to determine without having specific details on location (local or
elsewhere), size (utility scale or distributed), or technology (ground- or roof-
mounted, static or sun-tracking). In general, renewable energy projects vary in
their impacts and mitigations with respect to biological resources and
aesthetics. Some of the impacts identified in large renewable energy projects
in the state have included loss of sensitive habitat, alteration of migration and
wildlife movement, aesthetic impacts along scenic highways, and creation of
new sources of light and glare.
A detailed impact analysis for these topics for Alternative 2 would be
speculative and is not required under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145),
and this level of detail is also not required for the alternatives analysis (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6). The Draft EIR (p. 6.0-35) does, however,
conservatively conclude that impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, and
cultural resources may be greater with Alternative 2 than with PLAN Hermosa.
The level of detail for the impact assessments for Alternative 2 is sufficient for
informed decision-making. For the reasons stated above, no additional
analysis is possible or warranted at this time.
GRED1-8 The commenter notes that the rate of carbon reductions needed to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2030 is nearly four times the rate of reductions needed to
achieve state goals. This is a correct statement, but it is not directed to the
adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No
additional response is required.
GRED1-9 The commenter suggests that Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative),
and specifically the implementation of potential measures to replace gas
heating appliances, retrofits to homes prior to sale, or addition of electric
vehicle infrastructure, could have adverse environmental effects associated
with waste generated due to equipment or building materials being replaced
before these resources have exhausted their naturally useful lifetimes.
Implementation of any policies related to GHG emissions reduction in the form
of a legislative act or ordinance will require City Council approval and will
include specific program details regarding the naturally useful lifetime of
equipment, phased-in implementation, and other mechanisms to prevent the
unnecessary disposal of materials or equipment. Additionally, the City of
Hermosa Beach has several programs and requirements to ensure the proper
disposal and handling of building materials and equipment to minimize
environmental impacts. This includes a requirement that at least 50 percent of
a building’s demolition waste be recycled, and programs/events such as the
Household Hazardous Waste collection.
GRED2-1 The projected increase in regional population and employment from Hermosa
Beach and other nearby cities by 2040 would lead to increased numbers of
vehicle trips in Hermosa Beach unless changes to the land use and
transportation system are implemented. When combined with the fact that
Hermosa Beach has little or no capacity within the right-of-way to expand
vehicular facilities, the result is a degradation in the level of service at Artesia
and Aviation boulevards and Prospect and Manhattan avenues. At most of
85
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-61
the study intersections, PLAN Hermosa actually leads to improved LOS when
compared to 2040 conditions without the project. For those locations where
capacity is insufficient, widening roadways to increase capacity would, in
most cases, be inconsistent with other goals of PLAN Hermosa. More
information for specific locations is available in Appendix G in the Draft EIR.
PLAN Hermosa actions include substantial implementation of Transportation
Demand Management measures, which are expected to reduce the
expected growth in traffic compared with the 2040 without PLAN Hermosa
scenario. Therefore, cumulative impacts on both local and state facilities
would be reduced.
Art Krugler
KRUA-1 The City appreciates the commenter’s positive feedback regarding the
Planning Commission’s review of the Draft EIR. No additional response is
required.
KRUA-2 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. The handout referenced in the comment concerns
climate change, in general, and does not address climate change and GHG
emissions in Hermosa Beach. Comments related to proposed policy will be
presented to the City’s decision-makers for consideration.
It is also important to note that regardless of whether the City’s decision-
makers agree with the potential threats of climate change, the State of
California has adopted long-term GHG reduction goals and requires
jurisdictions to address GHG emissions under the California Environmental
Quality Act and to demonstrate whether or not the project would generate
GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.
G & J Moriyama
MORG-1 The commenters express an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal. The
comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
Bette Mower
MOWB-1 The commenter addresses a specific building in Hermosa Beach (Prospect
Avenue School on 6th Street) and its condition and potential historic
significance. The property (Assessor’s Parcel No. 4160-026-900) was omitted
from the initial screening of properties greater than 45 years old due to
incomplete information provided through Los Angeles County Assessor’s tax
rolls and parcel data, which did not include a built date or indicate the
structure on the property. The City’s cultural resources consultant has
conducted a records search and site evaluation for the property and
determined, based on the structure’s age and architecture, that it may be
eligible for local listing. The property has been assigned a California Historical
Resource Code of 5S3, meaning it appears to be individually eligible for local
listing or designation through survey evaluation, and has been added to Table
4.4-1 in the Final EIR.
86
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-62
Jens Palsberg
PALJ-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
Ken Sarno
SARK-1 The commenter suggests that the presence of refineries in nearby cities should
be considered in the air quality section of the plan and that the City should
measure and analyze air quality impacts independently. The presence of
refineries in surrounding cities is clearly stated on page 136 in PLAN Hermosa
and in Appendix C-4 of the Draft EIR, which notes that the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air emissions from refinery
emissions through its permitting process.
The City of Hermosa Beach does not have any regulatory authority over the
refineries or air quality emissions outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Further, the
purpose of the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR is to evaluate and analyze the
potential physical impacts that the implementation of PLAN Hermosa might
have on the environment, rather than evaluating the environmental effects
that existing uses may have in Hermosa Beach.
SARK-2 The commenter suggests that the City should incorporate additional air quality
and monitoring policies. The specific suggestions do not address the
adequacy of the EIR and do not require further response for purposes of the
EIR’s evaluation of air quality impacts. However, these suggestions are
provided in a separate document for consideration by the City Council and
Planning Commission in their review and adoption of PLAN Hermosa.
Heather Schneider
SCHH-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
Pam Tatreau
TATP1-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
TATP2-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City’s carbon neutral goal.
The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or
conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
Coco Tuttle
TUTC-1 This comment is directed to the policies of PLAN Hermosa and not the Draft EIR.
Accessibility is addressed in PLAN Hermosa. For example, Policy 3.10 (page
125) requires that all public rights-of-way be designed per Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating crosswalks, curb ramps,
pedestrian signals, and other components to provide ease of access for
disabled persons. Policy 2.4 (page 205) directs the City to consider innovative
funding strategies, such as cost-sharing, ADA accessibility grants, or sidewalk
dedications, to improve the overall condition, safety, and accessibility of
sidewalks. As future public or private projects are proposed, the City will be
responsible for ensuring projects are constructed in compliance with ADA
standards.
87
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
88
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-64
This page intentionally left blank.
89
Hermosa Beach 11.21.16 Planning Commission Study Session
Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR
1
Planning Commission Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing – PLAN
Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report
Speaker: David Grethen, Hermosa Beach
Summary:
Most comments are in the area of carbon neutrality.
·In regards to local energy projects, it would be helpful to have a scenario which looks at
how much solar would be needed to meet the entire energy usage of the city, both for
the municipal and community scale, and how much area that might take up, and to
compare that with available rooftop area we have for businesses and residences and
whether we’d have to take up open space to satisfy that goal.
·Would like to know more about the stated amount of electric vehicle usage and the
amount of kWh used for electric vehicles. Would also like to know the rate of vehicle
conversion and how much room we would need in town for charging station
infrastructure.
·The character retention alternative looks potentially appealing, the carbon neutral by
2030 less so. On the carbon neutrality alternative, it is a little bit unfortunate that we are
lumping together the acceleration to 2030 and the lack of offsets because then it makes
it hard to distinguish the effects of the two factors. that I gather that the bulk of the
impact is due to the offsets and not the 2030 goal. It would be really nice if there was a
better way to sort out the difference between 2030 and 2040.
·Why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy in order to meet state
goals. And is there something unique about Hermosa that does not get us to the state
goals.
Transcription:
I will be submitting written comments, and most of them are in the area of carbon neutrality. So
you’ll be getting those and you’ll look forward to getting those I hope. So I’ll try to touch on
some of the highlights just while I have the verbal opportunity to do so. One area where I’m
looking for more information is where it talks about local energy projects and a statement about
certain unknowns where it’s hard to really tell if there’s an impact. Something I’ve always been
curious about is if we did a scenario where we looked at all solar to meet the entire energy
usage of the city, both for the municipal and the community wide goals and to do some rough
order of magnitude calculation to see the solar panel area and equipment area would be
needed just to get a feel of the order of magnitude we are talking about. I’d also be interested
then in comparing hat with how much available rooftop area we have for businesses and
residences and if we’d have to go to the point of starting to take up open space to satisfy that
goal.
Another area is talk about a stated amount of electric vehicle usage and a stated amount of
kWh used. Would like to know more about the assumed amount of vehicle conversion of what
PUBM-1
90
Hermosa Beach 11.21.16 Planning Commission Study Session
Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR
2
assumed amount we would go to among all the residents around town. And it would be
interesting to see how that would affect how much room we would need in town for the
charging station infrastructure.
A quick comment in looking at the alternatives that the character retention alternative looks
potentially appealing, the carbon neutral by 2030 alternative does not look so appealing to me.
On the carbon neutrality alternative, it is a little bit unfortunate that we are lumping together the
acceleration to 2030 and the lack of offsets because then it makes it hard to distinguish the
effects of the two factors. I will point out there’s a table that shows where we are receiving
about 30% of the reduction from community solar, and then the other scenario where we are
receiving about 30% from offsets and from that I gather that the bulk of the impact is due to the
offsets and not the 2030 goal. It would be really nice if there was a better way to sort out the
difference between 2030 and 2040.
I also noticed something really interesting about the bar graph that helps explain, I’d like to see
more discussion about that graph, and there’s something that stuck out to me. My question is,
why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy in order to meet state goals.
And is there something unique about Hermosa that does not get us to the state goals. I think the
better we understood that, we might be able to better meet the goals.
In general, when we talk about local energy, what really sticks out is what we do locally vs what
we do remotely. And I think that aspect should really be emphasized.
Speaker: Tracy Hopkins, Hermosa Beach
Summary:
·A resolution from the Republican National Committee was read that discusses the UN
Sustainable Development Agenda.
·Suggested that our local communities are in peril because of a small group that seeks to
convince us that unless we surrender our property and freedoms, and unless we subsume
our individual rights to the good of the community that the planet will not survive.
·For over 200 years, Americans have protected our planet and our nation and our liberties
and as communities we can pull together to create our own plans to improve the
environment without the control of international groups and the seductive lure of easy
federal grants.
Transcription:
I just want to read this statement about a resolution exposing the UN Sustainable Development
Agenda since this document is full with sustainable development policies. Whereas the United
Nations Sustainable Development is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social
engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on
Environmental Development held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil in 1992, and whereas the United
Nations Sustainable Development is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout
the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives
PUBM-1
cont.
PUBM-2
PUBM-3
91
Hermosa Beach 11.21.16 Planning Commission Study Session
Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR
3
(ICLEI) through local sustainable development policies such as smart growth, resilient cities,
regional visioning projects through green or alternative development projects, and whereas the
United States through radical sustainable development goals, so called sustainable
development, views American private property ownership, single-family homes, private care
ownership, and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms, all as destructive to the
environment, and whereas according to the United Nations Sustainable Development Policy
social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from
resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by
socialist/communist redistribution of wealth, whereas according to the United Nations
Sustainable Development Policy where national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice, now
therefore be resolved the Republic National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious
nature of the United Nations Sustainable Development and hereby exposes to the public and
public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan, and therefore be it further resolved that
the US Government and no state or local government is legally bound by the UN Sustainable
Development Treaty and that it has never been endorsed by the US Government, and therefore
be it further resolved that the Federal and State and local governments across the country be
well-informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of the United Nations
Sustainable Development destructive strategies for sustainable development and we hereby
endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it.
I would like to finish by suggesting that our local communities are in peril because of a small
group that seeks to convince us that unless we surrender our property and freedoms, and unless
we subsume our individual rights to the good of the community that the planet will not survive,
yet this is a false choice. For over 200 years, Americans have protected our planet and our
nation and our liberties and as communities we can pull together to create our own plans to
improve the environment without the control of international groups and the seductive lure of
easy federal grants. Together we can respect our environment and keep our rights and
freedoms working together. That is the real choice.
Speaker: Mark Hopkins, Hermosa Beach
Summary:
·The January 5th date seems like it’s not really far out enough as we are starting
Thanksgiving right now and going through the holidays and I just don’t think people are
going to get enough time.
·Made reference to a survey of the American Meteorological Society Survey that was
done this year.
·The survey received responses from 3,761 members and the question was asked, “Which
of the following best describes the local effects of climate change over the next 50
years?” Among the responses, 47% said that the impacts will be primarily harmful, and
another 3% said that they will be exclusively harmful which is just 50%.
PUBM-3
cont.
92
Hermosa Beach 11.21.16 Planning Commission Study Session
Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR
4
Transcription:
The January 5th date seems like it’s not really far out enough as we are starting Thanksgiving right
now and going through the holidays and I just don’t think people are going to get enough time
to address that.
Just wanted to point out, and I pulled this up online is a survey of the American Meteorological
Society Survey that was done this year. Basically it was given to thousands of members and this
particular portion was 3,761 members who responded where the question was asked, “Which of
the following best describes the local effects of climate change over the next 50 years?” And
there are some bar graphs here and 47% said that the impacts will be primarily harmful, and
another 3% said that they will be exclusively harmful so that’s 50%. My point here is that we keep
talking about the carbon neutrality here and in reality only half of the American Meteorological
Society says that it’s going to be harmful in the next 50 years. Anybody can look this up, it’s not
my survey, it’s theirs. So I’m concerned that we keep working on the policies in this city, when yet
the science is far from being solid.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/03/24/96-of-american-meteorological-
society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/#2b3975803935
PUBM-4
PUBM-5
93
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
2.0-69
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (NOVEMBER 21, 2016)
Comment # Response
PUBM-1 See responses GRED1-1 and GRED1-2, which address the written
comments submitted by the commenter concerning solar energy and
electric vehicle usage, respectively.
PUBM-2 See responses GRED1-4 and GRED1-5, which address the written
comments submitted by the commenter concerning Character
Retention Alternative 3 evaluated in the Draft EIR and the need for
augmenting state legislation by local policy to meet state goals,
respectively.
PUBM-3 The commenter expresses an opinion about sustainable development, in
general. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical
analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
PUBM-4 The commenter’s opinion about the close of the comment period
ending on January 5, 2017, for the Draft EIR is noted. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15105 requires a minimum 45-day review period for public review
of a Draft EIR. The comment period for the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR
began October 26, 2016. The City has provided a review period of 72
days, which exceeds the 45-day requirement. No additional response is
required.
PUBM-5 The commenter expresses an opinion about carbon neutrality, in
general. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical
analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required.
94
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
2.0-70
This page intentionally left blank.
95
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
96
97
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section includes minor revisions to the Draft EIR. These modifications resulted from responses
to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period as well as staff-initiated
changes. Changes are provided in revision marks (underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text).
Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute
significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis.
3.2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages iv-vi, list of appendices, revised as follows to include additional documents:
Appendix C: Technical Background Report
C-1. Introduction
C-2. Aesthetics
C-3. Agricultural Resources
C-4. Air Quality
C-5. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
C-6. Biological Resources
C-7. Cultural Resources
C-8. Energy
C-9. Geology and Soils
C-10. Hazards and Hazardous Material
C-11. Hydrology and Water Quality
C-12. Land Use and Planning
C-13. Mineral Resources
C-14. Population and Housing
C-15. Noise
C-16. Public Services and Utilities, and Recreation
C-17. Transportation
C-18. References
Appendix A1 Hermosa Beach Market Analysis
Appendix A2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise
Appendix B1 Natural Resources
Appendix B2 Special Status Species
Appendix B3 Historic Resources
Appendix B4 Primary Record Report
Appendix B5 Windshield Survey Results
Appendix B6 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment
Appendix B7 City of Hermosa Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element
Appendix D: Air Quality Assessment
Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Assessment
E-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Assumptions
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-1
98
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
E-2. City of Hermosa Beach GHG Inventory, Forecast, and Target Setting Report
E-3. Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool and User Guide
Appendix F: Noise Assessment
F-1. Noise Measurements
F-2. Traffic Model
Appendix G: Transportation Assessment
G-1. Lane Configurations
G-2. Traffic Counts
G-3. Peak Hour Turning Movement Traffic Volumes
G-4. LOS Worksheets
G-5. Traffic Methodology
G-6. VMT Reduction Methods and TDM+ Tool Outputs
Appendix H: Tribal Consultation
Pages v and vi, list of tables (excerpt), revised as follows:
Table 4.3-1 Acreages of Vegetative Communities within the Coastal and Inland Zones ......................................................................................................... 4.3-2
Table 4.3-2 Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Within and
Surrounding the Planning Area ........................................................................ 4.3-6
Table 4.3-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the Planning Area ........................................................................ 4.3-8
Table 4.4-1 Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Windshield Survey (2014) ................ 4.4-3
Table 4.6-1 Potential Statewide Impacts from Climate Change ................................... 4.6-2
Table 4.6-2 Hermosa Beach Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012 ........................................................................................ 4.6-6
Table 4.6-3 Hermosa Beach Baseline (2005), Forecast (2040) Emissions, and
Target Level (2040) ............................................................................................ 4.6-18
Table 4.6-4 California Policies Reducing Emissions Locally ............................................ 4.6-19
Table 4.6-5 Comparison of BAU and Adjusted BAU Emissions (2040) .......................... 4.6-20
Table 4.6-6 Summary of Annual Emissions Reductions by Sector in 2040 ................... 4.6-23
Table 4.6-7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and Achievements ........................... 4.6-28
Page viii, list of figures (excerpt), revised as follows:
Figure 3.0-10 Parks and Public Facilities ................................................................................ 3.0-22
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................. 4.3-4
Figure 4.3-2 Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special-Status Species ................... 4.3-5
Figure 4.4-1 Potentially Eligible Historic Resources (Windshield Survey) ......................... 4.4-4
Figure 4.5-1 Regional Faults..................................................................................................... 4.5-4
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-2
99
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
SECTION 4.4 (CULTURAL RESOURCES)
Page 4.4-3, first paragraph, been revised as follows:
Hermosa Beach has not been surveyed previously; therefore, a citywide windshield
survey was conducted by certified architectural historians to examine existing conditions and identify examples of potentially eligible property types, styles, and methods of
construction, which included locating potential individual historical resources and
concentrations or groups of intact resources that appear to be eligible as potential
historic districts based on their age, architecture, and integrity. There are approximately 3,600 parcels with improvements over 45 years old in Hermosa Beach. A total of 218
improved parcels were identified as potentially eligible for local listing and were assigned
California Historical Resource (CHR) status codes of 5S3, “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.” In addition, the survey identified two groupings of single-family residences that appear potentially eligible as
beach cottage districts and were assigned CHR status codes of 5D3, “appears to be a
contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation.” Figure 4.4-1 (Potentially Eligible Historic Resources [Windshield Survey]) Table 4.4-1 (Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Windshield Survey (2014)) identifies the 218
parcels that have been identified as potentially eligible for local listing. An architectural
overview, complete inventory list, and California Department of Parks and Recreation primary survey forms are provided in Appendix C-7.
Page 4.4-4, Figure 4.4-1, Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Map, has been removed and is
replaced with a new Table 4.4-1, Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Windshield Survey (2014).
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-3
100
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2016
4.4-4
FIGURE 4.4-1
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES (WINDSHIELD SURVEY)
Source: PCR Services 2014
[DELETED]
101
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
625 1st Pl 5S3 4188-022-032 1915 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
705 2nd St 5S3 4188-028-050 1939 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
708 2nd St 5S3 4188-022-021 1927 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
715 2nd St 5S3 4188-028-051 1950 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
838 2nd St 5S3 4186-026-014 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1244 2nd St 5S3 4186-027-031 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
2nd St 5D3 1923-1930
Grouping of six beach bungalows
(1101, 1103, 1025, 1031, 1037,
1041 2nd Street)
HP 2. Single family property
2nd St 5S3 4186-027-900 Parkette HP29. Landscape architecture
909 3rd St 5S3 4186-019-013 1924 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1062 3rd St 5S3 4186-024-033 1927 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
3rd St 5S3 4186-018-900 Parkette HP29. Landscape architecture
40 4th St 5S3 4188-006-012 1931 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
47 4th St 5S3 4188-005-020 1925 Mission style HP 3. Multiple family property
615 4th St 5S3 4188-031-014 1924 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
832 4th St 5S3 4186-018-009 1926 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
845 4th St 5S3 4186-017-004 1923 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1010 4th St 5S3 4186-021-002 1913 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
4th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
826 5th St 5S3 4186-017-011 1923 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
913 5th St 5S3 4186-015-004 1920 Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-5
102
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
5th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
44 6th St 5S3 4188-004-013 1935 hipped-roof Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
650 6th St 5S3 4188-030-009 1920 hipped-roof Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
6th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
56 7th St 5S3 4187-016-021 1938 hipped-roof Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
824 7th St 5S3 4186-013-004 1958/1974 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
832 7th St 5S3 4186-013-005 1921/1930 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
906 7th St 5S3 4186-013-008 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
911 7th St 5S3 4186-012-008 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
7th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
38 8th Ct 5S3 4187-015-042 1919 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
739 8th Pl 5S3 4187-028-015 1924 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
745 8th Pl 5S3 4187-028-014 1917 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
843 8th Pl 5S3 4186-008-005 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
52 8th St 5S3 4187-015-035 1949 Minimal Traditional style HP 2. Single family property
63 8th St 5S3 4187-002-020 1932 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
208 8th St 5S3 4187-022-016 1925 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
651 8th St 5S3 4187-029-019 1924/1930 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
8th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
25 9th St 5S3 4187-003-022 1910 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
37 9th St 5S3 4187-003-024 1912 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
48 9th St 5S3 4187-002-010 1928/1936 (LA Assessor) Mediterranean style HP 3. Multiple family property
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-6
103
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
9th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
28 10th Ct 5S3 4187-003-023 1923/1937 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
39 10th St 5S3 4187-004-020 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
47 10th St 5S3 4187-004-022 1938/1945 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
150 10th St 5S3 4187-007-001 1961/1965 (LA Assessor) Mid-Century Modern style HP 3. Multiple family property
942 10th St 5S3 4186-004-017 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
10th St 5D3 See below 1914-1930
Grouping of five beach bungalows
(50, 54, 58, 64, 70 10th Street)
potentially eligible as distinctive
examples of one-story beach
bungalows in Hermosa Beach with
good integrity.
HP 2. Single family property
960 13th St 5S3 4185-011-036 1923/1926 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
57 14th Ct 5S3 4183-003-009 1911 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
65 14th Ct 5S3 4183-003-010 1910/1915 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
45 14th St 5S3 4183-004-018 1921/1927 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
833 14th St 5S3 4185-008-008 1906/1925 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
925 14th St 5S3 4185-008-013 1922 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
930 14th St 5S3 4185-011-011 1923/1935 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style with Colonial
Revival architectural elements HP 2. Single family property
1234 14th St 5S3 4185-017-004 1924/1925 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
63 16th St 5S3 4183-006-022 1914 (LA Assessor) Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
71 16th St 5S3 4183-006-023 1912/1928 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
16th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-7
104
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
34 17th St 5S3 4183-006-029 1907 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
35 17th St 5S3 4183-007-029 1922 Bungalow court Spanish Colonial
Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
68 17th St 5S3 4183-006-012 1907/1920 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
84 17th St 5S3 4183-006-015 1911 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1139 17th St 5S3 4185-023-010 1953 Ranch style HP 2. Single family property
17th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
80 18th Ct 5S3 4183-007-024 1921/1925 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
36 18th St 5S3 4183-007-027 1911 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
88 18th St 5S3 4183-007-013 1920/1929 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
18th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
100 19th St 5S3 4183-009-011 1933 (LA Assessor) Spanish Mission style HP 2. Single family property
302 19th St 5S3 4183-016-033 1924/1930 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
842 19th St 5S3 4184-012-002 1924 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
848 19th St 5S3 4184-012-001 1924/1925 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
19th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
44 20th St 5S3 4182-006-024 1912/1930 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
565 20th St 5S3 4183-024-015 1957 (LA Assessor) Minimal Traditional style HP 2. Single family property
571 20th St 5S3 4183-024-014 1953 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
20th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
21st St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
303 24th St 5S3 4182-014-036 1912/1930 Arts and Crafts style HP 2. Single family property
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-8
105
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
417 25th St 5S3 4182-028-900 Unknown WPA Moderne style HP15. Educational building
421 25th St 5S3 4182-028-008 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
125 26th St 5S3 4181-025-016 1954 Ranch style HP 2. Single family property
321 26th St 5S3 4181-024-022 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
243 27th St 5S3 4181-023-015 1951 Mid-Century Modern style HP 3. Multiple family property
329 27th St 5S3 4181-023-029 1931 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
356 27th St 5S3 4181-024-039 1937 (LA Assessor) Colonial style HP 2. Single family property
217 28th St 5S3 4181-022-004 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
220 28th St 5S3 4181-023-007 1954 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
127 29th St 5S3 4181-028-009 1931 (LA Assessor) Spanish Mission style HP 2. Single family property
220 29th St 5S3 4181-022-007 1913 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
238 29th St 5S3 4181-022-013 1958 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
254 29th St 5S3 4181-022-017 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
306 29th St 5S3 4181-022-021 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
355 29th St 5S3 4181-021-039 1957 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
119 30th St 5S3 4181-029-007 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
125 30th St 5S3 4181-029-009 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
133 30th St 5S3 4181-029-012 1926 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
246 30th St 5S3 4181-021-016 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
260 30th St 5S3 4181-021-020 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
327 30th St 5S3 4181-020-027 1937 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
403 30th St 5S3 4181-009-001 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-9
106
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
426 30th St 5S3 4181-008-012 1948/1960 Tudor Revival style HP 2. Single family property
30th St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
124 31st St 5S3 4181-029-008 1912 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
209 31st St 5S3 4181-019-007 1912/1956 (LA Assessor) Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
254 31st St 5S3 4181-020-017 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
318 31st St 5S3 4181-020-024 1923 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
358 31st St 5S3 4181-020-038 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
405 31st St 5S3 4181-010-003 1947 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
31st St 5S3 N/A Walk-Street HP29. Landscape architecture
235 33rd St 5S3 4181-016-011 1924 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
310 33rd St 5S3 4181-018-019 1929 Tudor Revival style HP 2. Single family property
348 33rd St 5S3 4181-018-031 1928 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
118 35th St 5S3 4181-033-021 1922 (LA Assessor) Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
2900 Amby Pl 5S3 4169-032-033 1957 Ranch style HP 2. Single family property
1075 Aviation Blvd 5S3 4185-016-019 1963 Mid-Century Modern style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1403 Bayview Dr 5S3 4183-013-006 1916 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1940 Bayview Dr 5S3 4182-018-006 1921/1942 (LA Assessor) Colonial style HP 2. Single family property
1954 Bayview Dr 5S3 4182-018-007 1917/1920 (LA Assessor) Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
1958 Bayview Dr 5S3 4182-018-008 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1251 Bonnie Brae St 5S3 4185-014-041 1929 Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
646 Braeholm Pl 5S3 4169-032-031 1938 Ranch style HP 2. Single family property
2020 Circle Dr 5S3 4182-018-026 1927/1935 (LA Assessor) Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-10
107
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
2055 Circle Dr 5S3 4182-017-016 1936 (LA Assessor) Art Deco style HP 2. Single family property
1401 Corona St 5S3 4185-010-015 1939 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
716 Cypress Ave 5S3 4187-031-011 1968 vernacular modern industrial building HP 8. Industrial building
1529 Golden St 5S3 4185-019-021 1930 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
350 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4188-008-034 1957 Mid-Century Modern style HP 3. Multiple family property
438 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4188-011-005 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
801 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4187-002-021 1921/1923 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
832 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4187-007-019 1913/1938 Early 20th Century Utilitarian Brick
Commercial Building HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
901 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4187-003-028 1928 Art Deco/Moderne style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1221 Hermosa Ave 5S1 4183-002-008 1923 Beaux Arts style HP10. Theater
1501 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4183-005-033 1948/1959 (LA Assessor) Mid-Century Modern style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1602 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4183-010-003 1922 (LA Assessor) Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
1912 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4182-007-003 1924 Pueblo Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
2010 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4182-007-010 1911/1915 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2324 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4182-010-012 1912 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2601 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4181-037-001 1912 Shingle style HP 2. Single family property
2626 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4181-025-013 1950 Roadside Vernacular Style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
3417 Hermosa Ave 5S3 4181-034-002 1923/1933 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
Hermosa Avenue 5S3
Eight lamp posts on the west and east
sides of Hermosa Avenue between
14th and 18th Streets.
HP39. Other
Hermosa Avenue 5S3 N/A Three lamp posts on the east side of HP39. Other
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-11
108
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
Hermosa Avenue between Pier
Avenue and 10th Street.
650 Loma Dr 5S3 4187-030-014 1912/1920 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
811 Loma Dr 5S3 4187-013-008 1920/1925 (LA Assessor) Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
1092 Loma Dr 5S3 4187-019-015 1920/1931 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
115 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-031-005 1927/1928 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
139 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-031-012 1926 Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
222 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-019-010 1934/1935 (LA Assessor) Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
230 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-019-012 1923/1934 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
244 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-019-018 1953 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
256 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-019-023 1951 Mid-Century Modern style HP 2. Single family property
353 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4181-018-032 1927/1931 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
701 Longfellow Ave 5S3 4169-028-019 1921/1928 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
429 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4188-011-024 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
435 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4188-011-020 1912/1930 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
712 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4187-022-011 1936/1940 (LA Assessor) Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
934 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4187-008-036 1910 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1131 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4187-006-011 1915 Early 20th Century Utilitarian
Commercial Building. HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1412 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4183-013-026 1913/1930 (LA Assessor) Arts and Crafts style HP 2. Single family property
1547 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4183-013-059 1926/1930 (LA Assessor) Neoclassical style HP16. Religious building
1703 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4183-010-018 1925/1929 (LA Assessor) Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
1825 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4183-009-018 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-12
109
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
1835 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4183-009-015 1925 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2201 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-010-020 1940 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2202 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-016-009 1951 Ranch style HP 2. Single family property
2215 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-010-019 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
2309 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-010-014 1922 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2317 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-010-013 1935 Shingle style HP 2. Single family property
2418 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-013-007 1924/1957 (LA Assessor) Italianate style HP 2. Single family property
2464 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-013-003 1933 Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
2552 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4182-012-001 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2615 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4181-025-015 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
2901 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4181-028-015 1937 Mediterranean style HP 3. Multiple family property
3201 Manhattan Ave 5S3 4181-031-014 1946 Mediterranean style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
635 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4187-022-022 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
830 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4187-013-016 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 3. Multiple family property
1137 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4187-009-044 1961 Beach Cottage style with Craftsman
elements HP 3. Multiple family property
1644 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4183-016-034 1934 Mediterranean Style HP 3. Multiple family property
1818 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4183-016-040 1952 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP16. Religious building
1936 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4182-019-007 1924 Spanish Mission style HP 3. Multiple family property
2032 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4182-019-016 1930 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2122 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4182-020-008 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2204 Monterey Blvd 5S3 4182-016-001 1921 Beach Cottage style with Craftsman HP 2. Single family property
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-13
110
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
elements
2426 Myrtle Ave 5S3 4182-014-019 1930 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1212 Ocean Dr 5S3 4185-014-033 1920 Beach Cottage style with Victorian
elements HP 2. Single family property
429 Ocean View Ave 5S3 4186-017-006 1916 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1214 Owosso Ave 5S3 4185-015-021 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
1219 Owosso Ave 5S3 4185-014-004 1938 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
1230 Owosso Ave 5S3 4185-015-020 1921 Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
1263 Owosso Ave 5S3 4185-014-009 1918 Beach Cottage style with Craftsman
elements HP 2. Single family property
1322 Owosso Ave 5S3 4185-015-014 1924 bungalow court Spanish Colonial
Revival style HP 3. Multiple family property
102 Pacific Coast Hwy 5S3 4186-026-806 WPA Moderne style HP 9. Public utility building
142 Pacific Coast Hwy 5S3 4186-026-018 1922, 1938/1966 (LA
Assessor) Renaissance Revival style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1600 Pacific Coast Hwy 5S3 4185-005-017 1962 Mid-Century Modern style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
1130 Palm Ave 5S3 4187-006-012 1915 Craftsman style HP 2. Single family property
1717 Palm Dr 5S3 4183-010-013 1920 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
22 Pier Ave 5S3 4187-005-005 1924/1940 Art Deco style HP 5. Hotel/motel
81 Pier Ave 5S3 4183-002-015 1971 New Formalist style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
238 Pier Ave 5S3 4187-009-039 1925 Beach Cottage style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
321 Pier Ave 5S3 4183-017-025 1948 Mid-Century Modern style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
526 Pier Ave 5S3 4187-020-017 1945 Roadside Vernacular Style HP 6. 1-3 story commercial building
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-14
111
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.4-1 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES WINDSHIELD SURVEY (2014)
(STRIKETHROUGH NOTES THAT THE RESOURCE IDENTIFIED IN 2014, NO LONGER EXISTS IN 2017)
Address
# Street NRHP
Code Parcel No Date Constructed Style Property Type
710 Pier Avenue 5S3,
2S2 4187-024-902 1939 WPA Moderne style HP14. Government building
117 Prospect Ave 5S3 4186-027-037 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
30 The Strand 5S3 4188-002-031 1932 Art Deco style HP 2. Single family property
1016 The Strand 5S3 4187-004-026 1958 Mid-Century Modern style HP 5. Hotel/motel
2000 The Strand 5S3 4182-005-022 1943 Mediterranean style HP 2. Single family property
2028 The Strand 5S3 4182-005-006 1940 Shingle style HP 2. Single family property
2202 The Strand 5S3 4182-003-001 1921 Beach Cottage style HP 2. Single family property
2302 The Strand 5S3 4182-003-032 1940 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
2444 The Strand 5S3 4182-002-006 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival style HP 2. Single family property
2838 The Strand 5S3 4181-036-005 1922 Craftsmen style HP 2. Single family property
3033 The Strand 5S3 4181-035-020 1938 Colonial style HP 2. Single family property
861 Valley Drive 5S3,
2S2 4187-017-900 1935 WPA Moderne style HP39. Other
1315 Valley Drive 5S3 4187-020-904 1961-1965 New Formalist Style HP14. Government building
5S3 N/A Hermosa Valley Greenbelt HP31. Urban open space
5S3 4186-003-900 Early 1900s Vetter Windmill HP39. Other
1110 6th St 5S3 4160-002-
6900 1925 Prospect Avenue School HP15. Educational building
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-15
112
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Page 4.4-10, LAND USE-23 implementation action is revised as follows:
All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on
previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in
accordance with CEQA regulations to determine is sensitive for cultural resources. Additionally, as the Lead Agency for future discretionary projects, the City is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with
those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or
archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to
determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or
tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or
eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to
complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or requiring a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to
monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. The City shall require the
preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based
on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or
other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.
SECTION 4.6 (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS)
Page 4.6-9, second paragraph, last sentence, is revised as follows:
The Carbon Planning Tool includes the links and sources used for each data point and
assumptions used to calculate emissions reductions. Appendix E-1 (PLAN Hermosa Greenhouse Gas Reduction Assumptions) details the sources and assumptions used in the Carbon Planning Tool to estimate the potential emissions reductions from each
strategy. The analysis relies on assumptions based on current technology (e.g., the
average electrical output of 1 kilowatt [kW] of solar in Hermosa Beach is currently 1,488
kilowatt hours [kWh] annually) unless regulation or peer-reviewed research can reasonably project the effect that future technology would have on reducing GHG
emissions (e.g., state and federal fuel efficiency standards for light-duty passenger
vehicles mandate that the average fuel efficiency of a vehicle fleet will increase from 34
miles per gallon in 2016 to 55 miles per gallon by 2025).
Page 4.6-28, under Impact 4.6-2, a new paragraph and table are inserted as follows:
A numeric summary of the relevant GHG emissions reduction goals articulated through
state legislation or executive orders and locally adopted planning documents, along
with the level of GHG reductions that are anticipated to be achieved through the implementation of policies in PLAN Hermosa (with and without offsets), is presented in Table 4.6-7.
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-16
113
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
TABLE 4.6-7 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR)
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Percent Emissions Reduction Below 2005 Levels
GHG Emissions Reduction Goals
Goal Origination 2020 2030 2040 2050
State Legislation (adopted) 15% (AB 32) 49% (SB 32)
State Executive Order 83% (E.O. S-3-05)
Local Plans (Adopted) 15% (Sustainability
Plan)
Trajectory Needed to Meet Goals 15% 49% 66% 83%
PLAN Hermosa
PLAN Hermosa (without offsets) 66%
PLAN Hermosa (with offsets) 100%
PLAN Hermosa EIR Alternative 2 (without
offsets) 100%
Source: City of Hermosa Beach, 2016.
SECTION 4.13 (PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES)
Page 4.13-32, second to last sentence in the second paragraph under the Wastewater
subheading is revised as follows:
The LACSD trunk lines flow to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), located in Carson. The JWPCP is one of the largest wastewater plants in the world and is the largest
of the LACSD wastewater treatment plants. The facility provides both primary and
secondary treatment and has a total permitted capacity of 400 million gallons per day (mgd).3 The plant serves a population of approximately 3.5 million people throughout Los Angeles County. Treated discharge from the plant is transported to the Pacific Ocean
through a network of outfalls, which extend 1.5 miles off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, to a
depth of 200 feet (LACSD 2013). The JWPCP currently processes an average flow of 263.1 mgd (LACSD 2015; LACSD 2017). The projected flow to the JWPCP in its service area for
2050 is 359 mgd.4
Page 4.13-39, first paragraph in the discussion of Impact 4.13.7-1 is revised as follows:
The increased population resulting from implementation of PLAN Hermosa could generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated by the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant located in Carson. The LACSD has estimated wastewater flows generated
by the additional 300 residential units and 630,400 square feet of nonresidential
development to be approximately 251,680 gallons per day (or 0.252 mgd) of wastewater (LACSD 2015).6 Currently, the JWPCP treats an average of 263.1 254.1 mgd, which
includes flows from Hermosa Beach. The addition of flows from PLAN Hermosa (0.252
mgd) would increase treated flows to approximately 263.4 254.4 mgd, which would not
exceed the current 280-mgd primary and secondary treatment capacity or the 400-mgd permitted capacity of the JWPCP. PLAN Hermosa’s additional flows would represent less
than an approximately 0.1 percent contribution to flows.
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-17
114
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Page 4.13-62, two new sentences have been added to the end of the second paragraph under the “Automotive Fuel Consumption” subheading as follows:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa’s proposed policies and implementation actions that
are designed to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit forms of transportation would further reduce dependency on fossil fuels. As shown in Table 4.13-7, under PLAN Hermosa, the amount of transportation fuels consumed would be reduced to
approximately 1.4 million gallons or almost 77 percent when compared to existing (2015)
conditions, but would also increase electricity consumption due to the increase in use of electric vehicles. The reduction of transportation fuel consumed by 2040 compared to
2015 (77 percent) is a result of greater fuel efficiency from conventionally fueled vehicles,
a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled through land use changes, and a greater
shift to electric vehicles or fossil-free vehicles. By 2040 it is estimated that approximately 75 percent of new vehicles in Hermosa Beach will be electric or fossil-free vehicles,
compared to approximately 5 percent in 2015. This information, along with all other
assumptions associated with the calculation of energy or fuel use and greenhouse gas
reductions, is presented in Appendix E-1.
Page 4.13-62, a new paragraph has been added immediately following Table 4.13-7 as follows:
The data in Table 4.13-7 have been developed using the same assumptions used for the
greenhouse gas emissions analysis in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which
concludes that PLAN Hermosa will reduce emissions locally by at least 66 percent by 2040 and that achievement of carbon neutrality may occur through the purchase of
offsets.
Page 4.13-67, a new reference is added as follows:
LACSD (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County). 2012. Clearwater Program Final Master Facilities Plan.
———. 2013. Wastewater Facilities.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/default.asp#map.
———. 2015. Plan Hermosa: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update [comment letter on Notice of Preparation dated September 8, 2015,
included in Appendix B]
———. 2017. Response to DEIR for the PLAN Hermosa: City of Hermosa Beach General
Plan and Local Coastal Program Update [comment letter on Draft EIR dated January 5,
2017, included in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, in the Final EIR].
APPENDIX C
Appendix C is modified to include the following appendices prepared as part of the Technical Background Report (appendices numbered as they appear in the Technical Background
Report). These appendices are included on CD at the back of this Final EIR.
• Appendix A1 Hermosa Beach Market Analysis
• Appendix A2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise
• Appendix B1 Natural Resources
• Appendix B2 Special Status Species
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-18
115
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
• Appendix B3 Historic Resources
• Appendix B4 Primary Record Report
• Appendix B5 Windshield Survey Results
• Appendix B6 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment
• Appendix B7 City of Hermosa Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element
APPENDIX H (NEW)
A new Appendix H (Tribal Consultation) has been added to document the Tribal Consultation
process completed by the City for this project in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. The documents in Appendix H are confidential to comply with AB 52 and protect the confidential
information provided by California Native American Tribes. They are included in the
administrative record for the EIR and are on file with the City of Hermosa Beach.
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
3.0-19
116
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
3.0-20
117
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
118
119
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hermosa
Beach (City) is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the
implementation of mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this environmental impact report
(EIR). This Lead Agency responsibility originates in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)
(Findings) and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring
or Reporting).
4.2 MONITORING AUTHORITY AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure that the
measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts are implemented. An MMRP can be a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the City
and/or future project applicants (as appropriate), but also the monitoring, compliance, and
reporting activities of the City and any monitors it may designate. The City may delegate duties
and responsibilities for monitoring to other environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City or its designee(s), however, will ensure that each person delegated any duties
or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compliance. Any mitigation measure study or plan that
requires the approval of the City must allow at least 60 days for adequate review time. When a
mitigation measure requires that a mitigation program be developed during the design phase of a specific project, the applicant must submit the final program to City for review and approval for
at least 60 days before any construction activity begins. Other agencies and jurisdictions may
require additional review time. It is the responsibility of the environmental monitor to ensure that
appropriate agency reviews and approvals are obtained. The City or its designee will also ensure that any deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program is approved by
the City. Any deviation and its correction shall be reported immediately to the City or its designee
by the environmental monitor.
The City is responsible for enforcing the procedures adopted for monitoring through the environmental monitor. Any assigned environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring,
notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the
City or its designee.
4.3 MITIGATION COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY
The City and/or future project applicant, as applicable, is responsible for successfully
implementing the mitigation measures in the MMRP, and is responsible for assuring that these
requirements are met by all of its contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as
coordination with a resource agency or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation
measures include performance standards. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.
4.4 GENERAL MONITORING PROCEDURES
Environmental Monitors. The City and the environmental monitor(s) are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction or operation process in coordination
with project applicants. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the
environmental monitor assigned to a project must be on-site during that portion of the
construction or operation that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-1
120
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
other impact for which mitigation is required. The environmental monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed.
General Reporting Procedures. Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other
individuals will be reported to the environmental monitor. A monitoring record form will be
submitted to the environmental monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that
details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the environmental monitor. A
checklist will be developed and maintained by the environmental monitor to track all procedures
required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The environmental monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems.
Public Access to Records. The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the
monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the City or its designee on request.
4.5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING TABLE
Table 4.0-1 lists the monitoring and reporting plan requirements for the mitigation measures
identified in Section 4.1 through Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR for PLAN Hermosa. Table 4.0-1 provides the following information, by column:
• Mitigation Measure (description of the mitigation measure, listed in the order they appear
in the Draft EIR);
• Compliance Verification (monitoring or plan requirements necessary to verify compliance
with the mitigation measure);
• Responsible Party (this is the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure)
• Timing (this identifies when the action needs to be taken on the mitigation measure)
• Verification Method (this is how the agency responsible for ensuring the mitigation measure has been implemented); and
• Verification Responsibility (this is the agency that is responsible for assuring compliance
with the mitigation measure).
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-2
121
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
MM 4.1-1 Projects located within 50 feet and within the directional arrow of a prominent public
viewpoint, or within the uninterrupted viewing areas, as identified in Figure 4.1-2,
shall demonstrate that existing public views of scenic resources along the view
corridors identified in Draft EIR Figure 4.1-2 are, at a minimum, maintained in their
current condition and that no features are added in the viewshed that substantially
obstruct or detract from the public views of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San
Gabriel Mountains. This requirement shall be incorporated into the review process
for precise development plans under Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.2 Air Quality
MM 4.4-2a Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all
applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District,
including the following provisions of District Rule 403:
• All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice
daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be
used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could
reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent.
• The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused
by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust
caused by wind.
• All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
• All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate
means to prevent spillage and dust.
• All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as
required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount
of dust.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-3
122
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
• General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions.
• Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off.
MM 4.4-2b In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds)
during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2c Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of
architectural coatings.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2d Construction projects within the city shall install odor-reducing equipment in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2e Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below
SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment of
SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall
provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD
SOON funds.
Project applicant At least 60 days
prior to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.3 Biological Resources
MM 4.3-1 Construction of facilities on the beach that must occur between the months of April
and August (roosting season for snowy plovers) will require preconstruction surveys
to determine the presence of western snowy plovers or California least terns. If these
species are present, no construction may occur until the species leave the roost based
on review by a qualified biologist and consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If the
project is within a Special Protection Zone, construction activities will not be allowed
until western snowy plovers are no longer present. If the area is not within a Special
Protection Zone, a qualified biologist will survey the area for western snowy plovers
using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to
determine if plovers are present. If they are present, no work will occur until after
Project applicant Prior to construction Verify
preconstruction
surveys, agency
consultation,
and reporting
completed
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-4 123
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
snowy plovers leave the roost site for the season. The qualified biologist will also
survey the area for California least terns using established protocols and in
coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if California least terns are
present. If surveys are negative for western snowy plovers or California least terns,
work may proceed during the roosting period and the biologist will be present to
monitor the establishment of the beach landing sites to ensure that no western snowy
plovers or California least terns are injured or killed, should they arrive in the area
subsequent to work commencing. The project will include fencing/walls that will
prevent western snowy plovers or California least terns from entering the work areas.
The biologist will conduct weekly site visits to ensure that fencing/walls are intact
until construction activities are finished at the sites and all equipment is removed
from the beach. The results of the preconstruction survey will be submitted to the
City prior to the establishment of beach landing sites. All biological monitoring efforts
will be documented in monthly compliance reports to the City.
4.4 Cultural Resources
MM 4.4-3 As a standard condition of approval for future development projects implemented
under PLAN Hermosa that involve ground disturbance or excavation:
• For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed
at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits, a qualified
paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the
construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and
notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to
evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is
not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data
recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered,
and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are
determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be
implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the
paleontological resources were discovered.
Project applicant During construction Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-5
124
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
MM 4.4-4a The City shall establish an updated list of potential historic resources to be maintained
by the Community Development Director. The list shall be updated every 10 years, at
a minimum, to identify as-yet-unknown historical resources (as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5) as potential resources are identified through citywide
surveys and on a project-by-project basis.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020,
modified as
resources change,
and updated every
10 years thereafter
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4b The City shall require project applicants to conduct historical resources studies,
surveys, and assessment reports on a project-by-project basis, when a project proposes
to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential historic resource.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4c The City shall maintain the “Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach” guide, and shall
update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and policies
are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Ongoing, and
reviewed every five
years at a minimum
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4d The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and
streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts.
City of Hermosa
Beach
By 2020 and
revisited as the
potential historic
resources list is
updated
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4e Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by
persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards
for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716).
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4f For historical resources that may be adversely impacted, conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
application of the State Historical Building Code shall be required to protect
significant character-defining features and protect the eligibility of potential historical
resources.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-6 125
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development
by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, or other appropriate tools to
research current data gaps, identify specific actions, and define the responsible parties
and time frames needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring
milestones) identified in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Ongoing Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.6-1b The City of Hermosa Beach will re-inventory community GHG emissions and
evaluate implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the
calendar year of 2020 and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim
reduction goals to be achieved for consistency with long-term state goals include:
• 2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels
• 2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels
• 2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels
• 2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels
• 2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020
and every five years
thereafter until 2040
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City’s Climate Action Plan when,
upon evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b, the City determines that
Hermosa Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals.
Revisions to PLAN Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other City policies and
programs will include additional regulatory measures that provide a higher degree of
certainty that emissions reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive
management approach would allow the City to evaluate progress by activity sector
(e.g., transportation, energy, water, waste) and prescribe additional policies or
programs to be implemented in the intervening five years for activity sectors that are
not on track to achieve the GHG reduction goals.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020
and every five years
thereafter until 2040
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-7 126
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 4.7-2a For any development activities that would encroach upon or take place at the City’s
Maintenance Yard, the City shall require the preparation and implementation of a
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to be
approved by the appropriate agencies.
Project applicant Prior to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.7-2b Future discretionary projects involving the use of hazardous materials that may be
accidentally released or encountered during construction shall be required to
implement the following procedures:
• Stop all work in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release.
• Identify the scope and immediacy of the problem.
• Coordinate with responsible agencies (Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, or US Environmental Protection Agency).
• Conduct the necessary investigation and remediation activities to resolve the
situation before continuing construction work as required by state and local
regulations.
Project applicant During construction Reporting to
City and
verification by
City
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.11 Noise and Vibration
MM 4.11-2 For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards
would be exceeded, the City shall require the applicant to have a structural engineer
prepare a report demonstrating the following:
• Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned
demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not
exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in
Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards.
• Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified
vibration level limits are not exceeded.
• A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that
includes post‐construction and post‐demolition surveys of existing structures that
would be impacted.
Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or
construction include but are not limited to:
• Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment.
• Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment.
• Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete.
• Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources.
• Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision-making for
subsequent activities.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-8
127
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL
BACKGROUND REPORT
(ADDITIONAL APPENDICES)
THE FOLLOWING APPENDICES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO APPENDIX C AND ARE INCLUDED ON CD AT THE BACK
OF THIS VOLUME: APPENDIX A1 HERMOSA BEACH MARKET ANALYSIS
APPENDIX A2 VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE
APPENDIX B1 NATURAL RESOURCES
APPENDIX B2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
APPENDIX B3 HISTORIC RESOURCES
APPENDIX B4 PRIMARY RECORD REPORT
APPENDIX B5 WINDSHIELD SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX B6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B7 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2013-2021 HOUSING ELEMENT
128
129
APPENDIX H – TRIBAL CONSULTATION
THE DOCUMENTS IN APPENDIX H ARE CONFIDENTIAL TO COMPLY WITH AB 52 AND PROTECT THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR THE EIR AND ARE ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
130
131
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
132
133
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hermosa
Beach (City) is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the
implementation of mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this environmental impact report
(EIR). This Lead Agency responsibility originates in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)
(Findings) and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring
or Reporting).
4.2 MONITORING AUTHORITY AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure that the
measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts are implemented. An MMRP can be a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the City
and/or future project applicants (as appropriate), but also the monitoring, compliance, and
reporting activities of the City and any monitors it may designate. The City may delegate duties
and responsibilities for monitoring to other environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City or its designee(s), however, will ensure that each person delegated any duties
or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compliance. Any mitigation measure study or plan that
requires the approval of the City must allow at least 60 days for adequate review time. When a
mitigation measure requires that a mitigation program be developed during the design phase of a specific project, the applicant must submit the final program to City for review and approval for
at least 60 days before any construction activity begins. Other agencies and jurisdictions may
require additional review time. It is the responsibility of the environmental monitor to ensure that
appropriate agency reviews and approvals are obtained. The City or its designee will also ensure that any deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program is approved by
the City. Any deviation and its correction shall be reported immediately to the City or its designee
by the environmental monitor.
The City is responsible for enforcing the procedures adopted for monitoring through the environmental monitor. Any assigned environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring,
notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the
City or its designee.
4.3 MITIGATION COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY
The City and/or future project applicant, as applicable, is responsible for successfully
implementing the mitigation measures in the MMRP, and is responsible for assuring that these
requirements are met by all of its contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as
coordination with a resource agency or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation
measures include performance standards. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.
4.4 GENERAL MONITORING PROCEDURES
Environmental Monitors. The City and the environmental monitor(s) are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction or operation process in coordination
with project applicants. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the
environmental monitor assigned to a project must be on-site during that portion of the
construction or operation that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-1
134
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
other impact for which mitigation is required. The environmental monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed.
General Reporting Procedures. Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other
individuals will be reported to the environmental monitor. A monitoring record form will be
submitted to the environmental monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that
details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the environmental monitor. A
checklist will be developed and maintained by the environmental monitor to track all procedures
required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The environmental monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems.
Public Access to Records. The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the
monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the City or its designee on request.
4.5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING TABLE
Table 4.0-1 lists the monitoring and reporting plan requirements for the mitigation measures
identified in Section 4.1 through Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR for PLAN Hermosa. Table 4.0-1 provides the following information, by column:
• Mitigation Measure (description of the mitigation measure, listed in the order they appear
in the Draft EIR);
• Compliance Verification (monitoring or plan requirements necessary to verify compliance
with the mitigation measure);
• Responsible Party (this is the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure)
• Timing (this identifies when the action needs to be taken on the mitigation measure)
• Verification Method (this is how the agency responsible for ensuring the mitigation measure has been implemented); and
• Verification Responsibility (this is the agency that is responsible for assuring compliance
with the mitigation measure).
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-2
135
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
MM 4.1-1 Projects located within 50 feet and within the directional arrow of a prominent public
viewpoint, or within the uninterrupted viewing areas, as identified in Figure 4.1-2,
shall demonstrate that existing public views of scenic resources along the view
corridors identified in Draft EIR Figure 4.1-2 are, at a minimum, maintained in their
current condition and that no features are added in the viewshed that substantially
obstruct or detract from the public views of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San
Gabriel Mountains. This requirement shall be incorporated into the review process
for precise development plans under Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.2 Air Quality
MM 4.4-2a Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all
applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District,
including the following provisions of District Rule 403:
• All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice
daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be
used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could
reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent.
• The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused
by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust
caused by wind.
• All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
• All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate
means to prevent spillage and dust.
• All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as
required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount
of dust.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-3 136
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
• General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions.
• Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off.
MM 4.4-2b In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds)
during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2c Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of
architectural coatings.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2d Construction projects within the city shall install odor-reducing equipment in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138.
Project applicant During construction Verification
through site
inspection
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-2e Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below
SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment of
SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall
provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD
SOON funds.
Project applicant At least 60 days
prior to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.3 Biological Resources
MM 4.3-1 Construction of facilities on the beach that must occur between the months of April
and August (roosting season for snowy plovers) will require preconstruction surveys
to determine the presence of western snowy plovers or California least terns. If these
species are present, no construction may occur until the species leave the roost based
on review by a qualified biologist and consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If the
project is within a Special Protection Zone, construction activities will not be allowed
until western snowy plovers are no longer present. If the area is not within a Special
Protection Zone, a qualified biologist will survey the area for western snowy plovers
using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to
determine if plovers are present. If they are present, no work will occur until after
Project applicant Prior to construction Verify
preconstruction
surveys, agency
consultation,
and reporting
completed
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-4 137
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
snowy plovers leave the roost site for the season. The qualified biologist will also
survey the area for California least terns using established protocols and in
coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if California least terns are
present. If surveys are negative for western snowy plovers or California least terns,
work may proceed during the roosting period and the biologist will be present to
monitor the establishment of the beach landing sites to ensure that no western snowy
plovers or California least terns are injured or killed, should they arrive in the area
subsequent to work commencing. The project will include fencing/walls that will
prevent western snowy plovers or California least terns from entering the work areas.
The biologist will conduct weekly site visits to ensure that fencing/walls are intact
until construction activities are finished at the sites and all equipment is removed
from the beach. The results of the preconstruction survey will be submitted to the
City prior to the establishment of beach landing sites. All biological monitoring efforts
will be documented in monthly compliance reports to the City.
4.4 Cultural Resources
MM 4.4-3 As a standard condition of approval for future development projects implemented
under PLAN Hermosa that involve ground disturbance or excavation:
• For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed
at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits, a qualified
paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the
construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and
notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to
evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is
not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data
recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered,
and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are
determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be
implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the
paleontological resources were discovered.
Project applicant During construction Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-5 138
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
MM 4.4-4a The City shall establish an updated list of potential historic resources to be maintained
by the Community Development Director. The list shall be updated every 10 years, at
a minimum, to identify as-yet-unknown historical resources (as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5) as potential resources are identified through citywide
surveys and on a project-by-project basis.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020,
modified as
resources change,
and updated every
10 years thereafter
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4b The City shall require project applicants to conduct historical resources studies,
surveys, and assessment reports on a project-by-project basis, when a project proposes
to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential historic resource.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4c The City shall maintain the “Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach” guide, and shall
update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and policies
are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Ongoing, and
reviewed every five
years at a minimum
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4d The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and
streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts.
City of Hermosa
Beach
By 2020 and
revisited as the
potential historic
resources list is
updated
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4e Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by
persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards
for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716).
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.4-4f For historical resources that may be adversely impacted, conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
application of the State Historical Building Code shall be required to protect
significant character-defining features and protect the eligibility of potential historical
resources.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-6 139
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 4.0-1
PLAN HERMOSA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Requirements
Compliance Verification
Responsibility
Party Timing Verification
Method
Verification
Responsibility
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development
by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, or other appropriate tools to
research current data gaps, identify specific actions, and define the responsible parties
and time frames needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring
milestones) identified in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Ongoing Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.6-1b The City of Hermosa Beach will re-inventory community GHG emissions and
evaluate implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the
calendar year of 2020 and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim
reduction goals to be achieved for consistency with long-term state goals include:
• 2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels
• 2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels
• 2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels
• 2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels
• 2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020
and every five years
thereafter until 2040
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City’s Climate Action Plan when,
upon evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b, the City determines that
Hermosa Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals.
Revisions to PLAN Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other City policies and
programs will include additional regulatory measures that provide a higher degree of
certainty that emissions reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive
management approach would allow the City to evaluate progress by activity sector
(e.g., transportation, energy, water, waste) and prescribe additional policies or
programs to be implemented in the intervening five years for activity sectors that are
not on track to achieve the GHG reduction goals.
City of Hermosa
Beach
Beginning in 2020
and every five years
thereafter until 2040
Self-reporting City of
Hermosa
Beach
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report
4.0-7 140
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 4.7-2a For any development activities that would encroach upon or take place at the City’s
Maintenance Yard, the City shall require the preparation and implementation of a
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to be
approved by the appropriate agencies.
Project applicant Prior to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
MM 4.7-2b Future discretionary projects involving the use of hazardous materials that may be
accidentally released or encountered during construction shall be required to
implement the following procedures:
• Stop all work in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release.
• Identify the scope and immediacy of the problem.
• Coordinate with responsible agencies (Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, or US Environmental Protection Agency).
• Conduct the necessary investigation and remediation activities to resolve the
situation before continuing construction work as required by state and local
regulations.
Project applicant During construction Reporting to
City and
verification by
City
City of
Hermosa
Beach
4.11 Noise and Vibration
MM 4.11-2 For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards
would be exceeded, the City shall require the applicant to have a structural engineer
prepare a report demonstrating the following:
• Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned
demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not
exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in
Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards.
• Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified
vibration level limits are not exceeded.
• A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that
includes post‐construction and post‐demolition surveys of existing structures that
would be impacted.
Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or
construction include but are not limited to:
• Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment.
• Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment.
• Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete.
• Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources.
• Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision-making for
subsequent activities.
Project applicant At least 60 days prior
to issuance of
construction permits
Verification
during plan
review of
project
City of
Hermosa
Beach
PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2017
4.0-8
141
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
1
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Project Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations Recommending the adoption of PLAN
Hermosa
The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission makes the following PLAN Hermosa Project
findings.
1.0 CEQA FINDINGS Findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091, 15092, 15162 and 15163.
1.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was presented to the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission and all voting members of the Commission have reviewed and
considered the FEIR and associated appendices prior to making a recommendation on
the PLAN Hermosa. In addition, all voting members of the Planning Commission have
reviewed and considered testimony and additional information presented at or prior to
the public hearing on February 22, 2017. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of
the Planning Commission and the City of Hermosa Beach and is adequate for this proposal.
1.2 FULL DISCLOSURE The Planning Commission finds and certifies that the FEIR constitutes a complete, accurate,
adequate and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA. The Planning Commission
further finds and certifies the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and Tribal
Consultation requirements implemented under Assembly Bill 52 (2014). The omission of some
detail or aspect of the Final EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the City.
1.3 LOCATION OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which
this decision is based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach, 1315
Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
1.4 FINDINGS REGARDING THE DRAFT PLAN HERMOSA AND THE FINAL EIR
In response to comments from the public and other public agencies, the project has
incorporated changes subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR. All of the changes to
the Draft EIR are described in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, on the basis
of the review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City finds:
1. Factual corrections and minor changes have been set forth as clarifications
and modifications to the Draft EIR;
2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR are not substantial
changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
Proposed Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a
feasible project alternative;
Attachment 1C
142
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
2
3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR will not result in new
significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR;
4. The factual corrections and minor changes in the Draft EIR will not involve
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or more
significant effect on the environment; and
5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR do not render the
Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment would be precluded.
Thus, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA requiring recirculation of a Draft EIR have
been met. Incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR
into the Final EIR does not require the EIR be circulated again for public comment.
Since the release of the Public Review Draft PLAN Hermosa (December 2015) The
Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission held public meetings to review the 2015
Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa between January 2016 and June 2016, and have
recommended modifications to the document.
The changes to PLAN Hermosa that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council, includes input from the Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission and are included as
part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for City Council consideration. The
proposed changes to the project largely clarify and refine policy language without
changing the intent of the PLAN’s goals and objectives. Pursuant to Section 15088.5 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the changes would not result in any new significant
environmental impacts nor substantially increase the severity of significant impacts
described in the EIR. The minor revisions/clarifications to the policy language would not
change any of the conclusions in the EIR. Substantial revisions to the EIR are not necessary
and, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
1.5 FINDINGS ADDRESSING THE ISSUES ANALYZED IN THE FEIR 1.5.1 FINDINGS THAT NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION WAS CONDUCTED
In accordance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Government Code 69352.3, and Assembly
Bill 52 (AB 52) and Government Code 21000, the City of Hermosa Beach requested a list
of Tribal Organization contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission in April
2014. The City of Hermosa Beach sent notifications to the appropriate tribal organizations
in January 2015 in compliance with SB 18, and again in August 2015 to comply with AB
52.
In response to these letters, the City received requests from the Soboba Band of Luiseño
Indians and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to conduct formal
consultation with the tribes. Both tribes requested that an experienced, trained, and
certified Native American monitor be present during ground disturbing activities related
to the project.
Attachment 1C
143
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
3
Following the initial request for consultation from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the
City pursued consultation. However, the Band has failed to provide comments to the
City, or otherwise failed to engage, in the consultation process. Therefore, consultation
with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians has concluded under Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21082.3(d)(2).
The City has engaged in lengthy consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation, as noted in the Responses to Comment in the Final EIR NAHC 1 and GMBI-
1-2. Since PLAN Hermosa is a program-level document that will not directly result in
physical changes to the environment, the City proposed policies and implementation
actions that take into consideration the tribal organization requests for subsequent
projects with ground disturbance activities that may occur through implementation of
PLAN Hermosa. To more explicitly address the Band’s request for a Native American
monitor to be present during ground disturbing activities, the City proposes amending
implementation action LAND USE-23 to explicitly require the City to weigh and consider
available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or
damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can
be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring
construction workers to complete a training on archaeological and tribal resources
before any ground disturbance activity and/or requiring a qualified archaeologist or
tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities.
This is an appropriate response for a Program-level analysis, since site specific impacts
cannot be detailed at this time and would be speculative. This implementation action,
as amended, would ensure the consultation requirements of AB 52 are followed by the
City as a Lead Agency, and that requirements for Native American monitors to be
present during ground-disturbing activities in which a tribe or archaeological
investigation indicate the potential for tribal resources to be found are clear.
Following multiple requests for feedback on the City’s proposed response, the Band has
not provided a formal response. The City has acted in good faith and has provided a
reasonable effort to respond to the Band’s request for monitors, but without a timely
response, the City is unable to reach a mutual agreement. Consultation is hereby
concluded.
1.5.2 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE The FEIR for PLAN Hermosa identifies impacts in three resource areas – air quality, cultural
resources, and transportation-- that cannot be fully mitigated and are therefore
considered significant and unavoidable. The impact areas pertain to short-term impacts
to air quality; potential changes to the significance of historical resources; and
reductions to transportation and circulation Level of Service (LOS) performance
standards at three intersections and one roadway segment. To the extent that the
impacts remain significant and unavoidable such impacts are acceptable when
weighed against the overriding social, economic, legal, technical, and other
considerations, including the beneficial effects of the project to the existing circulation
and infrastructure, described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included
herein. For each of these significant and unavoidable impacts identified by the FEIR,
Attachment 1C
144
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
4
feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as discussed below:
a. 4.2-2 Violate Air Quality Standards – Short-Term Impacts
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in
a manner that could generate air pollutant emissions from short-term
construction. Although PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement
of current SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce short-term
emissions, construction emissions would result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.2-2a Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable
standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the
following provisions of District Rule 403:
All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily
during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to
reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive
dust by as much as 50 percent.
The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused
by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused
by wind.
All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts
of dust.
All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means
to prevent spillage and dust.
All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as
required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of
dust.
General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions.
Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off.
MM 4.2-2b In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling
of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during
construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location.
MM 4.2-2c Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of
architectural coatings.
MM 4.2-2d Construction projects within the city shall install odor-reducing equipment in accordance
with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138.
MM 4.2-2e Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below
SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment of
SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall
provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD SOON
funds.
Finding:
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1a through 4.2-
1e, SCAQMD Rule 403 and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that some
projects would have the potential to generate daily construction emissions that
Attachment 1C
145
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
5
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because the intensity and schedule
of construction activities cannot be determined at the time of this program-level
analysis, it would be speculative to conclude that any level of mitigation would
reduce daily construction emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds of
significance. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who
apply for SCAQMD “SOON” funds. The “SOON” program provides funds to
accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction
equipment. In many cases, because of the amount of construction required for a
project, even if all feasible mitigation is implemented, daily emissions could still
exceed the significance thresholds.
The Planning Commission finds that the impact as stated above is substantially
reduced by the identified mitigation measures and that all feasible mitigation
measures that are appropriate at the Program-level have been incorporated. The
Planning Commission further finds that although this impact would be significant and
unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social,
economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
b. 4.2-7 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South
Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of air quality emissions occurring within
the basin and could affect the region’s ability to attain ambient air quality standards.
This would result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures MM 4.2-1a through MM 4.2.1e.
Finding:
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1a through 4.2-1e,
SCAQMD Rule 403 and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that future
construction projects, in combination with other construction in the SCAQMD area,
could have the potential to generate construction emissions that exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds of significance on a cumulative basis. While the City of Hermosa
Beach has the ability to reduce air quality impacts through the implementation of
mitigation measures MM 4.2-1a through MM 4.2.1e, when combined with potential
exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds of significance by other projects in the
SCAQMD region, the contribution of projects in Hermosa Beach may be cumulatively
considerable.
The Planning Commission finds that the impact as stated above is substantially
reduced by the identified mitigation measures and that no other feasible mitigation
measures within the scope of the project are available, and the City of Hermosa
Beach jurisdiction to implement mitigation measures is limited to projects within
Hermosa Beach. The Planning Commission further finds that although this impact
would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed
Attachment 1C
146
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
6
against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
c. 4.4-4 Historical Resources
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would provide for future development and reuse
projects in the city in a manner that could cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Although implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and actions would protect
historical resources, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.4-4a The City shall establish an updated list of potential historic resources to be maintained by
the Community Development Director. The list shall be updated every 10 years, at a
minimum, to identify as-yet-unknown historical resources (as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5) as potential resources are identified through citywide surveys and on a
project-by-project basis.
MM 4.4-4b The City shall require project applicants to conduct historical resources studies, surveys,
and assessment reports on a project-by-project basis, when a project proposes to alter,
demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential historic resource.
MM 4.4-4c The City shall maintain the “Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach” guide, and shall
update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and policies
are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element.
MM 4.4-4d The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and
streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts.
MM 4.4-4e Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by
persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716).
Finding:
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-4e would reduce
impacts on historical resources to the extent feasible. However, impacts on
potentially eligible historic structures could occur depending on the proposed uses,
the cost of rehabilitation, and safety and other considerations. Thus, it may not be
feasible in all circumstances to rehabilitate a structure and retain its historic
significance. If a project applicant proposes to demolish an eligible structure, the City
would consider the project’s impacts prior to approval.
The Planning Commission finds that the impact as stated above is substantially
reduced by the identified mitigation measures, that all feasible mitigation measures
that are appropriate at the Program-level have been incorporated, and that no
other feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project are available. The
Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4f that upon further review has been
determined to be infeasible and that the Planning Commission recommends this
mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. While the intent of MM 4.4-4f was to
apply to designated historical landmarks, the wording could be interpreted more
broadly and would effectively prohibit any changes to buildings considered to be
potential historic resources and when modified to only apply to designated historical
landmarks, it becomes duplicative with requirements under State Law regarding the
treatment of designated historical resources, and interpreted more broadly could
Attachment 1C
147
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
7
impede the City’s greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability goals. The Planning
Commission further finds that although this impact would be significant and
unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social,
economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
d. 4.4-8 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated future development in
the South Bay Cities COG planning area could cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resource. The loss of some historical resources may be
prevented through implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and similar policies in
other communities. However, this would not ensure that these resources can be
protected and preserved. This impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-e.
Finding:
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-4e would not
ensure that all historical resources would be protected and preserved within the
South Bay Cities COG planning area. As described in the analysis presented in
Impact 4.44, impacts on historic resources could still occur and the impact cannot
be reduced to less than significant.
The Planning Commission finds that the impact as stated above is substantially
reduced by the identified mitigation measures, that no other feasible mitigation
measures within the scope of the project are available, and the City of Hermosa
Beach jurisdiction to implement mitigation measures is limited to projects within
Hermosa Beach. The Planning Commission further finds that although this impact
would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed
against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
e. 4.14-1a Intersections
Pacific Coast Hwy and Artesia Blvd
Impact:
The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard would be
significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in both the morning and
evening peak periods. Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by
Caltrans’s plan to remove a travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway
and alignment issues, as well as major change in roadway characteristics, east to
west from Artesia Boulevard to Gould Avenue. Additionally, physical mitigations
would conflict with the SBBMP Class III bicycle facility planned for Gould Avenue,
as well as PLAN Hermosa policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5.
Attachment 1C
148
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
8
Due to the above-mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations and PLAN
Hermosa and adopted plans, the significant transportation impacts on traffic
operations at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway & Artesia Boulevard
cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be
a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant
transportation and circulation impact.
Finding:
Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection
approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify
physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain
consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for
compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted
policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly
impacted locations at which a vehicular-capacity based mitigation without
creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans.
The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures
within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without
conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance
or safety of the facility. The Planning Commission further finds that although this
impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when
weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
Pacific Coast Hwy and Aviation Blvd
Impact:
The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard is significantly
impacted by PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in the morning peak period.
Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by Caltrans’s plan to remove a
travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway and improvement plans
for the intersection included in the Aviation Boulevard Master Plan, including
enhanced crosswalks and repurposing of public right of way for parkettes,
pedestrian space, or a crossing refuge. Additionally, physical mitigations would
conflict with the SBBMP Class II bicycle facility planned for Aviation Boulevard, as
well as PLAN Hermosa policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5.
Due to the above-mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations to improve
level of service and PLAN Hermosa and adopted plans, the significant
transportation impacts to traffic operations at the intersection of Pacific Coast
Highway & Aviation Boulevard cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level;
therefore this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Attachment 1C
149
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
9
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant
transportation and circulation impact.
Finding:
Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection
approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify
physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain
consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for
compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted
policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly
impacted locations at which a vehicular-capacity based mitigation without
creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans.
The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures
within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without
conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance
or safety of the facility. The Planning Commission further finds that although this
impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when
weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
Manhattan Ave and 27th St
Impact:
The intersection at Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street is significantly impacted by
PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in the morning peak period. Opportunities for
physical mitigations are limited by existing narrow roadway widths. Additionally,
physical mitigations would conflict with the SBBMP Class III bicycle facility planned
for 27th Street, and PLAN Hermosa policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5.
Due to the above-mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations to improve
level of service and PLAN Hermosa policies and adopted plans, the significant
transportation impacts to traffic operations at the intersection of Manhattan
Avenue & 27th Street cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore
this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant
transportation and circulation impact.
Finding:
Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection
approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify
physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain
Attachment 1C
150
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
10
consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for
compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted
policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly
impacted locations at which a vehicular-capacity based mitigation without
creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans.
The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures
within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without
conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance
or safety of the facility. The Planning Commission further finds that although this
impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when
weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
f. 4.14-1b Roadway Segments
Prospect Ave (Aviation Blvd to 2nd St)
Impact:
Through implementation of PLAN Hermosa, the roadway segment on Prospect
Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2nd Street would be degraded from its current
operation at an LOS C to an LOS D by 2040. While this is improved from the
projected LOS E that would be experienced under the 2040 scenario without PLAN
Hermosa, it still represents a significant impact. In other words, even though the
PLAN Hermosa policies will reduce the degree of impact from the scenario where
the PLAN is not adopted, the change in traffic still exceeds the threshold of
significance.
In order to reduce the projected LOS impacts along Prospect Avenue, the City
would need to consider expanding the roadway to accommodate additional
vehicles or consider policies that reduce the number of vehicles traveling along
the corridor. However, the opportunities for expanding Prospect Avenue to
reduce the impacts to LOS are limited by the narrow roadway widths and
presence of on-street parking. Additionally, physical mitigations to expand
roadway capacity along Prospect Avenue would conflict with the intent of SB 743
and many of the proposed PLAN Hermosa policies. Under SB 743 Section
21099(b)(2), vehicular capacity and traffic congestion would no longer be eligible
as considerations of significant impact under CEQA. Guidelines established for the
implementation of SB 743 further state that roadway capacity expansions in a
congested corridor are presumed to cause a significant impact under CEQA due
to their effects on induced travel. Physical mitigations would also conflict with the
SBBMP bicycle friendly street bicycle facility planned for Prospect Avenue, and
PLAN Hermosa policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5. Due to the above-mentioned conflicts
between capacity expansion mitigations and SB 743, the SBBMP, and PLAN
Hermosa policies, the significant transportation impact to traffic operations along
the segment of Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2nd Street cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Attachment 1C
151
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
11
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant
transportation and circulation impact.
Finding:
Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection
approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The removal of on-street parking
along this roadway segment to accommodate an additional lane of travel would
create untenable conditions in Hermosa Beach where parking supply is limited.
Therefore it is not feasible. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements
that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN
Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict
with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No
mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which
a vehicular-capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN
Hermosa goals or other adopted plans.
The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures
within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without
conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance
or safety of the facility. The Planning Commission further finds that although this
impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when
weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
g. 4.14-7 Cumulative Exceedance of LOS Performance Standards
Impact:
PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the City in a
manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within the city. Both the
City’s and Caltrans’s existing level of service standards for intersections and roadway
segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and segments
analyzed. Nonetheless, three intersections and one segment would experience
a cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation
and circulation impact.
Finding:
Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection
approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify
physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain
consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for
compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted
Attachment 1C
152
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
12
policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not
considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted
locations at which a vehicular-capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict
with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans.
The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within
the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting
with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of
the facility. The Planning Commission further finds that although this impact would be
significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the
overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings).
1.5.3 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO INSIGNIFICANCE
The FEIR identifies subject areas for which the project is considered to cause or contribute
to potentially significant environmental impacts. For each of these impacts identified by
the FEIR, feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
reduce the environmental effect to a level that is less than significant, as discussed
below:
a. 4.1-1 Scenic Vistas and Viewsheds
Impact:
Future actions under PLAN Hermosa have the potential to encroach on views from
prominent public viewpoints. Future actions also have the potential to degrade the
visual quality of scenic vistas, through the introduction of incongruous features to the
viewshed. This is would be a potentially significant impact because development
under the PLAN could adversely affect scenic vistas.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.1-1 Projects located within 50 feet and within the directional arrow of a prominent public
viewpoint, or within the uninterrupted viewing areas, as identified in Figure 4.12, shall
demonstrate that existing public views of scenic resources along the view corridors
identified in Draft EIR Figure 4.1-2 are, at a minimum, maintained in their current condition
and that no features are added in the viewshed that substantially obstruct or detract from
the public views of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Santa Monica
Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains. This requirement
shall be incorporated into the review process for precise development plans under
Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.1-1 would ensure that existing view corridors that provide views of the Pacific
Attachment 1C
153
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
13
Ocean, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los
Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains are maintained. b. 4.3-1 Special-Status Species
Impact:
PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a
manner that could result in the development or expansion of beach-supporting
uses that could adversely affect western snowy plover and California least tern. This
would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.3-1 Construction of facilities on the beach that must occur between the months of April and
August (roosting season for snowy plovers) will require preconstruction surveys to determine
the presence of western snowy plovers or California least terns. If these species are present,
no construction may occur until the species leave the roost based on review by a qualified
biologist and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If the project is within a Special Protection Zone,
construction activities will not be allowed until western snowy plovers are no longer present.
If the area is not within a Special Protection Zone, a qualified biologist will survey the area
for western snowy plovers using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS
and CDFW to determine if plovers are present. If they are present, no work will occur until
after snowy plovers leave the roost site for the season. The qualified biologist will also survey
the area for California least terns using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if California least terns are present. If surveys are negative
for western snowy plovers or California least terns, work may proceed during the roosting
period and the biologist will be present to monitor the establishment of the beach landing
sites to ensure that no western snowy plovers or California least terns are injured or killed,
should they arrive in the area subsequent to work commencing. The project will include
fencing/walls that will prevent western snowy plovers or California least terns from entering
the work areas. The biologist will conduct weekly site visits to ensure that fencing/walls are
intact until construction activities are finished at the sites and all equipment is removed
from the beach. The results of the preconstruction survey will be submitted to the City prior
to the establishment of beach landing sites. All biological monitoring efforts will be
documented in monthly compliance reports to the City.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation
measure MM 4.3-1 would specifically require that western snowy plovers or California
least terns that roost on the beach are protected if they occur in an area proposed
for beach-supporting facilities. c. 4.4-3 Paleontological Resources, Site, or Geologic Feature
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse
projects in the city in a manner that could damage previously unknown unique
paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features. This impact would
be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Attachment 1C
154
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
14
MM 4.4-3 As a standard condition of approval for future development projects implemented under
PLAN Hermosa that involve ground disturbance or excavation:
For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at
depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits, a qualified paleontologist
shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities.
If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the
construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify
the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate
the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to,
a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.
Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to
be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can
resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM
4.4-3 would provide for the appropriate treatment and/or preservation of
paleontological resources, if encountered. For instance, a paleontological resource
evaluation would consist of a paleontological resources records search
through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, a pedestrian survey of
the project site (if applicable), a review of the land use history, and a review of
geologic mapping and/or geotechnical reports. At that point, appropriate project-
specific mitigation would be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts on
the paleontological resource before construction activities can resume. d. 4.4-7 Cumulative Effects on Paleontological Resources
Impact:
Ground disturbance, earthmoving, and excavation activities associated with
implementation of PLAN Hermosa combined with construction activities in the South
Bay Cities COG planning area could damage previously unknown unique
paleontological resources. This impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measure MM 4.4-3.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Ground disturbance, earthmoving, and
excavation activities would occur under PLAN Hermosa and in the South Bay Cities
COG planning area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3 would reduce
impacts on paleontological resources by requiring that fossil specimens be
recovered and recorded and undergo appropriate curation, in the event that
resources are encountered during construction activities in Hermosa Beach. Thus, the
city will not be contributing to any cumulative impact in the South Bay planning area. e. 4.6-1 Generate GHG Emissions
Attachment 1C
155
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
15
Impact:
PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a
manner that could result in additional greenhouse gas emissions generated.
However, the plan also includes numerous policies and actions to reduce or
eliminate GHG emissions from both new and existing development through
incentives and voluntary actions that will meet or exceed the long-term greenhouse
gas reduction goals to reduce emissions at least 66 percent below 2005 levels by
2040 (excluding offsets—see discussion on page 4.6-22) through direct and local
programs. However, since the City is relying on incentive-based or voluntary actions
to achieve GHG reduction goals, there is a lower degree of certainty that the
emissions reductions thresholds would be met compared to regulatory or mandatory
actions. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development by the
South Bay Cities Council of Governments, or other appropriate tools to research current
data gaps, identify specific actions, and define the responsible parties and time frames
needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring milestones) identified
in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b.
MM 4.6-1b The City of Hermosa Beach will re-inventory community GHG emissions and evaluate implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the calendar year of 2020
and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim reduction goals to be achieved
for consistency with long-term state goals include:
2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels
2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels
2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels
2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels
2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels
MM 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City’s Climate Action Plan when, upon
evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.61b, the City determines that Hermosa
Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals. Revisions to PLAN
Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other City policies and programs will include
additional regulatory measures that provide a higher degree of certainty that emissions
reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive management approach would allow the
City to evaluate progress by activity sector (e.g., transportation, energy, water, waste) and
prescribe additional policies or programs to be implemented in the intervening five years
for activity sectors that are not on track to achieve the GHG reduction goals.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-
1 a through c, commits the City of Hermosa Beach to achieving specific emissions
reduction targets within every five-year time period and modifying policies and
programs, including the addition of new policies or modification of existing policies
to become mandatory, to achieve greater levels of emissions reductions if the City
falls short of meeting the established targets in MM 4.6-1b. The implementation of
PLAN Hermosa policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in conjunction with
mitigation measures MM 4.6-1a through MM 4.6-1c, will add the degree of certainty
needed to determine that PLAN Hermosa would have a less than significant impact
on greenhouse gas emissions and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Attachment 1C
156
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
16
f. 4.7-2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
Impact:
Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a
manner that could lead to accidental release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Compliance with existing federal and state regulations and
implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies would reduce risks associated with the
accidental release of hazardous materials. However, development of the City’s
Maintenance Yard or other sites in the city could release known or unknown hazardous
materials which would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.7-2a For any development activities that would encroach upon or take place at the City’s
Maintenance Yard, the City shall require the preparation and implementation of a Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to be approved by the
appropriate agencies.
MM 4.7-2b Future discretionary projects involving the use of hazardous materials that may be
accidentally released or encountered during construction shall be required to implement
the following procedures:
Stop all work in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release.
Identify the scope and immediacy of the problem.
Coordinate with responsible agencies (Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, or US Environmental Protection Agency).
Conduct the necessary investigation and remediation activities to resolve the
situation before continuing construction work as required by state and local
regulations.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM
4.7-2a and MM 4.7-2b would ensure that accidental release of hazardous materials
into the environment, either from redevelopment at the City Yard of from unknown
contamination, would be remediated in accordance with state and local
regulations in a manner that would protect public health during construction
activities and later use of the site. g. 4.11-2 Groundborne Vibrations or Groundborne Noise Levels
Impact:
PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a
manner that may expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.11-2 For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards would
be exceeded, the City shall require the applicant to have a structural engineer prepare a
report demonstrating the following:
Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned
demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed
Attachment 1C
157
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
17
acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table
4.114 as standards.
Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration
level limits are not exceeded.
A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes
post‐construction and post‐demolition surveys of existing structures that would be
impacted.
Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or
construction include but are not limited to:
Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment.
Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment.
Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete.
Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources.
Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision-making for subsequent
activities.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated
above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that
is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM
4.11-2 would minimize impacts on sensitive structures from groundborne vibration to
acceptable levels.
1.5.4 FINDING THAT MITIGATION OF CERTAIN IMPACTS IS WITHIN THE
RESPONSIBILITY AND JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY No mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of
another public agency.
1.5.5 FINDINGS THAT IDENTIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES OR MITIGATION
MEASURES ARE NOT FEASIBLE
All mitigation measures discussed herein are feasible. Where potential mitigation has
been deemed infeasible, it is discussed in the DEIR and above sections. All feasible
mitigation has been recommended and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for this project.
The FEIR examines three alternatives:
Alternative 1 – Retain Existing General Plan/ Coastal Land Use Plan
Alternative 2 – Achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030
Alternative 3 – Stronger Retention of Visual and Cultural Resources
a. Alternative 1: Retain Existing General Plan/ Coastal Land Use Plan
Alternative:
This alternative assumes that PLAN Hermosa would not be implemented and that future
development would proceed as indicated in the existing General Plan and Coastal Land
Use Plan. Hermosa Beach would continue to grow and develop consistent with currently
allowable land uses according to the existing 1980 Land Use Element (Figure 33);
however, redevelopment patterns would be expected to be similar
to PLAN Hermosa because the same infill properties would be vacant or available for
Attachment 1C
158
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
18
redevelopment, resulting in increased intensity of development within an identical
development footprint as PLAN Hermosa. Table 6.0-2 provides an estimate of what
density or intensity of development is estimated to be allowed under the adopted
General Plan, compared to the proposed densities and intensities of PLAN Hermosa. Note
that the existing General Plan does not include Floor Area Ratios (FAR) but has setback
and height requirements which can be used to calculate an estimate of FAR allowed
based on recent approved or constructed projects.
Table 6.0-2
Comparison of Allowed/Estimated Density and Intensity
No Project
Alternative Proposed under
PLAN Hermosa
Allowed Density/Intensity
Comparison of No Project to PLAN
Hermosa
Land Use Designation Max Min Max
Low Density (du/ac) 13.0 2.0 13.0 Similar
Medium Density (du/ac) 25.0 13.1 25.0 Similar
High Density (du/ac) 33.0 25.1 33.0 Similar
Mobile Home (du/ac) 13.0 2.0 13.0 Similar
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR) 1.0 0.5 1.0 Similar
Community Commercial (FAR) 1.75 0.5 1.25 Greater
Recreational Commercial (FAR) 2.5 1.0 1.75 Greater
Gateway Commercial(FAR) 1.5 1.0 2.0 Lesser
Service Commercial(FAR) 1.0 0.25 0.5 Greater
Light Industrial Creative (FAR) 0.75 0.25 1.0 Lesser
Public Facilities(FAR) n/a 0.1 1.0 Similar
Open Space (FAR) n/a 0.0 0.1 Similar
City Beach(FAR) n/a 0.0 0.05 Similar
Source: City of Hermosa Beach, 2015.
Italicized lines indicate new or altered land use designations introduced through PLAN
Hermosa.
This alternative is analyzed in this EIR, as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), the “no project”
analysis shall discuss “what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if
the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services.”
As shown in Table 6.0-2, the No Project Alternative would allow for similar levels of
residential development as PLAN Hermosa. For nonresidential development, the No
Project Alternative would allow for greater levels of development in the Community
Commercial, Recreational Commercial, Service Commercial designations, and lesser
levels of development in the Gateway Commercial and Light Industrial Creative
designation than is proposed under PLAN Hermosa. All other nonresidential or institutional
categories propose similar levels of allowed development intensity for both PLAN
Hermosa and the No Project Alternative.
Additionally, as shown in Table 6.0-3 (No Project/Existing General Plan Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips Generated), Alternative 1 would result in 30,000
more VMT per day and 2,600 more daily vehicle trips compared to PLAN Hermosa.
Attachment 1C
159
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
19
Table 6.0-3
No Project/Existing General Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips
Generated
Scenario Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Daily Vehicle Trips
2040No Project Alternative 356,000 37,200
2040 PLAN Hermosa 326,000 34,600
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Traffic Study 2015
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that:
Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives
established for PLAN Hermosa. The existing General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan can reasonably achieve project objectives to enhance and support a strong,
diverse, and vibrant local economy (Objective 2) and provide a safe and clean
natural environment (Objective 4) by relying on the existing policies and programs
related to economic development and resource conservation. Additionally, the
existing General Plan contains an element on Urban Design, however it fails to
establish various character areas and identify the unique characteristics of each
area, making it difficult to effectively achieve project Objective 1, to preserve the
city’s small beach town character. Finally, while the existing General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan contain policies and programs to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and expand alternative modes of transportation, these documents do
not identify promoting healthy and active lifestyles (Objective 3) and achieving a
low or no carbon future (Objective 5) as the primary motivation for including such
policies, nor do the mobility policies and programs contained within the existing
General Plan advance the reduction in VMT enough to claim that they can
effectively achieve Objectives 3 and 5.
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The No Project Alternative would not lessen any environmental impacts compared
to the proposed project, and instead would have greater impacts to aesthetics
and visual resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, community
facilities, and utilities, and transportation.
Feasibility
Alternative 1 is infeasible as it would not meet the updated goals and policies
clearly expressed by the City of Hermosa Beach and set forth in the PLAN
Hermosa such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating a vibrant local
economy and a fostering a healthy and safe environment. The City is committed
to providing the community with a current, long-range planning document that
is reflective of the changing conditions and new state requirements (i.e., AB 32
and SB 375), as well as consistent with current planning trends, as proposed in the
PLAN Hermosa. The existing General Plan does not address current planning
trends or new state requirements. Because of these factors, the existing General
Plan would not adequately address the economic, environmental, and social
needs of the community. Given that this alternative would not achieve the
Attachment 1C
160
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
20
project objectives and also would not lessen any environmental impacts
compared to the proposed project, the Planning Commission finds that this
alternative is infeasible.
b. Alternative 2: Achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030 Alternative:
This alternative would be focused on achieving a community-wide goal of carbon
neutrality by 2030. Carbon neutrality is the state of achieving net zero carbon emissions,
generally by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent
amount sequestered or offset by the community. There are two primary differences
between this alternative and the proposed draft of PLAN Hermosa which currently
includes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than the year 2040:
1. expediting achievement of a carbon neutral goal by ten years from 2040 to 2030
and
2. bypassing the use of carbon credits to offset carbon emissions that could not be
eliminated.
Changing these two parameters would have a number of effects on the proposed
project. While the total level of local reductions needed to achieve a carbon neutral
goal by 2030 or 2040 are virtually identical, the number of years to achieve the goal
would be reduced from 24 years to just 14. A 2030 goal would necessitate the
implementation of new policies and programs each year to reduce emissions at a rate
of 6,750 MTCO2e/yr, compared to annual reductions of 3,975 MTCO2e/yr for a 2040 goal.
To do this, the following steps would be taken to modify PLAN Hermosa to increase and
accelerate the rate of carbon emissions reductions from the energy, waste and
transportation sectors:
Require onsite renewable energy generation and Zero Net Energy as part of all new
construction and major building renovations.
Mandate retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency at time of sale,
through rental inspections, and prior to issuance of building permits.
Eliminate the use of natural gas within the city through the installation of biogas
technologies and electrification of heating and cooking appliances and fixtures
within the building stock.
Participate in a Community Choice Aggregation program or other similar program
and procure or generate renewable energy to account for 100% of the energy
portfolio by increasing the rate of installation for local renewable energy generation
sources or procuring long-term renewable energy contracts for sources outside of the
city.
Modify Land Use Designations to facilitate mixed-use development and increase
commercial and residential densities within the Community Commercial and
Gateway Commercial designations to facilitate shorter trips lengths and increase the
number of trips captured internally.
Attachment 1C
161
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
21
Mandate public and private clean fuel and electric vehicle infrastructure to facilitate
deployment of electric vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles and/or clean fuel
vehicles.
Modify parking standards and programs to disincentivize conventionally fueled
automobile use, and incentivize alternative modes of transportation and zero-
emission vehicle use through programs that include, but are not limited to: increases
in the cost of public-parking, elimination of parking minimums and establishment of
maximums for new development, elimination of practices to assign parking spaces to
particular uses, and changes to the preferential parking permit program.
Pursue regional transportation projects and infrastructure to facilitate carbon-free
regional travel options.
Mandate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for institutions and
businesses.
Accelerate the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle network investments,
electric vehicle and alternative fuel infrastructure, programs to achieve zero waste,
and net zero energy requirements.
This Carbon Neutral by 2030 Alternative with the added or modified policies would result
in greater levels of emissions reductions compared to the policies and programs
proposed in PLAN Hermosa, as noted in Table 6.0-4.
Attachment 1C
162
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
22
Table 6.0-4
Comparison of Emissions Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs 2040
2030 Scenario 2040 Scenario
Share of
Carbon
Reductions
(%)
Annual Carbon
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Carbon
Reductions
(%)
Annual Carbon
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Baseline 2005 Emissions 137,160 137,160
2012 Emissions -7.7% 126,610 -7.7% 126,610
BAU Emissions (2040) +1.2% 128,290 +5.0% 133,430
State Programs (2040) -24.6% 33,750 -27.7% 38,010
Local Remaining Emissions to be Reduced 94,540 95,420
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency -0.8% 1,090 -1.3% 1,810
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 -4.4% 6,100
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency -1.2% 1,690 -2.0% 2,810
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 -2.0% 2,770
Sub Total -8.5% 11,650 -9.8% 13,490
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar -5.8% 8,020 -5.9% 8,100
Community Solar -27.0% 36,990 -0.4% 550
Community Choice Aggregation -7.5% 10,290 -7.3% 10,010
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 -0.0% 0
Sub Total -40.3% 55,300 -13.6% 18,660
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -8.1% 11,130 -4.0% 5,500
Additional Transportation Strategies -3.2% 4,450 -1.9% 2,560
Electric Vehicles -5.7% 7,750 -7.4% 10,100
Sub Total -17.0% 23,330 -13.0% 18,160
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,430 -2.5% 3,480
Water + Wastewater -0.6% 840 -0.2% 330
Purchase Offsets -0.0% 0 -30.1% 41,310
Sub Total -3.1% 4,270 -32.9% 45,120
TOTAL -100.0% 94,540 -100.0% 95,420
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool 2015.
Attachment 1C
163
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
23
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that:
Project Objectives
The Carbon Neutral by 2030 Alternative has the ability to substantially support
each of the project objectives identified. Implementation of this alternative would
prioritize the achievement of a low or no carbon future (Objective 5), while
also providing a safe and clean natural environment (Objective 4) and promoting
healthy and active lifestyles through land use and transportation investments
(Objective 3) by reducing air quality and transportation impacts compared to the
proposed project. This alternative would also meet Objective 2, enhance and
support a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy, as many of the land use
and transportation policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled do so by providing
a greater range of daily services and employment opportunities within closer
proximity so that residents may reasonably choose to utilize alternative modes of
transportation.
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
This alternative could pose greater impacts to aesthetics and biological resources
due to increased use of renewable energy systems such as solar, wind, or ocean-
based renewable energy sources, and greater impacts to cultural resources due
to greater alteration or demolition of designated or potentially eligible historic
resources to construct high energy performance buildings. While the impacts to
aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources may be greater than the
proposed project, it is unknown whether they would rise to the level of
being considered a significant impact, because the specific design and location
of additional renewable energy projects cannot be determined at this time.
This alternative would also have far reaching environmental benefits for Hermosa
Beach by decreasing impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
noise and vibration, and transportation. Air pollutants associated with the burning
of fuel for building energy and transportation uses would be reduced. Noise levels
would likely be somewhat better as the primary source of noise in Hermosa Beach
is automobile use. Reduced automobile use and an increase in electric vehicles,
which are quieter than gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, would reduce noise
levels. Transportation impacts would also likely be decreased as this alternative
would result in a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
Feasibility
The Planning Commission should consider whether this alternative can feasibly be
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
The Planning Commission should also consider whether this alternative successfully
achieves the stated project objectives and lessens environmental impacts
compared to the proposed project. If the Planning Commission determines this
alternative to be infeasible, this section will be updated to incorporate the
findings. [Feasibility of Alternatives to be filled in following Planning Commission
discussion.]
Attachment 1C
164
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
24
c. Alternative 3: Stronger Retention of Visual and Cultural Resources
Alternative:
This alternative would focus on implementing additional policies or implementation
actions that would facilitate greater retention of visual and cultural resources in Hermosa
Beach. While PLAN Hermosa includes several goals and policies to address community
character, historic buildings, and scenic views, they largely do so in a manner that
encourages rather than mandates the protection of these resources. To facilitate greater
retention of the existing visual and cultural resources in Hermosa Beach the steps taken
to modify PLAN Hermosa would include:
Reduction in density or establishment of Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for Medium and High
Density Residential (reduce capacity to encourage retention of existing buildings that
contribute to the character of residential neighborhoods).
Establishment of an overall cap or reduction in development intensity for the
Community Commercial and Recreational Commercial land use designations to
limit the scale and amount of additional development or increased redevelopment
within those areas.
Addition of mixed use designation to allow limited residential development, in
conjunction with commercial uses, accommodating the projected population
growth reduced through changes to medium and high-density designations.
Development of design standards (as opposed to guidelines) to
address the compatibility of building scale, design aesthetics, and community
character for residential and commercial neighborhoods.
Addition of historic resource protection policies, including City initiation of historic
landmark designation of potentially eligible historic resources.
Achievement as a Certified Local Government (CLG) by the California Office of
Historic Preservation, including establishment of an historic preservation commission.
Development of a historic preservation plan, historic context statement, and/or
historic preservation element of the General Plan.
Establishment of view protection ordinances and development standards to
physically depict building form/massing in the evaluation of a project’s impact on
views.
Change the issuance of a demolition permit from a ministerial action to a
discretionary action for those properties that have been identified as a potentially
eligible historic resource.
This Character Retention Alternative, with the added or modified policies, would result in
greater levels of certainty that cultural and visual resources would be retained,
compared to the policies and programs proposed in PLAN Hermosa. However, the
policies in this alternative may also discourage the redevelopment, reuse, or
renovation of existing buildings and structures which will be necessary to improve energy
efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.
Finding:
The Planning Commission finds that:
Project Objectives
The Character Retention Alternative prioritizes achievement of Objective 1,
preserve the city’s small beach town character, and Objective 2, to enhance and
support a strong, diverse and vibrant local economy through safe and beautiful
Attachment 1C
165
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
25
commercial corridors, but would not conflict or prevent the achievement of the
other project objectives. This alternative would provide similar policies and
implementation actions to PLAN Hermosa related to the mobility network,
transportation enhancements, and resource conservation, meaning it would
equally achieve project Objective 3 to promote healthy and active lifestyles and
project Objective 4 to provide a safe and clean environment including clean air
and water.
While this alternative may have a slightly greater impact on greenhouse gas
emissions, it would carry forward similar policies to PLAN Hermosa related to
reducing emissions from transportation sources, water conservation, and diverting
solid waste from landfills to support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
partially consistent with Project Objective 5, to achieve a low or no carbon future.
However, reductions in the amount of new development allowed could mean
limited opportunities to realize certain sustainability programs.
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
This Character Retention Alternative would pose greater impacts to greenhouse
gas emissions compared to PLAN Hermosa. The challenge of renovating or
constructing high energy performance buildings in a manner that does not
diminish the significance of a historical resource or cause potentially eligible
historic resources to become ineligible due to alterations that are inconsistent
with standards for the treatment of historical resources is presented in this
alternative.
This alternative would also reduce impacts associated with aesthetics and visual
resources, air quality, and cultural resources, where both construction related air
quality impacts and significance of a historical resource are both considered
significant and unavoidable impacts under implementation of PLAN Hermosa.
However, it is unknown whether this alternative would lessen these impacts to
levels that are considered less than significant.
Feasibility
The Planning Commission should consider whether this alternative can feasibly be
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
The Planning Commission should also consider whether this alternative successfully
achieves the stated project objectives and lessens environmental impacts
compared to the proposed project. If the Planning Commission determines this
alternative to be infeasible, this section will be updated to incorporate the
findings.
[Feasibility of Alternatives to be filled in following Planning Commission discussion.]
Environmentally Superior Alternative:
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative”.
Based on the alternative analysis, both the Carbon Neutral by 2030 and Character
Retention Alternatives would reduce several of the categories listed as Potentially
Attachment 1C
166
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
26
Significant or Significant and Unavoidable under the proposed project. The No Project
Alternative would have potentially greater impacts to several categories, including:
aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services,
and transportation. The Carbon Neutrality by 2030 Alternative would also have potentially
greater impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources, and cultural
resources, while the Character Retention Alternative would only cause potentially
greater impacts to one category, greenhouse gas emissions. [Feasibility of Alternatives to
be filled in following Planning Commission discussion.]
1.6 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has
balanced the benefits of the proposed PLAN Hermosa against the unavoidable adverse
impacts associated with the proposed project and has adopted all feasible mitigation
measures. The City has also examined alternatives to the proposed project, and has
determined that adoption and implementation of the proposed project is the most
desirable, feasible, and appropriate action.
1.6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The proposed project would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse
impacts after mitigation:
1. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in
a manner that could generate air pollutant emissions from short-term construction.
Although PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement of current
SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce short-term emissions,
construction emissions would result in a significant impact.
2. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South
Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of air quality emissions occurring within
the basin and affect the region’s ability to attain ambient air quality standards.
This would result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
3. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would provide for future development and
reuse projects in the city in a manner that could cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. Although implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and actions would
protect historical resources, this would be a potentially significant impact.
4. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated future development
in the South Bay Cities COG planning area could cause a substantial change in
the significance of a historical resource. The loss of some historical resources may
be prevented through implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and similar
policies in other communities. However, this would not ensure that these resources
can be protected and preserved. This impact would be cumulatively
considerable.
5. The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard would be
significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in both the morning and
evening peak periods.
Attachment 1C
167
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
27
6. The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard is significantly
impacted by PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in the morning peak period.
7. The intersection at Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street is significantly impacted by
PLAN Hermosa-related traffic in the morning peak period.
8. Through implementation of PLAN Hermosa, the roadway segment on Prospect
Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2nd Street would be degraded from its current
operation at an LOS C to an LOS D by 2040. While this is improved from the
projected LOS E that would be experienced under the 2040 scenario without PLAN
Hermosa, it still represents a significant impact.
9. PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the City in
a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within the city. Both
the City’s and Caltrans’s existing level of service standards for intersections and
roadway segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and
segments analyzed. Nonetheless, three intersections and one segment would
experience a cumulatively considerable impact.
1.6.2 PROJECT BENEFITS
The City has balanced the proposed project’s benefits against its significant and
unavoidable impacts. The City finds that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the
significant and unavoidable impacts and, therefore, that those impacts are acceptable
in light of the proposed project’s benefits. The City finds that each of the following
benefits is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants
approval of the proposed project notwithstanding the proposed project’s significant and
unavoidable impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, and transportation. The
proposed project would provide several public benefits as described below:
1. Provides a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, last adopted in 1979,
and the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan, certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982,
to reflect the community’s values and vision for the City, provides updated policy
directives to guide development in the City over the next 25 years, and addresses
topics that have emerged as important priorities since the last update including
greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise, complete streets, infrastructure.
2. The proposed PLAN is more focused and user-friendly, comprehensively addresses
recent changing conditions in the City, and would implement smart growth
principles, concepts of sustainable development and resource management,
and environmental protection.
3. Preserves the city’s small beach town character through policies and design
standards that maintain buildings at an appropriate scale and size with existing
ones (including potentially historic buildings) and recognizes the unique features
of the city’s eclectic residential neighborhoods.
4. Enhances and supports a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy through
policies that stimulate sustainable businesses and jobs, enhance safe and
beautiful commercial corridors, articulate clear and consistent standards for new
businesses, and provide convenient services to residents, employees, and visitors.
5. Promotes healthy and active lifestyles through land use and transportation
improvements that enhance pedestrian, transit, and bike safety and access to a
variety of destinations in the city.
Attachment 1C
168
DRAFT PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
February 2017
28
6. Provide a safe and clean natural environment – including clean air and water -
and stewardship of our ocean resources, open space, and other natural
resources.
7. Will help the City achieve a low or no carbon future through the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fuel consumption, diverting solid waste
from landfills, conserving water and improving the efficiency of energy use and
utilizing renewable energy sources, benefitting the local and global environment.
8. The transportation system in the PLAN strategically links land use and transportation
to make efficient use of the existing roadway capacity through the promotion of
a multi-modal circulation system, including improvements to the pedestrian,
transit, and bicycling environment in the City of Hermosa Beach.
9. Through its sustainability policies, the PLAN would help promote energy efficiency,
the conservation of water resources, and encourage the reduction of waste
through recycling, providing a local, statewide, national and ultimately global
benefit.
Finding:
The proposed project represents a balance between several competing objectives in
the City of Hermosa Beach. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, and
technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the Planning Commission has
determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified may be
considered acceptable due to the specific considerations listed above which offset the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that will be caused by implementation of
the project.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record it is hereby
determined that:
All significant Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation effects on the
environment due to approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially
lessened where feasible; and
Any remaining significant Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Transportation
effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the
factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above.
1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d)
require the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
project that it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to avoid or
substantially lessen significant effects on the environment. The monitoring program is
hereby adopted for the project. The monitoring program is designed to ensure
compliance with required mitigation measures.
Attachment 1C
169
Page 1 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT PLAN HERMOSA, THE INTEGRATED GENERAL
PLAN AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CONFIRM THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIONS ADEQUATELY CARRY OUT THE GOALS AND POLICIES
OF PLAN HERMOSA, AND DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. In July 2013, the City of Hermosa Beach initiated a comprehensive update
to the General Plan, including the integration of the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan consistent with
guidance from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that “to simplify
implementation, coastal zone communities should integrate both sets of requirements (General
Plan Requirements and Coastal Act Requirements) into a coherent and internally consistent local
general plan.”
SECTION 2. The Hermosa Beach community has had the opportunity to participate in the
development and refinement of PLAN Hermosa through many avenues, including nineteen City
Council/Commission meetings to date (including Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Public Works Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission),
five community workshops, three educational series sessions, two citywide mailings, an online
engagement opportunity, walking tours, and numerous press releases and reports in local papers
about the process. At the direction of the City Council, the City Manager also appointed a fifteen-
member General Plan Working Group, consisting of at least one representative of every City
Commission as well as members of key community groups. The Working Group held more than a
dozen meetings during the development of the PLAN Hermosa, during which the group provided
feedback regarding key policy topics and input on the community engagement process.
170
Page 2 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SECTION 3. PLAN Hermosa includes comprehensive revisions to all previous elements
of the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element. PLAN Hermosa contains each of
the seven required topics under Government Code Section 65302, as follows:
A. Land Use, contained in the Land Use + Design Element, describing the general
distribution and location of land uses, standards of population density and building
intensity;
B. Circulation, contained in the Mobility Element, describing the general location and
extent of existing and proposed thoroughfares and transportation routes, correlated with
the land use element;
C. Housing; is not included in this update and was certified by the California Department
of Housing and Community Development on October 18, 2013.
D. Conservation, contained in the Sustainability + Conservation Element for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources;
E. Open Space, contained in the Parks + Open Space Element; identifying areas intended
to preserve natural resources, serve outdoor recreational needs, and demand/opportunity
for recreational trails.
F. Noise, contained in the Noise Element, analyzing current and projected noise levels
from vehicles and stationary sources, providing noise contour maps for these sources,
and discussing possible solutions to address noise problems; and
G. Safety, contained in the Public Safety Element, for the protection of the community
from seismic hazards, flooding, and other risks.
SECTION 4. PLAN Hermosa also addresses several optional topics that are of particular
importance to the Hermosa Beach community, as allowed by Government Code section 65303,
including Governance and Infrastructure Elements.
SECTION 5. The City of Hermosa Beach does not include any land classified as state
responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, or very high fire
hazard severity zones, as defined in Section 51177 and therefore the Public Safety Element is not
subject to the requirements and guidance identified in California Government Code Section
171
Page 3 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
65302(g)(3) regarding fire hazards. Additionally, the City of Hermosa Beach does not include any
disadvantaged communities, as defined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Tool or designated through the implementation of Senate Bill
535. Therefore the General Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach is not subject to the requirements
identified in California Government Code Section 65302(h)(3) to prepare an Environmental Justice
Element.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Senate Bill 379 and California Government Code Section
65302(g)(4), the Public Safety Element has been developed to address climate adaptation and
resiliency strategies applicable to the City of Hermosa Beach and is consistent with the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research advice to:
conduct a vulnerability assessment identifying climate change risks
include a set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the
identified climate change vulnerabilities
identify a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies,
and objectives
incorporate a reference to the local hazard mitigation plan that fulfills goals and objectives
and contains information related to climate change vulnerability and adaptation policies
In the preparation of the Public Safety Element, the City of Hermosa Beach utilized the Cal Adapt
Tool and California Adaptation Planning Guide to identify climate change risks and determined
that sea level rise and extreme heat are the primary risk to Hermosa Beach. The impacts of sea
level rise were further evaluated in two studies: a social vulnerability assessment and infrastructure
vulnerability assessment to sea level rise. The findings in these studies were summarized in the
Public Safety Element, and a set of goals, policies, and implementation actions to address sea level
rise have been identified. The Public Safety Element also incorporates by reference the City of
Hermosa Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which contains additional information on the
assets, resources, and populations that may be at risk to various hazards.
SECTION 7. Portions of the City of Hermosa Beach are located within the Coastal Zone
and subject to the requirements of the California Public Resources Code, Division 20, California
172
Page 4 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Coastal Act of 1976, to prepare a Local Coastal Program consisting of a Coastal Land Use Plan
and Implementation Plan. PLAN Hermosa includes comprehensive revisions to the City’s Coastal
Land Use Plan, previously certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1982. PLAN
Hermosa contains each of the required topics for a Local Coastal Program as detailed in Chapter 3
of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Division 20 Section 30200) as follows:
A. Public Access, containing policies regarding recreational opportunities, development
projects, public facilities and lower cost visitor and recreational facilities within the
Land Use + Design, Mobility, Parks + Open Space and Infrastructure Elements;
B. Recreation, including protection of certain water-oriented activities, protection of
oceanfront land for recreational use, and priority of development purposes within the
Land Use + Design and Mobility Elements;
C. Marine Environment, containing policies regarding water quality, hazardous substance
spills, movement of sediment, construction altering natural shoreline, water supply and
flood control contained within the Sustainability + Conservation, Public Safety, and
Infrastructure Elements;
D. Land Resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, productivity of
soils, and archaeological or paleontological resources contained within the Governance,
Land Use + Design, Sustainability + Conservation, Parks + Open Space Elements;
E. Development, containing policies regarding existing developed area, scenic and visual
qualities, maintenance and enhancement of public access, minimization of adverse
impacts, public works facilities, and priority of coastal-dependent developments within
the Governance, Land Use + Design, Parks + Open Space, Public Safety, and
Infrastructure Elements;
F. Industrial Development, including location or expansion of coastal-dependent industrial
facilities, and renewable energy development contained within the Land Use + Design
and Sustainability + Conservation Elements.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City,
acting as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the project on August 7,
173
Page 5 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2015, beginning a 30-day review period. As part of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
scoping process, the City held a public scoping meeting at the Planning Commission meeting on
August 18, 2015, in the Hermosa Beach City Council Chambers. The NOP and letters received in
response to the NOP from both public agencies and members of the public are included in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 72-day review period beginning
October 26, 2016 and ending on January 5, 2017. As part of the Draft EIR review process, the
Planning Commission held a special meeting on November 21, 2016 to take public comment on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was made public on February 9, 2017. All required notifications
were provided pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5) and all comment
letters were incorporated into the Final EIR.
SECTION 9. In accordance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Government Code 69352.3,
and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Government Code 21000, the City of Hermosa Beach
requested a list of Tribal Organization contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission in
April 2014. The City of Hermosa Beach sent notifications to the appropriate tribal organizations in
January 2015 in compliance with SB 18, and again in August 2015 to comply with AB 52. The
City has complied with the requirements for tribal consultation and the findings of consultation
process can be found as Attachment C to the PC Resolution No. 17-____.
SECTION 10. The Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa was made available to the
public on December 15, 2015 as follows: digital copies were posted on the City’s website, and
hard copies were available for review at the Community Development Counter of City Hall, the
Police Department, the Community Center and the Hermosa Beach Library. Hard copies were also
made available to the community free of charge from the Community Development Department. A
city-wide mailing was produced and sent to all addresses within the City in January 2016 to let the
community know about opportunities to provide input or participate in meetings related to PLAN
Hermosa. Written comments on the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa were encouraged to
be submitted between December 15, 2015 and February 25, 2016 and were presented for
consideration by the City’s Commissions during their review of PLAN Hermosa. Opportunities to
provide verbal comments at the following public meetings:
174
Page 6 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
January 25, 2016 – Joint Study Session of the Planning Commission, Public Works
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory
Commission
January 26, 2016 – Study Session of the City Council
February 5-6, 2016 – Community Open House and Walking Tours
SECTION 11. The Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission held public
meetings to review the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa between March 2016 and June
2016 on the following dates:
March 15, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
March 28, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
April 5, 2016 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting (Parks + Open Space Element)
April 18, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Land Use + Design Element)
April 19, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Mobility Element)
April 25, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Mobility Element)
May 9, 2016 - EPAC Meeting (Public Safety Element)
May 16, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Sustainability + Conservation)
May 18, 2016 - Public Works Commission Meeting (Mobility Element)
June 15, 2016 - Public Works Commission Meeting (Infrastructure, Public Safety
Elements)
June 20, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Governance, Parks + Open Space,
Infrastructure Elements)
June 21, 2016 - Planning Commission Study Session (Public Safety Element)
Through these meetings, all of the commissions have recommended modifications to the
document. The changes to PLAN Hermosa that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council include input from the Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission and are detailed in Attachment B to the this
resolution.
175
Page 7 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SECTION 12. Copies of the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa were submitted to
the required state agencies for review on as part of the Environmental Review process on October
26, 2016. The City also consulted with local water and utility providers and other agencies in
preparation of PLAN Hermosa.
SECTION 13. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was
advertised in The Easy Reader Newspaper on February 16, 2017. Notification of the Public
Hearing was also shared with the local press and was also distributed via the City’s eNotify, Nixle
and Nextdoor communication systems to the Hermosa Beach community.
SECTION 14. The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission has held duly noticed public
hearings on the adoption of PLAN Hermosa and the associated Environmental Impact Report on
February 22, 2017 and has given all interested persons an opportunity to be heard.
SECTION 15. The City of Hermosa Beach prepared the PLAN Hermosa Program EIR
(State Clearinghouse #2015081009) in its capacity as lead agency under CEQA and in compliance
with CEQA. The Final EIR consists of the NOP, Notice of Availability, the Draft EIR including
technical appendices, the Responses to Comments, Final Corrections and Additions, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Project Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations Recommending the adoption of PLAN Hermosa, these documents will be referred
to collectively as the “Final EIR.” These Findings are based on the entire record before the
Planning Commission, including the Final EIR. The Planning Commission recommended the City
Council certify the EIR and adopt the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in PC Resolution No. 17-____.
SECTION 16. PLAN Hermosa was completed in compliance with the requirements of
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.
SECTION 17. The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission has reviewed and considered
the PLAN Hermosa Public Review Draft, dated December 2015, and finds that it is consistent with
and reflective of the City’s continuing goals, policies, actions and intent to adopt a general plan for
the physical development of the City. The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission further finds that
the Draft Implementation Actions contained in Attachment C to this resolution adequately carry
176
Page 8 of 8 17-____
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
out the goals and policies of PLAN Hermosa, as amended by Attachment B. Based on the
foregoing evidence and findings, the Planning hereby recommends that the City Council amend
the existing General Plan, with the exception of the City’s Certified Housing Element, by replacing
it with PLAN Hermosa subject to the modifications listed in Attachment B to this resolution as the
General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach. The City’s Certified Housing Element shall remain in
effect.
SECTION 18. Based on evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby finds
that PLAN Hermosa meets the requirements of, and is in conformance with the policies and
requirements of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act, and recommends amending the existing
certified Coastal Land Use Plan in its entirety by replacing it with PLAN Hermosa subject to
modifications listed in Attachment B as the Coastal Land Use Plan portion of the City’s Local
Coastal Program. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends that the City Council
direct staff to submit PLAN Hermosa to the California Coastal Commission for certification, in
conformance with the submittal requirements specified in California Code of Regulation, Title 14,
Division 5.5, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2, Article 7 and Chapter 6, Article 2and Code of Regulations
Section 13551, et. seq.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED BY A MOTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH ON THIS ___ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017.
______________________________
Ken Robertson, Secretary
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Michael Flaherty, Chairman
Date
177
PLAN Hermosacity of hermosa beach
Public Review Draft
December 2015
178
179
PLAN HERMOSA | 3
hello.
PLAN Hermosa presents our vision for Hermosa Beach over the next 25 years. This Plan is the culmination of a multi-year community-wide effort to reflect and define who we
want to be as a community. We seek to retain our reputation as the “Best Little Beach
City” while simultaneously enhancing our local economy and making strides to improve
the health of our environment and our residents.
PLAN Hermosa articulates the community vision through the integration of two important planning documents for the City of Hermosa Beach: the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program. Organized around a framework for sustainability, each section
of this Plan addresses different aspects of our community and identifies measurable
actions to guide residents, decision-makers, businesses, and City staff toward achieving
our vision. PLAN Hermosa establishes goals that will help us achieve our long term vision as a community that values our small beach town character, vibrant economy, and
healthy environment and lifestyles.
This is our plan for our future. We take great pride in this document, and we are
committed to achieving our collective community vision.
180
4 |
acknowledgments.
city council
Carolyn Petty, Mayor
Hany Fangary, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Duclos
Justin Massey
city staff
Tom Bakaly
Pete Bonano
Andrew Brozyna
Kim Chafin
Viki Copeland
Erin Concas
James Crawford
Nico De Anda-Scaia
Nicole Ellis
Ells Freeman
public works commission
Janice Brittain
Kathy Dunbabin
Andrea Giancoli
Kim MacMullan
Justin Schnuelle
planning commission
Kent Allen
Michael Flaherty
Peter Hoffman
Ron Pizer
Rob Saemann
parks + recreation commission
Jessica Guheen
Jani Lange
Maureen Lewis
Isabel Rodriguez
Robert Rosenfeld
emergency preparedness
advisory commission
Alan Benson
Dave Buckland
Cheryl Cross
William Hallett
Gila Katz
Dave Munoz
Matt McCool
Aaron Gudelj
Michael Jenkins
Kathy Khang
Milton McKinnon
Kristy Morris
Kelly Orta
Sharon Papa
Ken Robertson
Pamela Townsend
Funding support for this update was provided through grants from the California Strategic Growth Council and the California Coastal Commission.
Icons provided by Noun Project: Rabee Balakrishnan, Frederico Panzano, Matt Brooks, Gloria Vigano, jon trillana, Gilad Fired, iconsmind.com, 23 icons, Simple Icons
Images provided by Hermosa Beach Historical Society; Miller and Roberts, Images of America; Los Angeles Public Library Images Archive; City of Hermosa Beach; Raimi + Associates; Hermosa Beach Murals Project, John Van Hamersveld
Public Review Draft 181
PLAN HERMOSA | 5
consultant team
Raimi + Associates
Fehr & Peers
Michael Baker International
Lisa Wise Consulting
technical advisory committee
Hermosa Beach Historical Society
Hermosa Beach City School District
Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments
City of Redondo Beach
City of Manhattan Beach
LA County Department of Beaches and Harbors
Caltrans
South Bay Bicycle Coalition
LA County Metro
This effort would not have been possible without the participation and commitment of the community to move Hermosa Beach forward.
community working group
Jennifer Buchsbaum
Karen Cron
Pat Escalante
Michael Flaherty
Lori Ford
Andrea Giancoli
Jessica Guheen
Peter Hoffman
Bob Jones
Ruben Jubinsky
Mike Miller
Dean Nota
Glen Payne
George Schmeltzer
Justin Schnuelle
Erica Seward
USC Sea Grant
California Coastal Commission – South Coast District
Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Heal the Bay West Basin Water District
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
Surfrider Foundation – South Bay Chapter
LA County Department of Public Health
Beach Cities Health District
Wieland Acoustics
PCR Services
Susi Moser Research & Consulting
Public Review Draft 182
6 |
contents.
vision + guiding principles
introduction
1 governance
2 land use + design
3 mobility
4 sustainability + conservation
5 parks + open space
6 public safety
7 infrastructure
implementation
referenced plans
glossary
7
9
32
49
103
131
145
169
199
211
214
220
Public Review Draft 183
PLAN HERMOSA | 7
Vision Statement
Hermosa Beach is the small town others aspire to be; a place where
our beach culture, strong sense of community, and commitment to sustainability intersect.
Our small town, beach culture
Our beautiful beach, eclectic neighborhoods, unique commercial districts, and welcoming gateways create an unrivaled coastal destination. Our exceptional local schools and outstanding municipal services contribute to an extraordinarily high quality of life at the beach.
Our vibrant local economy
Hermosa Beach residents can work, shop, and play locally.
Our economy capitalizes on our entrepreneurial spirit, our
legacy of creativity, and our local businesses committed
to enhancing Hermosa Beach’s distinctive character. We
effectively balance our small town, beach culture with
our enviable position as a regional and statewide coastal
destination.
Our healthy environment and lifestyles
Hermosa Beach is committed to protecting our coastal
resources and takes a common sense approach to
reducing our environmental footprint. Our beach and open
spaces create unique places that support our active healthy
lifestyle. Our complete streets ensure all places within our
city are well-connected and easily accessible by walking
or biking. Our commitment to carbon neutrality and our
sustainable beach city identity attract residents, visitors, and
businesses that embrace the opportunity to live and work in
a healthy, active community.
1
2
3
our vision for the future
Public Review Draft 184
8 | VISION + GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Demonstrate our environmental leadership
• Hermosa Beach will be a responsible steward
of our ocean resources, open space, and other
natural resources as a healthy environment is the
foundation of a more livable, sustainable city and
high quality of life.
• Efficient water use, conservation, reuse, recycling
and retention at the local level is necessary for a
sustainable and resilient city.
• A steady, common sense approach is necessary
to advance a long-term goal of community-
wide carbon neutrality. Tackling environmental
challenges early and pro actively will maximize
options and minimize costs.
• Moving to carbon-free energy sources and
concurrently planning to adapt to climate
change will reduce greenhouse gases, increase
energy independence and resiliency.
• Climate action and adoption of environmental
targets will make Hermosa Beach an
environmental leader in Southern California.
Retain our high quality of life
• Our small scale, eclectic architecture and vibrant beach lifestyle is an unrivaled coastal asset.
• Our high quality schools, as well as city fire, police, library and beach, shape our identity as a first class municipality.
• Our beach, the ocean, green spaces and natural resources of all types are the foundation of our brand and high quality of life.
• Creating a place where people can live, work and play locally is key to balancing economy, community and environment.
• Our city government, places and spaces are designed to be accessible to connect people with all abilities and different stages of life.
Contribute to our economic and fiscal stability
• Our business mix serves the daily and leisure
needs of our residents, while providing a quality
experience for visitors.
• Diversified districts with local businesses provide
for the needs of residents as well as attracting
visitors support a robust and resilient economy.
• Our sustainable, resilient economy is supported
by keeping local dollars in the local economy
and maintaining a diversity of businesses and
revenue streams.
• Our desire for a high quality of life requires
balancing economy, environment, and
community through a ‘sustainability lens’ and
can attract like-minded entrepreneurs.
• People are engaged in a broad range of
enterprises creating a diverse economy and
providing fiscal stability.
Be a catalyst for innovation
• Our business culture cultivates innovation, the arts/creative industries, locally owned business, and environmental stewardship.
• Innovative, forward-thinking approaches to anticipating future lifestyles, transportation trends and environmental realities are necessary for creating a durable sustainability plan and attracting residents, visitors and others which seek positive change.
We seek to achieve our vision by making decisions and taking actions that help us to...
Guiding Principles
Public Review Draft 185
PLAN HERMOSA | 9
introduction
Role of the Plan
PLAN Hermosa, the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan for Hermosa Beach, provides a future vision, policies, and proposed actions to guide residents, decision-makers, staff members, project developers, and businesses in Hermosa Beach. For City staff, PLAN Hermosa is a guide to evaluate projects, structure City programs, and decide whether to pursue new opportunities. City officials will use the Plan as the basis for decision-making and to guide the development of new policies, ordinances, programs, initiatives and capital expenditures.
PLAN Hermosa will set the city on a trajectory for a more sustainable future. To do so, this Plan informs and is implemented by the City’s various ordinances, specific plans, programs, and ongoing activities. It sets the City’s overall policies and priorities for how to use and manage its physical, social, and economic resources. This Plan has been developed through an extensive public involvement process and thorough analysis and review by the community, boards and commissions, City staff, and elected officials. It documents a shared vision for the future and sets the policies and programs to achieve the City’s vision.
The Plan also informs community members of the ground rules that guide physical and social development within our community. Hermosa Beach residents will utilize the Plan to understand the predominant community consensus regarding how, when, and where the City should develop and change as a place to live, to work, and to invest. Current and potential business owners can utilize the Plan to understand economic development priorities and available resources, while developers use it to understand the City’s development needs, preferences, and desired physical parameters.
Public Review Draft 186
10 | INTRODUCTION
Parks + Open Space
The Parks and Open Space Element includes
goals, policies, and actions that provide for coastal
access and the provision of community facilities,
parks, and recreation opportunities. This element
includes coastal policies and actions for beach
programming, special events, and the preservation
of natural habitat and wildlife.
Public Safety
The Public Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and actions that protect the community from risk associated with natural hazards. The element places specific focus on hazards that could be made more severe with anticipated impacts of climate change. This element also incorporates the Noise Element, required by State Law, addressing major noise sources, existing and future noise levels, and the potential noise exposure to sensitive populations.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure Element provides goals,
policies, and actions to maintain and improve
infrastructure systems, including the water supply
system, sewer system, storm drain system, roads,
and telecommunications and utilities. This element
recommends new development approaches that
incorporate low-impact development standards to
manage stormwater runoff.
Coastal Land Use Plan
Topics required to comply with the California Coastal Act are integrated throughout the document. The icon to the right serves to identify those topics and policies that specifically meet the intent of the Coastal Act.
Community Governance
The Community Governance Element sets forth
the City’s legal authority to adopt and implement
the goals, policies, and actions of PLAN Hermosa.
Additionally, this element describes the associated
leadership, decision-making process, development
requirements, and regional coordination necessary
to achieve the goals, policies, and actions.
Land Use + Design
Land Use and Design are the cornerstone of PLAN Hermosa and the City’s fundamental guide to the evolution of the urban form and land use patterns in Hermosa Beach. The Land Use and Design Element goals, policies, and actions provide a blueprint for the physical development of the community by identifying the general location, distribution, and intensity of various residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses in Hermosa Beach.
Mobility
The Mobility Element is intended to facilitate mobility
of people and goods throughout Hermosa Beach
by a variety of modes, with balanced emphasis on
automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and alternative
fuel vehicles. This element identifies the general
location and extent of major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, parking facilities, and
alternative transportation facilities needed to
support a multimodal transportation system.
Sustainability + Conservation
The Sustainability and Conservation Element addresses the use and preservation of natural resources to improve the environmental quality of Hermosa Beach. This element includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; promote improved air quality; improve water quality; and promote green building.
Contents
PLAN Hermosa has been divided into seven elements. The certified Housing Element will not be amended as part of this effort as it was recently certified for the period covering 2013-2021. The topics covered by each element and the integration of Coastal Land Use Plan topics are briefly described below.
Public Review Draft 187
PLAN HERMOSA | 11
Context
The regional setting and colorful history of Hermosa Beach help tell the story of the community today and set the stage for the future of Hermosa Beach.
Regional Setting
Hermosa Beach is located along the southern end
of the Santa Monica Bay in Los Angeles County.
Regional topographic features including the Santa
Monica Bay and Mountains and the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, serve as the backdrop to Hermosa Beach.
The Pacific Ocean serves as the western city
boundary, while the city is bordered by Manhattan
Beach to the north, and Redondo Beach to
the south and east. Hermosa Beach is located
approximately 17 miles southwest of downtown Los
Angeles and 14 miles northwest of Long Beach. The
City’s regional location is depicted in FIgure 0.1.
Figure 0.1 Regional Setting
Local Setting
The city limits for Hermosa Beach encompass a
relatively small land area, approximately 1.4 square
miles. Hermosa Beach includes nearly two miles of
shoreline and varies in width between one-half mile
and approximately one mile inland.
Approximately 43% of the total land area in
Hermosa Beach is located within the Coastal Zone,
the boundaries of which are defined by the Coastal
Act. The coastal zone in Hermosa Beach, spans
the entire length of the city from north to south,
and extends from the mean high tide line inland
to Ardmore Avenue with two exclusions: the area
from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive between
Longfellow Avenue and 31st Place; and the area
east of Park Avenue or Loma Drive between 25th
Street and 16th Street. The boundaries of the City
and Coastal Zone are depicted in Figure 0.2.
Figure 0.2 Local Setting
Public Review Draft 188
12 | INTRODUCTION
Hermosa Beach History
Rancho and Early Development
Hermosa Beach and its immediate surrounding
communities are situated on land that once
constituted part of Rancho Sausal Redondo. During
the late 19th Century, the rancho grew barley and
other grains to graze sheep, horses and cattle.
In 1900, a tract of 1,500 acres was purchased for
$35 per acre, and this small strip of beachfront
property became Hermosa Beach. By 1901 the first
tract of Hermosa Beach was subdivided between
the boardwalk and Hermosa Avenue, with the land
between Hermosa Avenue and Summit Avenue
(later named Monterey Boulevard) subdivided later
that same year.
The first pier was built in 1904, made of all wood and
extending approximately 500 feet into the ocean.
By 1910, Hermosa Beach was a stop on the Pacific
Electric Railway, which included stops in Santa
Monica, Venice, and Redondo. The new rail line
brought a slew of tourists to the area, promoting
Hermosa Beach as a recreational getaway.
Aerial photo of Hermosa Beach circa 1930.
Hermosa Beach Cityhood
In January of 1907 the small beach community became the 19th incorporated city in Los Angeles County. To attract new residents and investors, the City spent thousands of dollars on improvements to its streets and lighting, participating in a “Good Roads Campaign,” providing well-paved boulevards connecting the city to the region. In 1913, plans were approved to develop a permanent concrete boardwalk, known today as The Strand, with matching ornamental lighting.
By the mid-1920s most of the coastal tracts had been subdivided for commercial or residential use. The dominant residential building type throughout Hermosa Beach during this era was the vernacular beach cottage, popular among most Southern California beach communities. In many cases these beach cottages contained elements of the popular Craftsman style. The Spanish Colonial Revival, Shingle, Arts and Crafts, and Period Revival styles were also prevalent among residences constructed during this time.
Aerial view of Hermosa Beach circa 1925.
Public Review Draft 189
PLAN HERMOSA | 13
In 1923 the Surf and Sand Club announced plans for
a clubhouse located on The Strand between 14th
and 15th streets. The elaborate clubhouse attracted
many new members to the club, with an artificially
heated swimming pool, dressing rooms and lockers,
ballroom, and 124 sleeping rooms with their own
bathrooms. In the 1930s the building was taken over
by hotel interests, becoming the Hermosa Biltmore
Hotel. The iconic structure changed hands and roles
a number of times before being torn down in 1969.
Post-World War II Growth
Following World War II, Southern California experienced a large population boom. Hermosa Beach experienced a similar boom, with the number of residents growing from 7,196 in 1940 to 16,115 by 1960. This resulted in the construction of many homes in the formerly rural area east of Camino Real (Pacific Coast Highway) with larger lots on Prospect Avenue compared to those along the coast.
The Civic Center complex was designed by Savo Stoshitch between 1961 and 1965, and includes buildings for City Hall, Public Library, Police Station and Fire Station. During the 1960s, the Santa Fe Railroad stopped using the Hermosa to Redondo line and removed the train tracks. The right-of-way was later protected from development by voter referendum and purchased by the City to create the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt during the late 1980s.
Beach Culture
Throughout the City’s history, the beach has been an integral part of local culture with an abundance of seaside activities. Surfing and beach volleyball are two activities that have firmly supplanted itself in the City’s history and culture.
Hermosa Beach has been home to many surfing professionals over the years and has hosted events promoting surfing, such as Hermosa Beach Surfing Club’s Annual Dance. Known as the mecca of surfboard shaping, Hermosa Beach is known for some of the earliest surfboard manufacturing, with several surfboard shapers still operating today.
An iconic part of Southern California beach culture, volleyball in Hermosa Beach dates back as far as 1938 when the Los Angeles Times reported on “fierce volleyball games” in Hermosa Beach. Organized leagues and tournaments have and continue to serve as an important recreational outlet in Hermosa Beach.Greg Noll Surfboards on Pacific Coast Highway
Hermosa Beach City Hall was dedicated in January 1965.
Built in 1923, the Surf and Sand Club, later the Biltmore Hotel was an iconic site along the Hermosa Beach coastline until 1969.
Public Review Draft 190
14 | INTRODUCTION under 55-910-1415-19 20-24 25-34 35-4445-5455-5960-6465-7475-84 85+
2% 5%4%3%3%2%
5%
23%
18%
15%
5% 5%
6%
Hermosa Beach in 2015
demographics.
natural environment.
transporation.
economy.
people live in Hermosa Beach19,772
26%50%
41% of the population is be-tween the ages of 25 and 44
51,000 vehicles make
their way through Hermosa Beach on PCH everyday
95% of employed Hermosa Beach residents leave the city for work
54% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation sources
median home values have increased 7.9% from 2014
$3 million
invested by Hermosa Beach residents and businesses to install solar PV systems
The waste diversion rate increased from 26% to over 50%
per capita annual retail sales is
approximately $14,882
Fiesta Hermosa attracts up to 150,000 visitors over the course of a 3-day weekend
$14,882
$1.4
million
54%
10,110
housing units
57% Rent
43% Own
90% of Hermosa Beach
employees live outside of the city
Sources: California Department of Finance, California Department of Transportation, Hermosa Beach CIty School District, City of Hermosa Beach, U.S. Census Bureau, zillow.com; 2010.
51% 47% 2% single-family multi-family mobile home
1,460 students enrolled in HBCSD schools
can commonly be found on The Strand on weekends
66% of weekend visitors
travel 10 miles or less to get to Hermosa Beach
1,000 bikes per hour
> 1 mi 1-3 mi 3-10 mi
10%26%30%
Public Review Draft 191
PLAN HERMOSA | 15
natural environment.Setting the Stage for a Sustainable Future
While Hermosa Beach and its residents have always taken pride in maintaining a sustainable and healthy environment, much has happened in the last five years to catalyze the community’s interest in clarifying its vision for a more sustainable future and the path forward.
Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan
In 2011, the City Council adopted the Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan. The Sustainability Plan identifies
local actions the City and people of Hermosa Beach can take to maintain a high quality of life without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The Sustainability Plan’s primary purpose
is to provide a foundation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping to chart the City’s path to a
carbon neutral future. The Sustainability Plan also identifies actions the City can take to protect the marine
environment, improve active transportation options and reduce automobile dependency, protect water
resources, improve the performance of buildings, and reduce solid waste.
Strategic Growth Council Grant
The City last comprehensively updated the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan in the early 1980s. While conditions and issues affecting the City have since changed and the community’s vision has evolved, the policies and action plans to guide the City’s growth and development have not been comprehensively updated to account for a growing interest and need to incorporate sustainability principles into the City’s policies and action plans.
The City’s commitment to sustainability was recognized by the California Strategic Growth Council, which has a mission to support community planning efforts organized around sustainability. This recognition was made clear in 2013 by the award of a substantial planning grant which made possible the update of the
Public Review Draft 192
16 | INTRODUCTION
General Plan. Through the grant procurement effort, the City stated 11 program initiatives that the General
Plan Update would investigate. These various program initiatives address specific attributes of a sustainable
community and are addressed throughout this Plan:
• Improve Air Quality and Water Quality
• Promote Infill and Compact Development
• Reduce Automobile Usage and Fuel Consumption
• Promote Water Conservation
• Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Revitalize Urban and Community Centers
In early 2014, Hermosa Beach was also awarded a grant by the California Coastal Commission to support
the comprehensive Coastal Land Use Plan update. These grants were awarded based on the City’s priority
objective to transform these plans into the City’s integrated and comprehensive “Blueprint for Sustainability
and a Low Carbon Future”.
• Strengthen the Economy
• Improve Infrastructure Systems
• Promote Equity
• Increase Affordable Housing
• Promote Public Health
Community Dialogue + Decision-Making Tool
The community’s desire to advance sustainability, enhance economic vitality, and preserve the eclectic
beach character, was further reinforced through the Community Dialogue process in 2013 and 2014.
The community engaged in setting the vision and defining the unique qualities for Hermosa Beach. The
Community Dialogue process culminated in the creation of a Decision-Making tool that aims to:
1. Enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our government.
2. Identify and optimize opportunities for residents and businesses to improve our quality of life in
Hermosa Beach.
3. Create a culture of innovation, so that our challenges become our opportunities and our
opportunities enhance our community brand.
4. Ensure the values and priorities of all residents and business owners are considered during the
analysis and deliberation of actions.
5. Deliver transparency to the decision-making process so that the public can make informed
decisions.
Thus, PLAN Hermosa was developed under a broad sustainability framework that aims to:
• Link environmental performance with economic vitality;
• Enhance coastal protection and sea level rise best practices;
• Leverage collaborative partnerships; and
• Advance implementation of sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction legislation.
Once adopted by the City Council, PLAN Hermosa will form the City’s overarching framework for decision-
making, with subsequent plans, programs, and activities designed to carry out the community’s vision, goals
and policies. The updated Plan will guide how the City should develop and change, and where funds and
resources for infrastructure, services and programs should be directed in a manner that most effectively
achieves the community vision.
Public Review Draft 193
PLAN HERMOSA | 17
Sustainability in Hermosa Beach
Environmental
Leadership
High Quality
of Life Economic + Fiscal Stability
Catalyst for
Innovation
Fundamentally, sustainability means the ability or characteristic of persisting over time. A sustainable community, then, is a community that is everlasting. This simple concept is the essence of our community’s approach to sustainability.
To be everlasting, we need a safe and healthy environment. Everything that we need for our survival and well being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations. Without the resources and services provided by the environment, such as clean air, water, and food, our community cannot thrive. This is especially important in Hermosa Beach, as the presence of a beautiful and clean ocean environment creates so much of the essence of our town.
To be everlasting, we need a high quality of life. It is through a high quality of life that our community members can become their best selves. It is through a high quality of life that we can attract and retain the best and brightest and provide opportunities to participate in the community and contribute to our world.
To be everlasting, we need a healthy, stable economy. It is through a healthy economy that we are able to have jobs and businesses that provide the wherewithal to provide food, shelter, and education for our families. It is also through a healthy economy that we are able to create a fiscally sound town where we are able to transform and apply capital for the restoration, preservation and protection of our natural environment.
Finally, to be everlasting, our community needs to be a catalyst for innovation. We live in an ever changing world. The notion of sustainability should not imply that we can freeze ourselves in time. In the face of constant change, we must continue to embrace our long-standing culture of creativity and innovation. By fostering innovation, we can ensure that we will remain relevant and competitive leaders.
This notion of sustainability is not a generic definition of sustainability pulled from a book. This is our unique definition of sustainability and is arises from our community values - values that have been consistently reiterated in multiple community forums over the years. This community-based definition of sustainability has formed the development of this Plan. The four aspects of sustainability described are crosscutting and thus serve as the organizing framework of the Guiding Principles: demonstrate our environmental leadership, retain our high quality of life, contribute to our economic and fiscal sustainability, and be a catalyst for innovation.
Every aspect of our town and community life is influenced by these aspects of sustainability. They are intertwined threads of the one fabric that comprises Hermosa Beach and they cannot be addressed independently. Similarly, each of the elements of this Plan help achieve the realization of a sustainable, everlasting Hermosa in specific ways.
Public Review Draft 194
18 | INTRODUCTION
Mobility
The Mobility Element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout Hermosa Beach by a variety of modes, with balanced emphasis on automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and alternative fuel vehicles. How people get around town has broad implications for sustainability. Transportation patterns affect how much fuel is used in Hermosa Beach, the quantity of greenhouse gases, and local air quality as the majority of our trips are conducted by fossil fuel-burning automobiles. The choices we make about our transportation system greatly affect whether fuel use increases or decreases with time, whether our vehicle fleet becomes more efficient, and even whether we can legitimately choose to walk, bike, or use transit instead of driving a car. Each of these outcomes has secondary effects as well. Less air pollution and greater opportunities to walk or bike lead to health improvements. Improved fleet efficiency leads to less money spent on transportation and more individual choice on how to spend that money. This element identifies the location and extent of transportation routes, parking, and alternative mode facilities needed to support a multimodal system.
Connecting the Dots
Each element in this Plan helps contribute to a more sustainable, everlasting future in its own way. The
following diagram summarizes how these elements support a sustainable community.
Community Governance
The Community Governance Element sets forth the City’s legal authority to adopt and implement the goals, policies, and actions of PLAN Hermosa. Additionally, this element describes the associated leadership, decision-making process, development requirements, and regional coordination necessary to achieve the goals, policies and actions. While the Community Governance topics are less directly associated with the community’s overall sustainability, the goals, topics, and actions of this element are critical for achieving success. It will be through this element that much of the Plan is put into action. Without action, we will not have success. Additionally, this element emphasizes transparency in government and decision-making. Transparent governance leads to better decisions and more stability. This improved stability, in turn, leads to a more dependable regulatory environment and an improved business climate.
Land Use + Design
Land use and design are the cornerstone of PLAN Hermosa and the City’s fundamental guide for the urban form. The goals, policies, and actions of this element provide a blueprint for the physical development of the community by identifying the location, distribution, and intensity of various uses in Hermosa Beach. The decisions we make about how our buildings are designed and built directly affects sustainability. For example, how buildings are placed on lots and how they relate to the street can influence transportation choices, economic activity, and public safety. How a building is sited and designed relative to the sun can affect building energy use by as much as 30%. The amount of open space provided affects stormwater runoff and the urban heat island. Density, intensity, and mix of uses affect the number and length of trips taken and the transportation mode chosen for each trip. The uses in town influence whether residents have to drive out of town for work, goods, or services. The land use decisions we make can even influence the health of our community, through closer proximity to services, increased availability of healthy food, and enhanced access to parks or schools, it can become easier to choose healthier options.
Public Review Draft 195
PLAN HERMOSA | 19
Public Safety
The Public Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and actions that protect the community from risk associated with hazards and public safety concerns. The element places specific focus on hazards that could be made more severe with anticipated impacts of climate change. Also incorporated is the Noise Element, addressing major noise sources and potential exposure to sensitive receptors. These topics are critical for quality of life and economic stability. First, a safe, healthy environment is critical for good quality of life. Second, if we do not adequately prepare for hazards and create a resilient community, natural disasters will have a greater effect on our community, leading to increased injuries and property damage. And none of these are good for our economy. Conversely, creating a resilient town will lead to a more stable and healthier economy as avoidance of hazards will minimize the disruption of local commerce.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure Element provides goals,
policies, and actions to maintain and improve infrastructure systems. Improving the efficiency and quality of the City’s infrastructure systems makes them more resilient to changing environmental and economic conditions. Much of the City’s infrastructure design and operation will affect the natural environment. Interestingly, the provision of infrastructure, and the relative quality, can also have economic implications. Providing advance telecommunications and high speed internet infrastructure may can give the city a competitive edge and help to attract high-tech businesses, and the availability of low-cost renewable energy can benefit everyone in the community and reinvest money in the local economy.
Sustainability + Conservation
The Sustainability and Conservation Element
addresses the use of natural resources to improve
the environmental quality of Hermosa Beach. This
element includes goals, policies, and actions to
improve air quality, increase water conservation,
promote green building, and chart a path
toward becoming one of the first carbon neutral
organizations and communities. Carbon levels
provide a good indicator for tracking overall
sustainability as it uses resource consumption as a
proxy. More than any other, this element focuses on
limiting pollution and protecting resources through
efficiency and conservation. Like many topics in this
Plan, carbon-reducing and conservation-oriented
practices have secondary community benefits.
Using less energy and switching to renewable
sources can lead to reduced air pollutants from
power plants. Drought tolerant landscapes help
to conserve water and reduce runoff. Green
building techniques can improve indoor air
quality and occupant health.
Parks + Open Space
The Parks and Open Space Element includes goals, policies, and actions that provide for coastal access and the provision of community facilities, parks, recreation opportunities, and the preservation of natural habitat and wildlife. Parks and open space play a key role in sustainability. Open space is the primary land use that provides for ecosystem services within a community, providing for opportunities that range from groundwater recharge to food production to carbon sequestration to important wildlife habitat. Increased access to parks, open space, and recreational opportunities can influence positive health outcomes and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease through increased physical activity. Additionally, parks and open space provide valuable recreational amenities and offer important scenic qualities and views, leading to increased property values, increased safety, increased economic activity, and greater sense of community.
Public Review Draft 196
20 | INTRODUCTION
PLAN Hermosa Update
1
2
3
4
620132016 Process
The update process included a series of defined phases or steps to address community needs,
goals, and vision in a comprehensive and integrated manner. This process was carried out over
the course of approximately three years, kicking off in July 2013 with a community celebration.
Existing Conditions + Key Issues
The assessment of existing conditions and identification of the key issues facing the community
provided an on-the-ground understanding of activities in the city today. By reviewing historic
trends and changes or comparing community attributes to other similar communities in the
region, a sense of what makes Hermosa Beach unique or different began to emerge.
Visioning
The visioning process identified principles or priorities for the city’s future. Community input on ideas or ideals for the future of Hermosa Beach was solicited through a series of workshops, stakeholder interviews, online surveys, and working group meetings to craft a vision statement and guiding principles. The crafted vision and guiding principles are supported by the existing conditions analysis and form the policy framework and organizational structure of this Plan.
Alternatives
After the vision and guiding principles were established, a set of land use and transportation scenarios were considered and evaluated. The alternatives analysis looked at the physical and environmental aspects of the proposed changes needed to meet the vision and evaluated whether there were alternative scenarios in which the community vision could be met.
Draft Plan
The Draft Plan is the resulting collection of policies needed to achieve the community vision. The policies of PLAN Hermosa are a culmination of the existing conditions, vision, and alternatives analysis. The Draft Plan will be evaluated and extensively reviewed before being adopted by the City’s decision-makers.
Environmental Review
PLAN Hermosa is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act to assess whether any adverse environmental impacts may occur through implementation
of this Plan. This assessment provides full disclosure to the community and can better inform
decision-makers on the potentially adverse environmental impacts of the Plan.
Adoption + Implementation
The final step of the PLAN Hermosa update is the public hearing and adoption process. Once
adopted, the task of implementation begins. The implementation of this Plan will be evaluated
against the indicators and decision-making tool to track progress toward the vision.
5
Public Review Draft 197
PLAN HERMOSA | 21
Public Involvement
Central to the creation of PLAN Hermosa was an extensive public outreach process. The Plan is a policy document, but it is also a community document, describing the community’s future vision of the City. Public involvement in this process was critical to understand how residents, business owners, visitors, and community organizations view Hermosa Beach conditions and their vision of Hermosa Beach in the future.
During the process of creating PLAN Hermosa, the City engaged several hundred community members through a series of community events, workshops, online surveys, and input during study sessions. The City also used newsletters and mailings, its website, e-mail, and other means to communicate with the community about process.
The City received input on topics ranging from required components of the General Plan –land use, transportation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety – to topics identified as important
Community Participation: The future is in YOUR hands
issues for Hermosa Beach such as sustainability and preserving beach town character. Comments received throughout the public outreach process represent the community’s beliefs, passions, values, and concerns for the City, and directly formed the policy content of this Plan.
Community Working Group
In 2013, the City Council directed staff to create and facilitate a community working group to serve as a sounding board in development of this Plan and to help guide the overall engagement process.
The working group was comprised of Hermosa Beach residents, and includes diverse representation from many City commissions, businesses, and local organizations and met approximately 15 times over the course of the Plan development.
Public Review Draft 198
22 | INTRODUCTION
Key Issues Workshop/Study Sessions
In order to identify key issues of importance to the city, a community workshop and Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting were held:
May 8, 2014 - Community Workshop: Key Issues
At the Key Issues Community Workshop, participants were asked three questions in the context of Small Town Character, Healthy Active Lifestyle, and Economic and Environmental Sustainability:
• What do you love about Hermosa Beach?
• What are the threats to Hermosa Beach’s character and quality of life?
• What do you want to change in Hermosa Beach now and in the future?
May 20, 2014 - Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
At the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting, an overview of the process was provided and the results of Key Issues Community Workshop were presented. The Commissioners were then engaged in a discussion on identifying key issues and short-term and long-term challenges.
Summer 2013 Community Celebration
The City of Hermosa Beach hosted a summer celebration event to encourage the community to
think about the future of Hermosa Beach and learn about upcoming planning projects in Hermosa
Beach. In addition to kicking off the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, at this fair style open house,
the community was able to learn about and provide input on the Community Dialogue process, the
Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy, and studies related to the recently defeated proposal for
oil drilling. Nearly 300 community members visited the Community Center and participated over the
course of the day, where activities, discussion, and opportunities to play a role in shaping the future
of Hermosa Beach were provided to adults and children.
Stakeholder Interviews
Between March and April 2014, interviews with eight key stakeholders were conducted. These interviews included a series of open ended questions to learn more about key issues and existing conditions in Hermosa Beach. Stakeholders included City staff and community leaders.
General Plan Kick-Off! Educational Series
The Kick-Off! Educational Series included four public meetings at City Hall on key planning areas and issues to be addressed in the General Plan:
April 8, 2014 - City Council Briefing
April 14, 2014 - Climate Change & Sustainability
April 21, 2014 - Economics & Land Use
April 30, 2014 - Transportation & Public Health
These meetings included detailed presentations on each topic and how they relate to Hermosa Beach as well as public discussion to answer questions and to share information.
Community Events
Over the course of three years, an extensive community outreach program was implemented as part of the
development of PLAN Hermosa. The major participation opportunities are summarized below.
Public Review Draft 199
PLAN HERMOSA | 23
Neighborhood & District Walking Tours, March 28, 2015
On March 28 the City sponsored Community Walking Tours to provide education and receive feedback on land use and circulation. The city was broken down into a variety of districts. Information was provided as a basis for input on the look and feel of each of these areas. The walking tours drew approximately 40 participants throughout the day, with an additional 15-20 people stopping by the Community Center to provide input via the poster display. A short survey was taken at the end to identify top priorities for different districts.
Key themes emerged as follows:
• Preservation of Hermosa Beach character – Participants are keen to maintain their existing community character, views, amenities and quality of life.
• Support for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements – Participants would like to see improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure throughout the City.
• Lack of interest in development higher than two stories – Participants feel that higher density development negatively impacts community character and potentially views.
• Consideration for the environment – Participants want to see improvements that support a green and healthy lifestyle.
Key Issues Workshop/Study Sessions
A workshop and study session was organized to collect community feedback on a vision statement, guiding principles, and potential solutions to key issues.
November 6, 2014 - Vision, Guiding Principles & Way Forward
December 16, 2014 - City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Vision & Guiding Principle
The workshop drew approximately 100 participants. The following themes emerged:
• Vision Statement: Maintain the existing small beach-town atmosphere. Cultivate local businesses that benefit residents and the local economy. Develop a more sustainable city through a reduced carbon footprint, and increase bicycling and walking.
• Guiding Principles: Invest in local infrastructure and amenities. Encourage a diverse, innovative, and resident-serving local business mix. Promote healthy activity and a high quality of life through stewardship and preservation of natural resources. Achieve carbon neutrality through proactive, forward-thinking transportation and environmental initiatives.
• What are potential solutions: Preserve the eclectic character of the city and create a safe pedestrian/bicycle-friendly city. Invest in schools, energy-efficient infrastructure, the arts, and green and local businesses. Promote sustainability by prioritizing waste reduction and maintaining a clean, healthy beach environment.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session, May 11, 2015
On May 11th, City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session to review and discuss potential policy direction on land use and transportation options. This direction formed the policy framework for the updated General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.
Public Review Draft 200
24 | INTRODUCTION
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session, July 16, 2015
On July 16, City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint study session to review and discuss
the preferred policy direction on land use and
transportation options. PLAN Hermosa focuses
most prominently on the physical aspects of
the city, and land use and transportation are
essential components. This direction assisted the
next step, creating the policy framework for the
updated General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and
establishing the preferred policy direction to be
evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report.
Youth Charrette: This is MY City Camp
On August 18, 2015, the City held a youth charrette to gather information from children living in Hermosa Beach. As a group, they described what Hermosa Beach is like today, and discussed what the City should look like in the future. The participants expressed their ideas through a mapping exercise and by filling out a short questionnaire. This youth workshop helped identify areas in Hermosa Beach that could be enhanced to better accommodate the youth population, encouraging them to live in the city through adulthood.
Mapping activity during youth charrette.
Public Review Draft 201
PLAN HERMOSA | 25
State Law
To comply with State laws, the City of Hermosa Beach is required to prepare and maintain a General Plan for the entirety of the city boundaries, as well as a Local Coastal Program (LCP), for portions of the city located within the Coastal Zone. The LCP comprises the City’s land use plans and implementing ordinances to carry out the intent of the Coastal Act. This section identifies the relevant State laws that govern the development, update, and integration of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan.
General Plan
California Planning Law requiring jurisdictions to develop “master plans” or General Plans were first established in 1937, with subsequent legislative actions providing additional clarity and detail on the content and topics covered by a General Plan. PLAN Hermosa has been prepared in accordance with the requirements and intent set forth in the California Government Code written in 2010. Specifically, this Plan:
• Must be a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development of the county or city.
• Must cover all territory within the city boundaries and any land outside the boundaries where the agency’s judgment bears relation.
• Should be integrated, internally consistent and present compatible statement of policies.
• Should accommodate local conditions, while meeting minimum State requirements.
• May be adopted in any format deemed appropriate by the legislative body, including combining elements.
• May be adopted as a single document or as a group of documents.
• Must include diagrams and text setting forth: objectives, principles, and plan standards.
• Must address each of the elements to the extent that the subject exists in the planning area.
• May include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city.
The General Plan should additionally be prepared and amended in compliance with the following procedural requirements:
• May be modified or amended up to four times per year.
• Must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council at public hearings prior to legislative action to adopt or amend this Plan.
• Must also be evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Specific requirements for each topic are identified within their respective elements.
Public Review Draft 202
26 | INTRODUCTION
Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Act was enacted through legislation in 1976, following a vote of the people to establish
the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act was established to protect coastal resources and
maximize public access to the shoreline. To carry out the mandates of the Coastal Act, local governments
with jurisdiction over land in the coastal zone are expected to prepare and implement a Local Coastal Plan
(LCP). PLAN Hermosa has been prepared in accordance with the requirements and intent set forth in the
California Government Code written in 2010. Specifically this Plan:
• Must address all major policy topics of the Coastal Act.
• Must incorporate any analysis needed to support coastal policy.
• Should incorporate local context in conjunction with the legal requirements of the Coastal Act.
The LCP should additionally address the procedural requirements for certification and amendments as follows:
• An LCP adopted by the local government may be certified by the Coastal Commission as advancing the
policies of the Coastal Act. Until an LCP has been certified, the local government cannot take over the
issuance of coastal development permits.
• Amendments to certified LCPs must be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and, in the case of
major amendments, certification.
Specific requirements for each topic are identified within their respective elements.
General Plan + Coastal Land Use Plan Integration
For coastal cities, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recognizes the relationship between
General Plans and Local Coastal Programs and suggests addressing both requirements through integration
of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program by either creating a coastal element of the General Plan
or incorporation of coastal policies and standards throughout the General Plan. In order to encourage this
integration, amendments to the General Plan necessary to preparing a certified LCP do not count toward the
limit of four General Plan amendments per year.
Hermosa Beach has elected to integrate the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, by addressing required
coastal topics in the various elements as depicted in Ta
Table 0.1 Coastal Land Use Plan Components
Governance Land Use + Design Mobility Sustainability + Conservation Parks + Open Space Public Safety Infrastructure
Public Access v v v
Recreation +Visitor Serving Facilities v v
Water Quality Protection v v
Environmentally Sensitive Habitats + Natural Resources v
Planning + Development v v v v
Archaeological + Cultural Resources v v
Scenic + Visual Resources v v
Coastal Hazards v v
Shoreline Erosion + Protective Devices v
Energy + Industrial Development v v
Public Review Draft 203
PLAN HERMOSA | 27
Measuring Our Progress
PLAN Hermosa will be implemented over a period of decades. During this time, the City’s long-range planning efforts will use the goals and policies as a guide. However, this Plan is a living document and the City’s intent is for the Plan to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Part of this ongoing review of the Plan will require evaluating progress toward and alignment with the community’s vision. There are two mechanisms in which alignment with the vision will be evaluated:
• Through use of the decision-making tool when key initiatives are presented for implementation; and
• Through tracking of key indicators that provide a snapshot of the community and provide a basis for
allocating resources through the annual budget process.
Together, these two mechanisms will be used to provide a feedback loop and a transparent process for setting priorities, allocating funding, and highlighting successes. Hermosa Beach places value on preserving its unique small beach town character while still allowing the City to adapt to future changes and growth. A vibrant economy encapsulates the community’s value for diverse jobs and businesses and high quality municipal services. The community places high importance on health and environmental leadership, especially those aspects that contribute to strengthening the City’s brand and character. Finally, the community seeks to accomplish these objectives in an innovative and forward thinking manner.
The Decision-Making Tool and Community Indicators are vital components to successful achievement of the community’s vision in a manner aligned with the community’s values. The Community Indicators have been aligned with the questions of the Decision-Making Tool to further strengthen the feedback loop and reinforce how the collective set of decisions should contribute to improving the performance of each key indicator.
Decision-Making Tool
The Decision-Making Tool has been designed to evaluate and highlight the benefits or trade offs of key
initiatives as they are transformed from ideas to implementation. The tool is intended to be used by City staff,
decision-makers, and the community at any point in which decisions are being made to approve a project,
allocate funding or resources toward a program, or identify top priorities. Not every decision will have a
positive response to every question, but rather, the Decision-Making Tool is meant to serve as a resource for
understanding and disclosing how a particular decision may affect those key values.
Community Indicators + Performance Measures
The Community Indicators create a snapshot of the community in key focus areas to provide a benchmark for overall performance and trends. The identified indicators are organized in accordance with the PLAN Hermosa Guiding Principles and the Decision-Making Tool, to enhance the relationship between the Vision, the Decision-Making Tool, and the Community Indicators.
While not all indicators are currently tracked, the intent is to identify the type of indicator that should be tracked so that a baseline may be established. Since many of the metrics are subjective in nature, the method for determining improvement in those categories will come from the use of community surveys, such as the National Citizen’s Survey. The indicators will be evaluated on a quantitative basis, with a directional goal to increase, decrease or maintain. It should be noted that not all metrics will be able to be updated annually, and instead, the most recent year for which information is available has been identified. Finally, the source of information or department responsible for tracking that information has been identified to facilitate greater consistency in the tracking of each indicator.
These community indicators shall be included as part of the Performance Measurement section of the annual budget to complement those indicators which are already tracked by different City departments to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness of services and operations. Together the Community Indicators and City operations indicators will paint a comprehensive picture of both the community’s and the City’s status.
The following pages identify both the Decision-Making Tool Questions and Community
Indicators identified to evaluate progress toward and alignment with the community vision.
Public Review Draft 204
28 | INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
Does it enhance/preserve open space?
Is it in line with Hermosa Beach’s carbon neutral goal?
Does it positively affect the health of the community?
Does it protect Hermosa Beach’s natural resources?
Does it keep the beach and ocean clean?
Does it promote walkability/bikeability?
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
Decision-Making Tool
Community Indicators
PROGRESS INDICATORS BASELINE OBJECTIVE
RECENT YEAR SOURCE
Developed Park Acres per 1,000 Population 5.6 Maintain/Increase 2015 City of Hermosa Beach - Parks and Recreation
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions
126,611 metric tons
1,372 metric tons Decrease 2012
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Well-being Index Composite Score 77.5 Increase 2012
Beach Cities Health District
Natural Resource Consumption Rates:
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water
Transportation
91 million kWh
4.2 million therms
700 million gallons
138 million vehicle miles traveled
Decrease 2012
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Heal the Bay Report Card (26th St/South of Pier)
TMDL Violations (26th St/South of Pier)
A/A
(1/1)
Maintain
Decrease
2015
2013 Heal the Bay
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
Bike/Ped Counts at Key Facilities
Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach - Public Works
POSITIVE/STRONG CORRELATION NEUTRAL/NO EFFECT/NOT APPLICABLE NEGATIVE/NEGATIVE CORRELATION
Public Review Draft 205
PLAN HERMOSA | 29
HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE
Does it enhance our beach culture?
Does it enhance outdoor recreation?
Is it family friendly?
Does it positively impact the health and safety of residents?
Does it bring the community together?
Does it serve the diversity of our population?
Does it acknowledge our cultural heritage?
Is it an appropriate scale for Hermosa Beach?
Is it aesthetically appropriate?
Is it a complementary use of public and private space?
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
PROGRESS INDICATORS BASELINE OBJECTIVE
RECENT YEAR SOURCE
Survey Question - Rate the strength of beach culture Not Currently
Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Survey Question - Frequency in which residents go outdoors for leisure Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Survey Question - Rate the family-friendliness of events, overall community Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Reported Violent Crimes per 1,000 population
Reported Property Crimes per 1,000 population
1.9
27.3 Decrease 2014
City of Hermosa Beach - Police Department
Survey Question - Sense of inclusiveness or opportunities to participate Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Survey Question - Feel your needs are represented in decision-making process Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Number of Designated Historic Resources 3 Increase 2015
City of Hermosa Beach -
Community Development
Average Commercial Floor Area Ratio (as defined by buildout projections)0.58 FAR Increase to Max. of 0.75 2015 City of Hermosa Beach - Community Development
Survey Question - Rate the overall quality of the public realm Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Survey Question - Rate the balance of public and private spaces Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
+ 0 -POSITIVE/STRONG CORRELATION NEUTRAL/NO EFFECT/NOT APPLICABLE NEGATIVE/NEGATIVE CORRELATION
Decision-Making Tool
Community Indicators
Public Review Draft 206
30 | INTRODUCTION
ECONOMIC + FISCAL STABILITY
Is it business-friendly?
Does it support our schools?
Does it improve our infrastructure?
Does it improve property values?
Does it promote our brand?
Is it entrepreneurial?
Does it serve the local market?
Does it reduce cost, waste, or reliance on City resources?
Does it balance public and private interests?
Does it increase tax and other revenues going to the community?
PROGRESS INDICATORS BASELINE OBJECTIVE
RECENT YEAR SOURCE
Survey Question - Rate the Business Friendliness of the City Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach - Economic Development
Academic Performance Index (Valley/View)949/939 Maintain 2014
California Department of Education
Overall Infrastructure Ratings Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach - Public Works Department
Total Assessed Land and Improvement Value $5.4 Billion Increase 2014
City of Hermosa Beach - Finance Department
Survey Question - Rate the strength of local brand Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a City of Hermosa Beach
Number of Business Licenses 1058 Increase 2014
City of Hermosa Beach - Finance Department
Retail Capture/Leakage Rates
Retail Leakage in
apparel, general
merchandise,
home furnishing,
auto parts, general
wholesale
Increase
Capture/
Decrease
Leakage
2012 City of Hermosa Beach -
Economic Development
$ per service population for
Mandatory vs Discretionary
Programs (while meeting Level of
Service)
Not Currently
Tracked
Decrease
Mandatory/
Increase
Discretionary
n/a City of Hermosa Beach -
Finance Department
Number or Area with Public Encroachments Not Currently Tracked Maintain n/a
City of Hermosa Beach - Community Development
Total Taxable Sales $226 million Increase 2013 California State Board of
Equalization
+ 0 -POSITIVE/STRONG CORRELATION NEUTRAL/NO EFFECT/NOT APPLICABLE NEGATIVE/NEGATIVE CORRELATION
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
Decision-Making Tool
Community Indicators
Public Review Draft 207
PLAN HERMOSA | 31
Is this a potential catalyst for strategic, transformative, and
differentiated development or is this “business as usual”?
Will this define and enhance the City brand to attract businesses,
investment, tourists, and like-minded residents?
Will this activate community involvement, participation, and
innovation?
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
+ 0 -
PROGRESS INDICATORS BASELINE OBJECTIVE
RECENT YEAR SOURCE
Number of strategic, transformative initiatives approved Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach
Number of Awards and Recognition Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach
Survey Question - Volunteer rate, Community Participation Rate Not Currently Tracked Increase n/a
City of Hermosa Beach
CATALYST FOR INNOVATION
+ 0 -POSITIVE/STRONG CORRELATION NEUTRAL/NO EFFECT/NOT APPLICABLE NEGATIVE/NEGATIVE CORRELATION
Decision-Making Tool
Community Indicators
Public Review Draft 208
32 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Strong leadership, sound decision-making, and transparency in
government are essential qualities of a fair and effective government.
And such qualities contribute towards the creation of a sustainable and
everlasting community with a high quality of life, clean environment, and
strong economy. The Governance Element of this Plan sets forth the City’s
legal authority to adopt and implement the goals, policies, and actions
of PLAN Hermosa. This element also describes the associated leadership,
decision-making process, development requirements, and regional
coordination necessary to achieve the goals, policies and actions in an
inclusive and open environment. These goals, policies, and actions will
help Hermosa Beach to maintain our sense of community.
1 governance
Public Review Draft 209
PLAN HERMOSA | 33
State Law
The State of California does not require that a City’s general plan address governance. However, the City of Hermosa Beach views this as a critical topic and believes it sets the tone for decision-making on many of the topics required by State law, so it is included as an optional element. Additionally, State law requires communities to establish policies and standards for consulting with Native American tribal organizations in the development or amendment of the General Plan and during the environmental review process.Context
Maintaining good and effective governance is a high priority for the City of Hermosa Beach. Since its incorporation as a City in 1907, the City of Hermosa Beach has established itself as being a small town, friendly beach community. Called “the best little beach city” for its broad, clean beaches, overall safety, and thriving businesses, it is also creative in its personal and compassionate approach to city government. Serving the community, creating community benefits, taking responsibility, and finding pragmatic solutions are characteristics viewed by the City as what defines governance. The City has prioritized excellence in governance and positive, constructive relationships with residents, business owners, visitors, and neighbors.
Decision-making and Leadership
Community members and leaders of Hermosa Beach view proper decision-making and leadership as an important topic in city governance. In recent years, the City of Hermosa Beach has initiated several processes and employed concepts to increase the community’s involvement and understanding in how the City makes decisions as an organization. Some of these recent efforts have included a community dialogue campaign, strategic planning process, and priority-based budgeting. Collectively, these efforts ensure that the approach to governance, management, and service delivery in Hermosa Beach are agreed upon, revisited on a regular basis, and reflective of the community’s values and priorities.
Community Dialogue
In 2013, the City of Hermosa Beach initiated
a community dialogue process to facilitate a conversation across the community and all of its interests to determine the community’s values and priorities for the future. The six-month process included several public meetings, a working group,
and development of a Quality of Life Report, a Fiscal Summary, and a Decision-Making Tool. The results of this Community Dialogue process provide a framework and process for decision-making by the City as well as individuals on important decisions
regarding Hermosa Beach’s future.
Governance means...
• Listening to residents
• Anticipating and focusing on issues
• Determining vision and values
• Decision-making on direction and resources
• Setting the “tone” for the City
• Measuring staff, program, and operational
performance
• Educating the citizenry
• Mobilizing support in the community
Management means...
• Analyzing issues
• Developing professional recommendations
• Decision-making on programs and resources
• Setting the “tone” for the organization
• Developing programs and systems
• Determine implementation plans and strategies
• Investing in employees
• Evaluating and adjusting performance
Service Delivery means...
• Developing operational plans and tactics
• Organizing the work unit
• Implementing decisions and programs
• Responding to resident issues
• Maintaining equipment and facilities
• Providing quality services and products
• Developing work unit and employees
• Evaluating services and citizen impact
Public Review Draft 210
34 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship between the
components of PLAN Hermosa and the following
City decision-making processes.
Strategic Planning
Since 2013, the Hermosa Beach City Council and staff have utilized a strategic planning process and multi-day intensive workshops to outline new goals and set priorities for the upcoming year. Strategic planning workshops are organized in a way so that the community, City staff, and elected officials can come together as a group and talk about the future of the City. The process is meant to help provide more clarity on Council goals and priorities to guide programs and ongoing operations.
Fiscal Health Diagnostic Tool
With a focus on achieving long-term fiscal sustainability, this Diagnostic Tool is used to assess the City’s picture of financial health by matching ongoing revenues with ongoing expenses and modeling various scenarios in order to assess the impact of decisions. First implemented in 2014, the tool is currently used in preparing the City’s five-year financial forecast.
Priority-Based Budgeting
In 2014, the City initiated a new approach to linking funding decisions with strategic priorities through Priority-Based Budgeting. This approach provides a comprehensive review of the entire organization and will allow Hermosa Beach leaders to evaluate the costs/benefits of City services at a program level; align resources with higher-priority programs; and craft a budget that plans for long-term needs and shorter-term spending of these services on the basis of their relevance to community priorities established during strategic planning efforts.
Decision-Making Tool
The Decision-Making Tool, created through the
Community Dialogue process, is designed to
enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of
the City’s government, identify and optimize
opportunities for residents and businesses to
improve quality of life, create a culture of
innovation, ensure the community values and
priorities are equally considered, and deliver
transparency to the decision-making process.LONG-TERMSHORT-TERMMID-TERMVision +
Guiding
Principles
PLAN Hermosa
Goals
Policies
+Actions
Public Review Draft 211
PLAN HERMOSA | 35
Strategic Plan Budget Process Feedback Loop
Goals +
Priorities
Fiscal
Health
Diagnostics
Budgeted
Programs Decision-
Making Tool
Figure 1.1 Relationship between PLAN Hermosa and decision-making process
5 year
15 Year Vision
Long-Term Fiscal Plan
Priority-Based Budgeting
Policy + Management Agenda
Community Indicators +
Performance
Measures
Public Review Draft 212
36 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Civic Engagement
The Hermosa Beach community prides itself on
being highly active in its own governance, and the City is committed to actively seeking public participation. Community members actively participate at council meetings and committees, volunteer at schools and philanthropic organizations, and collaborate with City staff on the latest technology platforms. This level of civic engagement supports responsive governance, while ensuring the preservation of the City’s small beach town character. The City strives to create an open process through which it can respond to its constituents’ needs while balancing competing interests and opposing views. It is also committed to treating all individuals with respect and dignity, and providing courtesy and thoughtfulness in all interactions. These qualities are invaluable to City staff and elected officials as they work with community members to create a more vibrant, socially rich, economically successful, and beautiful place to live, work, and play.
The City recognizes and supports the need to maintain a high level of service to the community. It further recognizes the need to pursue and engage various informational technologies to make communications more efficient and accessible. The City regularly identifies and implements new communication techniques and methods to improve service delivery and open avenues of communication between the community and their city government. In order to continue to improve the ease of doing business with the City, additional services including online permitting services for certain development or building projects, and streamlined processing of general requests for service or information are being implemented regularly. Highlights of the City’s civic engagement practices include:
Voter Initiatives - The City of Hermosa Beach has a long history of direct democracy through use of the ballot initiative process to answer questions about local policy related to open space, development and zoning standards, fees and taxes, and other important issues facing the City.
Public Meetings - City Council and advisory
commission proceedings are open to the public.
Hermosa Beach posts current agendas, staff
reports, and supplemental materials up to 5 days
prior to the meeting. The City also provides live and
archived streaming video of City Council Meetings
on-line and on the City’s cable television channel.
Community Workshops and Working Groups - Nearly all major capital
projects and major planning efforts in Hermosa
Beach involve numerous meetings to collect input
and feedback from the community prior to placing
a proposal in front of the City’s decision makers.
Many of these large efforts include the formation of
a working group or committee to review and refine
proposals, ensuring that projects are reflective of
the community’s values and priorities.
Online Engagement - To facilitate community engagement in City affairs in an increasingly digital world, the City has utilized multiple online platforms to provide two-way engagement to the community. “Speak Up, Hermosa!” is just one of various online tools hosted by the City to provide a platform in which members of the community can generate and discuss ideas, issues, and projects to improve Hermosa Beach.
Community-Based Organizations - Hermosa
Beach would not enjoy such a high quality of
life without investment and collaboration from
its numerous community-based organizations.
Community organizations, many of which are
highlighted throughout this Plan, collaborate
with the City to provide funding and volunteer in
support of parks, the library, creative arts, historic
preservation, and education, among many other
social and environmental causes.
Leadership Hermosa - a community-based organization founded in 2003 to encourage community involvement in the city. More specifically, the organization strives to build a life-long love for Hermosa Beach by educating existing and potential leaders within the community. Since its launch, members of this organization have completed a number of projects that have fostered community values, and many participants have gone on to serve in leadership positions on City Commissions and City Council.
Nixle - HBPD has begun participating in an open communication and engagement platform called Nixle. This online forum informs residents about news and safety alerts in the City, connecting residents, educators, public safety, and businesses together.
Public Review Draft 213
PLAN HERMOSA | 37
Technology + Innovation
A key feature in the development of modern,
innovative cities is the installation of digital
infrastructure. On a planning level, the City of
Hermosa Beach has done little to address the
formative impacts of technology. The technology
and innovation policies outlined in this section
are designed to increase efficiency, bring out
new ideas, and allow businesses and residents to
become more digitally connected.
Some of the most valuable contributions of
technology is idea sharing and community
interaction. With technology easily accessible,
community members can communicate and
share ideas more easily. As a result, innovative
solutions to problems will be communicated much
faster than before. Community members will also
be encouraged to collaborate with one another
fostering a more efficient and effective approach.
Another valuable asset of technology is the ability
to maintain and enhance transparency between
the City and its community members. By utilizing
advanced technology, the City will be able to
relay information and data to community members
more easily. This will encourage civic participation
along with ensuring full transparency.
Community Representation
The City has a variety of Commissions and Advisory Boards that represent various community interests and perspectives. These bodies, which address a range of topics of importance to the City, are comprised of community members – residents, businesses representatives, and other stakeholders. The Commissions and Advisory Boards represent the community by making recommendations and/or decisions that guide City policy and actions. From time to time, the City also forms ad-hoc committees to address topics of current importance. The committees are typically formed to address a specific topic or issue and then, once resolved, are disbanded.
The City’s various Commissions make recommendations to the City Council, and in some circumstances have approval authority for a range of topics important to the City’s services, operations and development over time. It is within the purview of the City Council to establish the composition, work, and responsibilities of any Commission. Commissions and Advisory Committees have been formed on a permanent basis to address topics including: parks and recreation, public works, planning, and emergency preparedness.
Other advisory committees have been formed on
an ad-hoc or temporary basis to address issues
related to specific topics or geographies including
recent use of: a Green Task Force, an Upper Pier
Avenue Improvement Committee, and a PCH/
Aviation Improvement Committee.
Planning Commission
California Planning and Zoning Law requires each jurisdiction to identify a governing body to provide for planning, subdivision, and land use regulation. In Hermosa Beach, the Planning Commission has been established to serve in that role. For certain types of development applications, the Planning Commission is required to review and either approve or deny, with the City Council only reviewing if the Planning Commission’s decision is appealed. Certain planning and development decisions are required by State law to be reviewed and either approved or denied by the City Council at a public hearing, subsequent to a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Public Works Commission
The duties of the Public Works Commission are to review and make recommendations to the City Council on all capital improvement projects, assist in the development and updating of design guidelines for public improvements, infrastructure, and other matters referred to the Commission by the City Council.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council
in all matters pertaining to the Department of
Community Resources; cooperates with other
governmental agencies and civic groups on the
advancement of sound leisure, cultural, social
services and educational programming; and
formulates policies on the services, programs and
lease agreements of the Department.
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee
The Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the City Council on how the City and the residents can prepare and respond swiftly and responsibly to emergencies.
Public Review Draft 214
38 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Regional Collaboration
Part of the City’s decision-making
process involves having strong partnerships and relationships with outside agencies and organizations. This is due to both a desire to have good relations with the City’s neighbors and out of necessity, since Hermosa Beach is bordered by other jurisdictions and must rely on and collaborate with outside agencies to provide services to the citizens of Hermosa Beach.
Adjacent Cities: The City commonly works on issues of mutual interest with the adjacent cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Formally, the Hermosa Beach Police and Fire Departments have long-standing mutual-aid agreements with adjacent cities to provide responsive emergency services to the City of Hermosa Beach. Additionally, the land use and transportation choices made in one jurisdiction can provide benefits to or have impacts on a nearby jurisdiction.
Transportation Agencies: City staff and members of the City Council regularly participate in the regional decision-making processes. Elected officials and staff are actively involved with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), LA Metro, and Caltrans to provide transportation services, maintenance, and even funding for projects and programs.
Utility Providers: Most of the utility services in Hermosa Beach are provided by private utility companies or public agencies which serve jurisdictions throughout Southern California.
Beach Cities Health District: Health organizations like the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) which has been serving the communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach since 1955, offer important preventative health services to residents of all abilities and ages—from pre-natal and children to families and older adults.
California Coastal Commission: With nearly half of the land area in Hermosa Beach located within the Coastal Zone, a collaborative working relationship with Coastal Commission Staff is essential to fulfilling the objectives of the Coastal Act to maximize public access to the coast.
Maintaining collaborative working relationships with these agencies and organizations serves to benefit Hermosa Beach and makes sure the needs and interests of the community are represented.
Noble Park
Public Review Draft 215
PLAN HERMOSA | 39
Turning the Vision
into Policy
Through the visioning process of the Plan, as well
as the community dialogue, the community expressed a number of priorities and values for the future of Hermosa Beach that consistently fit into three themes: We like the character of our town, we want to see a more diverse and thriving local economy, and we recognize and value that a clean environment and healthy lifestyles are essential to our high quality of life.
Because these themes touch on so many topics throughout this Plan, the overarching policies related to each are presented here within the community governance element, with additional policies then highlighted throughout the remainder of the document and noted with one of the following icons.
Small Beach
Town Character
Community members see Hermosa Beach’s small beach town character as an important characteristic of the city. In order to maintain and preserve the city’s unique features, city leaders must carefully monitor the scale and type of new and existing development. Maintaining current building limits, limiting large developments, and recruiting small, green businesses are all ways which will conserve the city’s character. More importantly, the City will involve the public in all development decisions to ensure they reflect the community’s vision. The City will also seek new ways to maintain the city’s small beach town character through encouraging artist development and increasing beach play areas.
Hermosa has character
• Buildings are an appropriate scale and size.
• The town values and has taken steps to maintain historic buildings.
• The beach, parks, and open space offer opportunities to connect with nature.
• There are a mix of original clapboard beach cottages and newer “beach-type” homes.
• Spaces are safe, family-friendly, and foster social interaction and sense of community.
• The City continues to maintain streets and infrastructure.
• Hermosa Beach schools are some of the best in the State.
• Visitors enjoy spending time at the beach and shopping and dining throughout town.
1
2
3
small
beach town
character
vibrant
economy
healthy
environment
and lifestyles
Public Review Draft 216
40 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Vibrant Economy
The City recognizes and supports the need to
maintain a strong, diverse and vibrant local economy. Attracting businesses sought after by the public, seeking movie/TV filming projects, and renting out City facilities for events are other creative ways the City will generate extra revenue. Capitalizing on Hermosa Beach’s coveted location along the California coast while preserving the city’s unique charm will ensure a healthy, vibrant economy.
Hermosa has a thriving economy
• The strategies of the Downtown Plan will be
implemented and resulted in a revitalized,
family friendly Downtown.
• Safe and beautiful commercial corridors
provide services to residents and visitors.
• A large share of residents are able to
telecommute or working from home.
• The Cypress Area is home to a variety of artistic
and production uses.
• Local business owners work with the City to
attract new businesses.
• Environmental leadership helps to attract
new green and cleantech businesses and
investments.
Healthy Environment
and Lifestyles
The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to promoting healthy environments and lifestyles. As the first South Bay city to be certified as a Blue Zone community, Hermosa Beach strives to be a leader in healthy living and reducing our impact on the environment. In 2012, Hermosa Beach was the first city in the country to adopt a Living Streets Policy that promotes the health and mobility of all Hermosa Beach citizens and visitors by providing high quality pedestrian, bicycling, and transit access to destinations throughout the City.
Hermosa is a leader in health and sustainability
• Hermosa is a certified Blue Zone community.
• Living streets provide safe and convenient travel choices and offer opportunities for socializing and relaxation.
• Efficient water use, conservation, reuse, recycling and retention contributes to Hermosa’s brand as a sustainable and resilient city.
• City has a Healthy Air Hermosa program for smoke-free environments.
• Citizens shop at the Farmers Markets and cultivate their own gardens.
• Children and adults have regular access to recreational opportunities and physical activity.
Public Review Draft 217
PLAN HERMOSA | 41
Goal 1. A high degree of transparency and
integrity in the decision-making process.
To maintain the community’s trust and to serve residents and business owners toward
realizing the community’s vision, the City is committed to employing a consensus-based
and transparent approach to decision-making.
Policies
1.1 Open meetings. Maintain the community’s trust by holding meetings that are open and
available for all community members to attend and participate.
1.2 Strategic planning. Regularly discuss and set priorities at the City Council and management
level to prioritize work programs and staffing needs.
1.3 Priority-based budgeting. Utilize priority-based budgeting to ensure funding allocations are
consistent with the priorities set by the community and City Council.
1.4 Consensus oriented. Strive to utilize a consensus-oriented decision making process.
1.5 Leadership training. Encourage City staff and Board and Commission members to participate
in leadership training programs.
1.6 Long-term considerations. Prioritize decisions that provide long-term community benefit
and discourage decisions that provide short-term community benefit but reduce long-term
opportunities.
1.7 Diversity of representation. Strive to reflect a comprehensive cross-section of the community
in appointments to Commissions and Advisory Committees.
1.8 Nonresident representation. Ensure non-residents with an interest in the City are fairly and
consistently represented in city boards and Commissions.
1.9 Civic policy and leadership academy. Support local programs that teach community
members about local government functions and processes and encourages community
participation in civic efforts.
Goals and Policies
This chapter of the General Plan describes the system of governance and provides goals and policies for Hermosa Beach to continue its positive relationship with residents, businesses, and visitors. Together, the goals and policies support the community’s desire to maintain its small beach town character and vibrant economy while promoting a healthy environment and lifestyles. In addition, this chapter will support community involvement and investment, and ensure decision-making and leadership is conducted in an ethical, transparent, and innovative manner that reflects community values.
Public Review Draft 218
42 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Goal 2. The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes.
To engage a diverse cross-section of the community in the City’s decision-making
process related to policies, ordinances, and funding priorities, ensuring that the actions taken by the City reflect the needs and interests of the community as a whole.
Policies
2.1 Multiple outreach methods. Consistently engage in community outreach through neighborhood forums, social media, the latest technologies, personal interaction, and other methods on a regular basis.
2.2 Universal outreach. Utilize diverse methods of outreach that promote public participation and ensure Hermosa Beach events are communicated to all segments of the communities.
2.3 Public participation guidelines. Establish parameters and guidelines to ensure public participation is promoted through diverse methods.
2.4 Public forums. Host periodic public forums on issues important to the community, facilitating these forums with the purpose of guiding City policy.
2.5 Notification of decision-making. Centralize or consolidate community-wide mailing lists that include representation from homeowners associations, neighborhood and service groups, the school districts, the business community and other interest groups.
2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions.
2.7 Major planning efforts. Require major planning efforts, policies, or projects to include a public engagement effort.
2.8 Youth participation. Engage and incorporate the viewpoints and ideas of the community’s youth population in long-range planning efforts.
2.9 Evaluation and feedback. Periodically solicit service evaluations from the community and utilize feedback to improve and develop the City’s policies, ordinances, programs, and funding priorities.
2.10 Value and recognize volunteers. As practical, utilize volunteers to assist with community programs and services and seek to utilize the professional/trade skills of volunteers.
Public Review Draft 219
PLAN HERMOSA | 43
Goal 3. Excellent customer service through the use of emerging technologies.
To serve the community with professionalism and courtesy, and to strengthen
information sharing and communication between the City and its constituents, the City has placed a high level of importance on customer service. Embracing technology in City government will make operations across all departments increasingly more
efficient. With more available data, decision-makers will have access to information
that will influence decisions that should be made. Social media and mobile applications
have also connected the City with its residents. Outreach and receiving community input is much easier and has streamlined the planning process.
Policies
3.1 Increased access to services. Strive to provide access to facilities, programs, and services at times and locations that are convenient for residents and businesses.
3.2 Social media technology. Make use of social networking, streaming video, photo-sharing, and other technologies as they evolve to provide greater avenues of communication with constituents and community members.
3.3 Online materials. As feasible, continue to expand the City’s website with data and materials for residents and people doing business with the City, including City Council and Commission agenda packets, permit application forms, web-based geographic information systems (GIS), and use of new technologies as appropriate.
3.4 Virtual public counter. As feasible, establish a “virtual” public counter through an online permitting system.
3.5 Expanded digital archive. As feasible, expand the use of document imaging to maintain and provide access to vital records.
Public Review Draft 220
44 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Goal 4. A leader and partner in the region.
As a small community in a large metropolitan region, the City of Hermosa Beach understands and capitalizes on our role and responsibility to collaborate with
other agencies and nearby jurisdictions on issues of mutual concern.
Policies
4.1 Regional governance. Play an active role in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments and other regional agencies to protect and promote the interests of the City.
4.2 Leadership in sustainability. Establish the City as a regional leader in sustainable development and encourage compact, walkable development patterns that conserve land resources, supports active transportation, reduces vehicle trips, improves air quality, and conserves energy and water.
4.3 Collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. Maintain strong collaborative relationships with adjacent jurisdictions and work together on projects of mutual interest and concern.
4.4 Regional transportation and infrastructure decisions. Actively support regional transportation and infrastructure projects and investment decisions that benefit the City and the region.
4.5 Coastal collaboration. Maintain a coordinated working relationship with the Coastal Commission to maximize public access to the California Coast.
4.6 Native American consultation. Coordinate with the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American tribes during General Plan amendments and environmental review processes to ensure their concerns are considered and to assist in the identification and treatment of prehistoric or Native American resources.
Public Review Draft 221
PLAN HERMOSA | 45
Goal 5. Small beach town character is reflected throughout Hermosa Beach.
Retaining the scale and community-oriented nature of Hermosa Beach is of the utmost
importance. While it can be difficult to fully encapsulate what defines the character of Hermosa Beach, the City understands the various aspects associated with community character, and is committed to protecting the character defining features of Hermosa
Beach. These overarching policies articulate the City’s approach to ensuring that
community character is retained for future generations.
Policies
5.1 Residential and commercial compatibility. Provide a balance between residential and
commercial uses and strive to ensure their compatibility.
5.2 Development decisions. Strive to conduct the development review process in a consistent
and predictable manner.
5.3 Clear regulations. Establish clear, unambiguous regulations and policies to clearly
communicate the City’s expectations for new development.
5.4 Guidelines and standards. Provide for clear development guidance, standards, and rules by
developing tools and guidelines to illustrate concepts of local character.
5.5 Community benefits. Consider incentives for new development that provides a substantial
economic benefit to the community such as retail sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes or
higher-paying jobs. Prohibit the provision of incentives that outweigh the direct benefits from the
use.
5.6 Revitalization incentives. Develop and provide incentives to assist developers in revitalization
and rehabilitation of existing structures, uses and properties.
5.7 Visitor and resident balance. Recognize the desire and need to balance visitor-serving and
local-serving uses as a key to preserving character and the economic vitality of the community.
5.8 Public private partnerships. Pursue the use of public-private partnerships to implement
projects and efforts that maintain character and benefit the community.
Public Review Draft 222
46 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Goal 6. A broad-based and long-term economic development strategy for Hermosa Beach that
supports existing businesses while attracting new business and tourism.
The long-term economic health of Hermosa Beach can be sustained through a diversified commercial base, retention of knowledge workers, and expansion of creative and sharing economies. These overarching policies articulate the City’s
approach to creating a thriving local economy.
Policies
6.1 Long-term economic development. Support the development and implementation of long-term economic development strategies that seek to establish and keep new businesses and a strong middle class in Hermosa Beach over the decades to come.
6.2 Regional presence. Encourage economic development strategies that will make Hermosa Beach a driving force and jobs center behind the regional economy of the South Bay region.
6.3 Diversified economy. Encourage economic development strategies that allow the City to move beyond reliance on its two main industries – accommodation and food service and retail trade– and transform itself to a mature mix of economic activity and job opportunities.
6.4 Jobs-housing balance. Strive to improve the jobs-housing balance in the city by actively pursuing employment uses that match the skill and educational levels of existing and future residents.
6.5 Business support. Support the Chamber of Commerce, retailers, tourist service businesses, artists, and other agencies to develop an aggressive marketing strategy with implementation procedures.
6.6 Creative economy. Prioritize strategies that will create an economy full of diverse talents, trades and goods for the city. For long lasting economic success, a range of services, arts, entertainment and retail should be supported on all scales of the city’s economy.
6.7 Pop-up shops. Develop plans and programs for underutilized spaces, such as vacant buildings, utility corridors, parkways, etc., for temporary retail, restaurant, and community-promoting uses.
6.8 Retail base. Encourage economic development of all scales of retail development within Hermosa Beach in order to create a stronger tax base and increase the City’s tax revenue.
Public Review Draft 223
PLAN HERMOSA | 47
Goal 7. Community sustainability and health are a priority in policy and decision-making.
To maintain and improve the health and well being of all community members, the City
recognizes that they play a critical role in developing a culture of health in Hermosa Beach. These overarching policies articulate the City’s approach to ensuring that the community is built for healthy and sustainable lifestyles.
Policies
7.1 Integrate health. Encourage public and private health partners as part of community engagement processes (including committees, stakeholders and workshops) in planning and development decisions.
7.2 Health conditions. Support the work of Beach Cities Health District to monitor health and well being monitoring and tracking of health outcomes.
7.3 Health in all policies. Integrate a Health in All Policies approach to governance.
7.4 Health and equity. Aim to make a healthy and sustainable lifestyle accessible to all Hermosans, through action that aims to reduce inequities.
7.5 Evaluation and disclosure. Require an evaluation and disclosure (e.g. Health checklists, Health Impact Assessments) of environmental and health impacts or benefits for major discretionary projects.
7.6 Health-promoting uses. Prioritize health-promoting uses in new development including neighborhood markets, grocery stores, medical centers, pharmacies, parks, gyms, and community gardens.
7.7 Livability principles. Amend or update policies that may run counter to livability, sustainability, and health principles.
7.8 Food and nutrition choices. Expand healthy food and nutrition choices at city facilities and city-sponsored events.
7.9 Advertising health. Discourage the branding or advertisement of unhealthy behaviors at City facilities or City-sponsored events, and throughout the city.
Public Review Draft 224
48 | CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE
Goal 8. A performance-based management and benchmarking program.
Through performance-based management approaches, the City of Hermosa Beach can strive to ensure effective and efficient management of City operations.
Additionally, a commitment to performance management criteria helps to satisfy the
transparency and accountability desires of the community from their local government
and decision-makers.
Policies
8.1 Community indicators. Utilize performance metrics, standards, and data collection
procedures to evaluate progress towards goals.
8.2 Annual progress report. Evaluate progress towards goals and update progress through an
annual reporting program.
8.3 Amendment and implementation. Periodically evaluate, and as necessary, amend this Plan
to ensure continued progress toward the community vision.
8.4 Consistency among plans. Require other City plans and implementation mechanisms to
demonstrate their consistency with this Plan.
8.5 Strategic Plan alignment. Evaluate the Strategic Plan for alignment with the Vision, Goals,
and Policies of PLAN Hermosa, and as necessary, amend as the community Vision evolves.
Public Review Draft 225
PLAN HERMOSA | 49
This element of PLAN Hermosa provides goals and policies to guide the continuing
evolution of the urban form and land use patterns of Hermosa Beach. In coordination with the Sustainability, Mobility, Housing, Infrastructure, and Parks and Open Space
Elements, it defines how the City’s buildings and public spaces – homes, stores, offices,
parks, streets, and sidewalks – should organize and shape the community in the future and contributes to its reduced carbon footprint. The decisions we make about how
our city is laid out and how are buildings are designed directly affect Hermosa’s sustainability. These decisions directly influence how much energy our buildings need,
how easy it is to use different types of transportation, the availability of healthy food
choices, and the capacity of our community members to utilize alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. By establishing a vision for the built environment, the City is
inviting property owners, business owners, and community members to invest private funds into the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of buildings, land uses,
and infrastructure. This Element provides a long-term vision, goals and policies for land
use, character, and sustainable community design in Hermosa Beach.
2 land use + design
Shops along Pier Avenue
Public Review Draft 226
50 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The Coastal Zone in Hermosa Beach
Approximately half of the City lies within the coastal zone. The coastal zone boundary, defined by the California Coastal Act, spans the entire length of Hermosa Beach from north to south, and extends from the mean high tide line inland to roughly Ardmore Avenue with two exclusions – the area from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive between Longfellow Avenue and 31st Place; and the area east of Park Avenue or Loma Drive between 25th Street and 16th Street.
State Law
This Land Use and Design Element has been prepared to meet State General Plan Law requirements for land use identifying the location and distribution of uses, and additionally to meet California Coastal Act requirements related to coastal access as it relates to visitor-serving accommodations and coastal dependent or related uses.
General Plan
The Land Use Element has the broadest scope of the required elements, regulating how all land in a city is to be used in the future and to fully reflect the range of physical attributes that are important for the success of Hermosa Beach. California law identifies a city’s General Plan:
• Must include the distribution of housing, business, and industry.
• Must include the distribution of open space, including agricultural land, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty.
• Must include the distribution of recreation facilities and opportunities.
• Must include the location of educational facilities, public buildings and grounds, and solid/ liquid waste disposal facilities.
• May include other categories of public and private uses of land.
• Must include standards of population density and building intensity for the districts covered by the plan.
• Must identify and annually review areas that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
• May include text and diagrams that express community intentions regarding urban form and design - including differentiating neighborhoods, corridors, districts, mixture of land uses and housing types within each, and specific measures for regulating relationships between buildings and outdoor public areas.
Coastal Land Use Plan
The Coastal Act requires communities within the
Coastal Zone to address the land use related topics of:
• residential and commercial development
density or intensity;
• coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses;
• recreation and visitor-serving
accommodations;
• energy and industrial development; and
• archaeological and cultural resources.
Context
The urban structure and land use pattern of Hermosa Beach today is a reflection of the community’s early history, originally as a summer and weekend beach destination for Los Angeles residents visiting by way of the Pacific Electric Rail, and later as a full-time, full service community. The tracts originally laid out by the Hermosa Land and Water Company more than a century ago, included smaller lots and block sizes, a mix of small scale commercial and residential uses, and a distributed network of schools and parks to create a compact urban form. While continually evolving to meet modern needs and desires, Hermosa Beach has been able to retain many of the traditional neighborhood and town features, which has contributed to the high desirability of Hermosa Beach as a livable and sustainable community.
Public Review Draft 227
PLAN HERMOSA | 51
Existing Land Use Patterns
Land uses in Hermosa Beach are largely defined
by its residential neighborhoods and commercial
corridors or districts, with public and recreational
spaces like parks, the beach, and community
facilities found distributed throughout the City.
There are four broad categories of land uses
that can be currently found in Hermosa Beach.
These categories of land uses and the amount of
land currently allocated to each category are
described below and identified in Figure 2.1.
Residential Uses
Residential uses, in terms of land area, are the predominant use in Hermosa Beach, accounting for approximately 67% of the city’s total land area. Residential uses range in scale and density throughout the city to define and create residential neighborhoods, with a range of single-family homes, small scale apartments or condominiums, and larger multi-family housing developments.
Single-family land uses are found throughout the city, with some blocks and neighborhoods in the northeast, east, and southeast areas of the city that are exclusively or predominantly filled with single-family uses. There are 3,261 parcels in Hermosa Beach with single-family uses currently in place. Multi-family housing units are predominantly found in the southwest area of Hermosa Beach. The northwest portion of the City and The Strand have an even mix of single-family and multi-family housing options. There are two mobile home areas - one located north of Pier Avenue, between Loma and Valley Drive, which is a resident-owned park, and the other along 10th Street between Ardmore and PCH. There are also higher density multi-family units on PCH between 16th and 21st Street.
Commercial Uses
Commercial uses include a wide variety of retail,
restaurant, office, and other uses that provide
goods or services and help to drive the local
economy. These uses can be found primarily along
the city’s corridors and in Downtown, with pockets
of small scale commercial found in residential
neighborhoods. Commercial uses along Hermosa
Avenue, PCH, Prospect Avenue, and Manhattan
Avenue primarily consist of restaurants, stores, and
services to serve the neighborhood and nearby
beachgoers. Collectively these uses account for
approximately 7% of the city’s total land area.
Figure 2.1 Existing Land Uses
Public Review Draft 228
52 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Light Industrial Uses
Light industrial and manufacturing uses in Hermosa
Beach account for approximately 4% of the city’s total land area and are generally located within the city’s industrial area near Cypress Avenue. The Cypress Avenue area includes four acres of industrial land uses including light manufacturing, warehouses, construction supply, a surfboard manufacturing use, auto shops, air conditioning and heating manufacturing uses, and the City maintenance yard.
Institutional Uses
Institutional land uses include schools, government-
owned facilities, parks, the beach and open
space, and essential operations and service
areas such as parking, utility buildings, the City
maintenance yard and other facilities, or utility
easements, which in total account for 147 acres or
22% of the total land area. The City’s largest parks
or recreational spaces: the Community Center,
Valley Park, South Park, and Clark Stadium are
located adjacent to the Greenbelt with smaller
parks and parkettes, less than one acre in size,
distributed throughout the city.
Vacant Land
Vacant land accounts for less than 0.5% of the
land area in Hermosa Beach. Of the vacant
land, the majority of parcels are currently zoned
for residential uses, placing greater pressure on
underutilized commercial land to redevelop or
densify. While redevelopment of underutilized
spaces is a viable option, consideration of context
and community character need to be considered
so that new uses and development are consistent
with the existing or preferred urban form of the city.
Community Character &
Public Realm
This variation in land uses across the city, coupled with the development and redevelopment of individual properties over time, has resulted in a set of distinct, yet well integrated areas of town. These areas can generally be categorized as neighborhoods, corridors, or districts, with each area having its own unique characteristics. The residents of Hermosa Beach have expressed a strong desire to retain the character of their residential neighborhoods and similarly expressed interest in enhancing local economic activity within commercial districts and corridors. This element attempts to identify those character defining features of each neighborhood, corridor, or district, and provide policy guidance that supports the intended character of each area and its role in the larger community fabric.
The City’s public spaces – its streets and streetscapes, parks, plazas, and public buildings – create much of its urban form. They also provide an important amenity for residents, workers, and visitors to socialize, recreate, rest, and gather. The City’s public spaces are its public face, and are often the areas that visitors and residents most readily remember and associate with the city.
Aside from parks and the beach, a large portion of the public realm in Hermosa Beach is in the form of streets and sidewalks. The character and appearance, or “the streetscape,” defines the experience for those who use the street. This is especially true of pedestrians, for whom the level of safety, comfort, and aesthetic quality is a major attractor or detractor. In the commercial areas, most streets have interesting retail frontages along sidewalks, with amenities such as benches, landscaping, and street trees. Pier Avenue and Pier Plaza, in particular, have been enhanced with comprehensive streetscape upgrades. Additional areas throughtout Hermosa Beach can benefit from targeted improvements to sidewalks, building frontages, signage, landscapes, and streets, which has been the subject of master plans for the Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard corridors.
Public Review Draft 229
PLAN HERMOSA | 53
Community-Serving Facilities
There are certain types of uses, both public and private, that provide essential services to the community and
are integrated into the form and function of every community. These community facilities include schools,
medical facilities, and community arts or cultural educational centers. Many of these services are needed
and used by Hermosa Beach residents, and supported by City funding or local property taxes, even though
not all services are within Hermosa Beach.
Health and Medical Facilities
While there are no hospitals or emergency medical facilities located within Hermosa Beach, the City and its residents are served by Torrance Memorial Medical Center and medical facilities co-located at the Beach Cities Health District offices. These are the hospitals closest to Hermosa Beach.
Child Care Facilities
Child care facilities are also needed to serve residents as the family population increases. Similar to hospital and medical facilities, the City does not have discretionary authority over these facilities, but does identify through land use and zoning, which areas of the city are appropriate to allow these facilities and what conditions, if any, may be placed on these facilities to ensure they are compatible with surrounding uses. These facilities are required to be licensed by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. There are a total of four private child care facilities in Hermosa Beach, with a total capacity for 209 children.
Schools
The Hermosa Beach City School District (HBCSD) provides elementary school (K-8) public education to students living in Hermosa Beach. For high school, students attend either Mira Costa High School or Redondo Union High School. There is one private elementary school, Our Lady of Guadalupe School, and one accredited, non-traditional private school for grades 6-12, Fusion Academy.
With more than 1,400 students enrolled in 2015, and physical capacity (at State acceptable levels) to hold just 1,000 students, HBCSD has added portable classroom buildings and is using multi-purpose rooms for temporary classrooms, leading to fewer shared spaces. HBCSD has prepared a Long Range Facilities Master Plan and is evaluating options for providing additional classroom and recreational facility space.
The City’s role in school capacity planning is to ensure that development standards and other land use patterns do not constrain the District’s ability to meet the growing capacity needs and to support expansion of shared use facilities such as fields and playgrounds to meet the community’s recreational and physical activity needs.
Public Review Draft 230
54 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Coastal Priority Uses
Coastal land in Hermosa Beach is a
valued commodity because of its limited availability and high development pressure. Developing and implementing strategies that prioritize uses that maintain or enhance public coastal access while also meeting the needs and desires of local residents is necessary to maximize the potential of the coast and preserve character and quality of life. As shown in Figure 2.2, most of these uses are located in the Downtown or upper Pier Avenue areas.
Existing Coastal-Dependent and Coastal-Related Uses
Approximately 48 existing businesses in the Coastal
Zone are considered either a coastal-dependent
use or a coastal-related commercial use. Eight
types of existing uses within the Coastal Zone
qualify as coastal-dependent or coastal-related:
• Businesses renting coastal recreation
equipment to support surfing, biking, and
paddle boarding: They sell, rent, and service
equipment supporting coastal-dependent
recreation uses.
• Volleyball organizations operating
administrative facilities: These operations
provide services and equipment to support
coastal-dependent beach volleyball uses.
• Restaurants and bars located in Downtown
and along lower Pier Avenue: Food service
businesses in these areas serve visitors to the
beach and rely on beach visitors for much
of their revenue. Additionally, they rely on
proximity to the beach for marketing purposes.
• Surfboard manufacturing in the Cypress area.
• Hotels located on The Strand, Pier Avenue,
14th Street, and 11th Street: As hotels almost
exclusively serve visitors, there would be no
guests without beach access. Most hotel sites
use the “beach front lodging” and “ocean
views” for their main advertising message.
• Retail stores located in Downtown and along Pier Avenue. These shops sell souvenirs, beach clothing and accessories, and equipment such as bicycles and surfboards. They depend on tourism and provide services or merchandise related to the coast, and their viability is directly related to a location near the coast.
• Travel agencies that attract business based on their location in the Coastal Zone and provide services supporting coastal-dependent hotel and recreational uses.
• The Starfish Learning Center provides childhood education on marine life and ecosystems.
Figure 2.2 Coastal-Dependent Uses
Public Review Draft 231
PLAN HERMOSA | 55
Visitor-Serving Uses
Hermosa Beach naturally draws a high number of
annual visitors. Annual surveys conducted by Los
Angeles County Ocean Lifeguards on the beach
have established that close to 500,000 individuals
visit the beach each month, rising to between
800,000 and 1.2 million visitors in summer months.
Hundreds of businesses and facilities in Hermosa
Beach serve the needs of visitors to the Coastal
Zone. Some are located along the central portion
of The Strand, in Pier Plaza, and along Hermosa
Avenue and Pier Avenue. Businesses and facilities
along upper Pier Avenue and Pacific Coast
Highway also serve visitors.
Local-Serving Commercial Uses
Hermosa Beach community members have expressed a strong desire for more local-serving commercial uses. The requirement to prioritize coastal-dependent uses could conflict with this desire. Given the limited amount of land that can accommodate commercial use in Hermosa Beach, it is necessary to find a way to balance local-serving uses with coastal priority uses. Giving coastal-dependent uses priority in the Recreational Commercial land use designation while giving local-serving uses priority in the Community Commercial land use designation ensures that both needs are balanced effectively (See Figure 2.3).
Affordable Accommodations
A key provision of ensuring public access to the coast is the availability of affordable visitor-serving accommodations. The Coastal Act requires the City to establish what “lower cost” means in the context of accommodations available today or those proposed to be built or removed in the future. For the provision of lower cost accommodations, the threshold may differ significantly in various parts of the state. Hotels and motels may or may not be defined as lower cost, depending on various factors such as room rates, amenities, and overall quality. Most methods to define “lower cost” and “higher cost” accommodations involve surveys of room rates in the area compared to the statewide average.
As of 2015, two hotels and one motel in the Coastal
Zone offer a combined total of 264 rooms. A
time-share property and youth hostel provide an
additional 115 rooms in the Coastal Zone. Four
additional hotels are located in Hermosa Beach
outside the Coastal Zone, offering 325 rooms. These
locations have an average high rate of $279 per
night, and an average low rate of $202 per night,
compared to a statewide average of $118 per
night (2012). Peak summer season occupancy
rates average around 85%. Campgrounds, cabins,
cottages, yurts, and similar uses are by their nature
usually lower cost. In Hermosa Beach, there is no
land area large enough to accommodate these
types of facilities, so they are not considered a
significant source of lower cost accommodations.
Due to the small number of and high demand for
overnight accommodations in the Coastal Zone
and their relatively high nightly room rates, the City
should preserve the existing inventory of low cost
rooms, while also developing off-site mitigation and
in lieu fee options to provide for more visitor-serving
accommodations.
Private short-term rentals can add to the inventory
of overnight accommodations in the Coastal Zone.
However, in Hermosa Beach, additional ordinances
would be required to allow such rentals and to
qualify, register, and regulate them.
Energy Facilities
Hermosa Beach currently has no energy facilities in the Coastal Zone. Following the 2015 defeat of Measure O, which would have repealed a long-standing ban on oil drilling in the city, Coastal Act energy requirements apply only to the possibility of future renewable energy facilities in the Coastal Zone such as wind, solar, and wave power. It is the desire of the State of California, the Coastal Commission, and the City of Hermosa Beach to encourage the installation and use of renewable energy systems, and to remove obstacles to their installation, while minimizing potential impacts to wildlife, resources, and scenic quality.
Public Review Draft 232
56 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Historic + Cultural Resources
Protection of historic resources preserves our
cultural past and maintains Hermosa’s identity.
Some communities have ‘marketed’ these
resources as an important part of their economic
development programs. Property owners can be
proud of their contribution and also obtain financial
incentives. The City recognizes the benefits of
protecting historical resources and acknowledges
Hermosa Beach’s cultural past as a significant
characteristic of the city’s identity. In 2003, three
structures were designated for protection under the
City’s Historical Resources Preservation Ordinance:
the Bijou Theater building, Bank of America
building, and the Community Center.
The City’s Historic Resources Preservation
Ordinance in Municipal Code Chapter 12.53 is
intended to identify and ensure the long-term
protection and use of historic resources, such as
buildings and structures, sites and places within
the city that reflect special elements of the city’s
architectural, artistic, cultural, historical, political,
and social heritage.
While Hermosa Beach has made strides in
protecting historic resources, the City recognizes
that there is more that can be accomplished.
As time progresses on, more resources become
potential candidates by virtue of their age and
community significance. In 2013, a windshield
survey and records search was conducted to
identify resources potentially eligible for landmark
status based on their age and architectural style.
The survey results indicate approximately 220
potential historic and cultural resources, which
includes residential buildings, private/commercial
buildings, public facilities, and landscape
architecture features that may be eligible for local
landmark status.
Through the efforts of the Hermosa Beach Historical
Society, community members have acquired,
preserved, and interpreted historical memorabilia
associated with the city’s history. The items are
on display at the Community Center and are
free to the public to view. The mission of the
Hermosa Beach Historical Society is to acquire,
preserve, interpret historical memorabilia, and
other materials pertaining to the history of Hermosa
Beach. This collection shall be extended to the
public as a source of delight illumination, and
lifelong learning. If successful, preservation will
be better integrated into City procedures and
interdepartmental decisions.
Former Bijou Theater
Public Review Draft 233
PLAN HERMOSA | 57
Public Art + Design
The City of Hermosa Beach’s artistic past has
shaped its vision and guiding principles for the future, and continues to resonate today. Public art includes artwork placed and integrated into the public realm for the community to enjoy. They provide both aesthetic and practical purposes that enhance community character and shapes identity. The public art and design in Hermosa Beach is a true reflection of the City’s name, “Hermosa”, meaning “beautiful” in Spanish. Since incorporation in 1907, the city has evolved into a vibrant and distinct beach community. The prevalence of public art and festivals contribute to the “funky” and “eclectic” character.
Public art and design has played a large role in shaping the city’s identity and is appreciated by residents and visitors alike. Public art displays in Hermosa Beach often help to share the rich cultural history of the town in the form of sculptures, murals, and placards or informational displays. These more permanent and highly visible displays - such as the many murals adorning previously blank walls throughout Downtown - contribute to the beautification and aesthetic value of the community and are the result of cooperation, dedication, and commitment from many volunteers, donors, and community groups.
Temporary displays of art - such as the Portraits of Hope painting of Lifeguard Towers up and down LA County Beaches - can serve multiple community fundraising, awareness, and beautification purposes. These became permanent art fixtures in the community. Fiesta Hermosa, hosted by the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, and the Hermosa Beach Fine Arts Festival are important events for local artists to showcase their work and help to connect the broader community with art.
The artistic culture in Hermosa Beach is more than the presence of paintings and sculptures in public places. The culture comes from the community groups, social events, and the larger community that participates in and values the intrinsic beauty of public art and creative artistic expression. Nonprofits like the Hermosa Arts Foundation and the Hermosa Beach Murals Project are examples of community organizations created specifically to enhance the role of public art in Hermosa Beach.
Hermosa Beach Arts Foundation
The Hermosa Beach Arts Foundation is a
non- profit organization, focused on creating
opportunities for the community and
organizations to participate in and celebrate
the arts.
Hermosa Beach Murals Project
The Hermosa Beach Murals Project uses the professional work of talented artists to beautify buildings throughout the City. Murals displaying Hermosa Beach’s rich history and beach culture are showcased bringing community members and visitors from all around to see them. The murals have become a destination point in the City and have educated the community while preserving its unique charm.
Fine Arts Festival
The Fine Arts Festival is an annual event that takes place in Hermosa Beach. Founded in 2002, this non-profit organization was created to promote art education and appreciation in the City. The festival provides members of the community to showcase their talents while supporting public art projects and art education for Hermosa Beach residents and schools.
Creative Economy
While public art is often viewed as primarily serving
aesthetic and beautification purposes, it can also
support economic vitality and help to provide a
diverse workforce. In Hermosa Beach, the artistic
community is deeply rooted in beach and surf
culture, with many of the most prominent surfboard
shapers of the last fifty years - including the likes
of Hap Jacobs, Greg Noll, Bing Copland, Dewey
Weber, Wayne Miyata, Donald Takayama and Phil
Becker - setting up shop along Cypress Avenue.
Artists, like many business sectors, need space to
create their art and venues or opportunities to sell
their work and can benefit from proximity to one
another. To encourage increased artistic activity
and support economic development objectives,
Hermosa Beach can ensure the space needed to
support this industry is provided in an accessible
and affordable manner that allows higher levels
of collaboration among artists - all essential
ingredients to flourishing creative communities.
Public Review Draft 234
58 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Land Use + Community Character Strategy
The following narrative describes the intended land use and community character of Hermosa Beach. There are four primary characteristics – referred to as the 4 D’s - that influence the form and function of the built environment – the destinations or uses, density/intensity of each use, the diversity of uses within a given area, and the design of the buildings and streets.
Destinations or uses
define the types of uses that are
encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited
on a piece of land. Destinations are split
into residential, commercial, creative, and
institutional uses. The land use designations
form all other aspects of the 4D’s.
Density and intensity
are a measure of the amount of land area compared to building area. Density, used for residential property, expresses the amount of land developed per residential dwelling unit. Intensity is used for nonresidential uses, and is expressed as a floor area ratio (FAR) which calculates the amount of usable floor area permitted in a building compared to the area of the lot on which the building stands.
Diversity or mix of uses
articulate whether an area is comprised of a
predominant type of use (i.e. residential) or
whether a wide range of uses are provided
to create a mix of activities. How the
different uses are physically arranged is also
described to highlight complementary uses.
Design of the built environment
addresses the desired form and character of the buildings and streets within a particular area and includes: the scale, massing, building orientation, and interaction of buildings with the public realm (sidewalks, streetscape, and street network).
1 3
2 4
Wide sidewalks and enhanced streetscape along Pier Avenue
Public Review Draft 235
PLAN HERMOSA | 59
The types of destinations or uses and density/
intensity are articulated through the land use designations assigned to each parcel. Land use designations are policy statements providing direction to each individual property owner regarding what uses and densities/intensities are allowed.
The diversity of uses and the design characteristics of buildings and streets are defined within each character area. Character areas define the set of guidelines or parameters the City will use to ensure redevelopment or new projects are compatible with its surroundings.
Together, the land use designations and character areas are foundational components to this Plan, with the goals and policies found throughout other elements organized to achieve the intended land use and character strategy.
Land Use Designations
Land use designations indicate the
intended use of each parcel of land in
the city. They are developed to provide both
a vision of the organization of uses in the City
and a flexible structure to allow for changes in
economic conditions and community visions. The
overall distribution of land uses throughout the city
is identified in Figure 2.3, with each designation
defined and described in further detail in Table 2.1.
There are four categories of land use designations
that can be found in Hermosa Beach: residential,
commercial, creative industrial, and institutional.
Residential
Residential designations range in scale and density
throughout the city to define and create a variety of residential neighborhoods. Allowable densities range from a low of two units per acre, up to a maximum of 33 units per acre, with density ranges spread across low, medium, and high density designations.
Commercial
Commercial designations provide for a wide
variety of retail, restaurant, office, and other
uses that provide goods or services. Commercial
designations are organized based on the scale
and type of goods or services provided. The most
localized designations are intended to serve a
neighborhood and residents within the immediate
vicinity, while other commercial designations are
intended to serve the entire community or the
region.
Creative
Creative land use designations are intended
to provide space for production, design, and
manufacturing uses that support the local
employment base and produce goods and
services that enhance the brand of Hermosa
Beach as a creative and innovative community.
Uses that are considered light industrial are to be
designed and sited in a manner that ensures their
compatibility with surrounding uses.
Institutional
Institutional uses offer a range of public and community-oriented uses such as schools, parks, community facilities, administrative offices or buildings, and space for essential services and utility needs. Institutional uses also vary in scale from parkettes at a few thousand square feet to the beach which includes approximately 63 acres of land area.
Zoning Districts
Zoning districts are an implementation mechanism of the land use designations, and provide greater details regarding: specific allowances and prohibitions of uses, dimensional requirements such as building setbacks, parking standards, and building heights. Land use designations and zoning districts must be compatible, but need not be exactly the same. Zoning districts must be within the range of the allowed intensity and
uses found in this Plan.
Public Review Draft 236
60 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Figure 2.3 Land Use Designations Map
Public Review Draft 237
PLAN HERMOSA | 61
Table 2.1 Land Use Designations
Designation Definition Density/Intensity
Low Density Single-family residential (attached or detached)2.0 - 13.0 DU/AC
Medium Density Single-family residential and small-scale multi-family residential (duplex, triplex, condominium)13.1 - 25.0 DU/AC
High Density Medium (8-20 unit buildings) and large-scale (20+
unit buildings) multi-family residential 25.1 - 33.0 DU/AC
Mobile Home Mobile home parks, where lots are owned, rented or leased to accommodate mobile homes for human habitation
2.0 - 13.1 DU/AC
Neighborhood Convenience stores, markets, eateries, laundromats,
or similar uses to primarily serve local walk-in traffic 0.5 - 1.0 FAR
Community Locally-oriented uses including retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services 0.5 - 1.25 FAR
Recreational Coastal related uses such as beach/bike rentals,
restaurants, snack shops, lodging accommodations, entertainment space and similar uses
1.0 - 1.75 FAR
Gateway Lower floor community or regionally-oriented
commercial uses with upper floor high-visitor
office uses or hotel uses
1.0 - 2.0 FAR
Service Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations 0.25 - 0.5 FAR
Light Industrial Production uses for light manufacturing, creative art,
or design services with
professional office as an allowed accessory use
0.25 - 1.0 FAR
Public Facility Civic-related offices, community centers, operational facilities and educational/institutional
facilities
0.10 - 1.0 FAR
Open Space Passive and active park, recreational, and open
space uses 0.0 - 0.1 FAR
Beach Coastal-related recreational activities and essential public facilities (lifeguard tower/restrooms)0.0 - 0.05 FAR
Density:
Density is often the primary determinant in the
physical layout and appearance of residential
development in relationship to the land. It will
influence the housing type and perhaps the
style. Densities are calculated in dwelling units
per acre (du/ac), and can range from 2 du/ac
for a larger lot to 33 du/ac for an urban dwelling.
Intensity:
Intensity for nonresidential properties is expressed
in terms of the floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR
expresses the relationship between the amount
of usable floor area permitted in a building and
the area of the lot on which the building stands.
It is obtained by dividing the gross floor area of a
building by the total area of the lot and is often
represented as a decimal number.
OS
NC
HD
MD
LD
SC
B
PF
CC
RC
GC
CI
MH
Public Review Draft 238
62 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Land Use Descriptions
This section describes the purpose of each land use
and articulates the uses and range of development
intensity allowed in each designation.
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Purpose
This designation provides for the retention, maintenance, and investment in single-family residential neighborhoods and protects residential uses from potential nuisances of nonresidential uses. This low density designation is intended to provide the lowest levels of density, offer a high quality environment for family life, and ensure the preservation of residential property values.
Appropriate Land Uses
Single-family dwellings, either attached or detached, are the primary use in the low density residential designation. These uses can include home occupations, churches, schools, day cares, parks, public facilities, and other uses that are determined to be compatible and oriented towards serving the needs of low density neighborhoods may also be allowed.
Density Range
2.0 - 13 dwelling units per acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Purpose
The purpose of this designation is to provide for the enhancement and reinvestment in mixed scale residential neighborhoods in Hermosa Beach. This medium density residential designation permits property owners to construct two residential units on a single lot. It is located throughout the city to provide a transition between higher density residential or commercial uses and single-family neighborhoods.
Appropriate Land Uses
Small-scale residential uses, including single-family, duplex, condominiums, and townhouses in a two unit per lot format, are the predominant use in this designation. Education, cultural, and public assembly uses which are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards serving the needs of the neighborhood may also be allowed.
Density Range
13.1 - 25 dwelling units per acre
Residential Uses
Public Review Draft 239
PLAN HERMOSA | 63
Commercial UsesHigh Density Residential (HDR)
Purpose
The high density residential designation provides a range of residential housing types to serve the varying living accommodation needs or desires of the community. The intent of this designation is to preserve and contribute to the inventory of diverse housing types available to residents and offer alternatives to single-family residential development. The designation allows for a variety of high density building types and development patterns.
Appropriate Land Uses
This designation provides a range of residential
building formats including condominiums,
townhouses, duplex/triplex, and apartment
buildings. Single-family residential is discouraged
in this designation. If lot size permits, special care
living facilities and multi-family housing provided
in larger building styles with on-site parking and
amenities is allowed.
Density Range
25.1 – 33.0 dwelling units per acre
Mobile Home (MH)
Purpose
The Mobile Home designation is intended to retain land area for the sole use of mobile homes and recreational vehicles without threat of other residential and commercial encroachment. The designation is specifically applies to the Marine Land Mobile Home Park to retain mobile homes as an affordable housing option.
Appropriate Land Uses
Mobile home parks, where lots are owned, rented
or leased to accommodate mobile homes for
human habitation. Manufactured homes without
permanent foundation and recreational vehicles
intended as a transitional housing option are
allowed in this designation.
Density Range
2.0 - 13 dwelling units per acre
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Purpose
This designation creates neighborhood activity
centers that are easily accessible from many
directions, typically along main thoroughfares, and
primarily serve residents within a half-mile radius so
they may walk, bike, or make a short trip by car.
Neighborhood commercial uses located in close
proximity to the beach also serve as a location for
beachgoers to purchase food, rent equipment,
and enhance their beach experience.
Appropriate Land Uses
The neighborhood commercial designation provides nearby residents with convenient access to daily shopping or personal service needs. Convenience stores, eateries, laundromats, and similar uses intended to serve local walk-in traffic and nearby residents are the primary uses allowed. Neighborhood commercial designations located within the Coastal Zone may also be used to provide coastal-dependent uses such as beach equipment rentals.
Intensity Range
0.5 – 1.0 Floor Area Ratio
Public Review Draft 240
64 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Community Commercial (CC)
Purpose
This designation provides opportunities and locations for uses designed to serve the shopping, dining, and employment desires of the entire community. The Community Commercial designation is a major generator of local economic activity with a mix of locally-owned businesses and regional or national retailers present within this designation. This designation is found in many centralized locations throughout the community primarily along the city’s major corridors and in Downtown. Community Commercial land uses primarily serve the local market, though they may also serve the needs of visitors and residents of nearby jurisdictions.
Appropriate Land Uses
This designation provides space for locally oriented commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services. Uses on the ground floor are reserved for retail, restaurant, and other sales-tax revenue generating uses, while offices and personal service uses are encouraged on upper floors. Residential uses are not allowed in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect retail, office, and service uses that diversify the City’s tax base.
Intensity Range
0.5 – 1.25 Floor Area Ratio
Recreational Commercial (RC)
Purpose
As a premiere southern California coastal destination, Hermosa Beach has the luxury of offering a wide variety of recreational and coastal-related services to serve both visitors and residents. The Recreational Commercial designation is the primary cultural and entertainment center for the community with events, activities, and social gatherings often occurring here. Adjacency to the beach gives this designation the unique opportunity to provide a shopping and dining experience that attracts residents and visitors alike, capturing a large portion of the City’s economic activity generated by visitors.
Appropriate Land Uses
Coastal-related uses and visitor accommodations are the primary uses allowed within the Recreational Commercial designation. Restaurants, snack shops, entertainment, lodging, retail, beach rentals and other similar uses are prioritized within this designation and allowed on ground or upper floors. Office and personal service uses are allowed within this designation, provided they are located on upper floors.
Intensity Range
1.0 – 1.75 Floor Area Ratio
Gateway Commercial (GC)
Purpose
The Gateway Commercial designation is located
at key entryways and intersections to Hermosa
Beach to offer a greater variety of employment,
retail, and economic activity to the community.
The Gateway Commercial designation also plays
a role in providing services and amenities to
visitors and the region by encouraging hotels and
larger employment centers to be located in this
area. With the Gateway Commercial designation
appropriately applied to larger sites, they are
intended to provide both commercial services as
well as facilities that benefit the local community.
Appropriate Land Uses
In the Gateway Commercial designation, the ground floor should include community or regionally-oriented retail uses with upper floor high visitor office uses. Professional and medical offices and hotels providing lower cost visitor accommodations are also allowed in this designation. Public assembly, recreational, and other community facilities which are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards enhancing the gateway commercial district may also be allowed. Parking facilities will serve on-site uses and are encouraged to explore shared parking agreements with nearby commercial uses to encourage a ‘park once’ strategy.
Intensity Range
1.0 – 2.0 Floor Area Ratio
Public Review Draft 241
PLAN HERMOSA | 65
Service Commercial (SC)
Purpose
The Service Commercial designation is intended to provide adequate space specifically for specialty goods and services that serve residents and the region. These businesses often require indoor or outdoor warehousing or storage space to display or sell their inventory, and caution is taken to ensure they are located in a manner that minimizes their impact on nearby residential, retail, or office uses. Service Commercial uses often attract customers for a specific item or service, compared to a traditional retail district where customers may visit many businesses within a single trip.
Appropriate Land Uses
The Service Commercial designation is reserved for the provision of specialty goods and services, primarily related to home and automotive needs. Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations are the prioritized use with this designation. Retail trade and warehousing facilities are allowed as an accessory use to the primary use.
Intensity Range
0.25 – 0.50 Floor Area Ratio
Creative Light Industrial (CI)
Purpose
The creative light industrial designation is intended to create a suitable environment for small businesses that rely on manufacturing, warehousing, or production to operate successfully. This designation ensures uses are able to operate in a manner that contributes to local economic activity and diversifies the local employment base while minimizing impacts to adjacent residential uses. The designation fosters new innovations and creative economic activity by providing common gathering areas and meeting spaces to share and exchange ideas.
Appropriate Land Uses
This designation is reserved for the provision of production uses for light manufacturing, creative art, or design services. Flexible use spaces, co-working offices, and creative or “maker” industry incubator spaces are also permitted. Professional office or specialty retail are allowed only as an accessory use to the primary production uses. Residential uses are not allowed in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect industry and production uses that diversify the City’s tax base.
Intensity Range
0.5 – 1.0 Floor Area RatioCreative Uses
Public Review Draft 242
66 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Public Facilities (PF)
Purpose
The Public Facilities designation is intended to
assure the City and other institutional organizations
have adequate space to carry out the duties
and responsibilities of the organization. The Public
Facilities designation applies to both public and
quasi-public uses and may include physical
facilities or infrastructure related equipment or
structures needed to provide services.
Appropriate Land Uses
Civic-related administrative offices, community space, operational yards, and educational or institutional facilities are the primary uses allowed in this designation. Public utility structures or corridors, plazas, and historic landmarks or monuments are also allowed within this designation. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be allowed in this designation when co-located with public buildings and determined to be compatible with and avoid nuisances to surrounding uses.
Intensity Range
0.1 – 1.0 Floor Area Ratio
Open Space (OS)
Purpose
The Open Space designation is intended to
prohibit intensive urban development to those
open space areas of the city which are necessary
to assure permanent open space in and for public
parks and recreation areas; and where urban
development would be put at risk from natural
hazards. This designation provides for public and
community-serving facilities ranging in scale from a
few thousand square feet to several acres of land.
Appropriate Land Uses
Public parks in any size or format are the primary
use in this designation. Trails, community gardens,
and other similar uses that provide open space
resources to surrounding neighborhoods and the
region are permitted. Recreation facilities with an
emphasis on outdoor use are also allowed.
Intensity Range
0.0 – 0.1 Floor Area Ratio
City Beach (B)
Purpose
The beach offers exceptional natural beauty, provides for unique recreational activities, offers panoramic views, and is accessible to everyone. These elements combine to create an unrivaled natural asset that is cherished by the community and essential to the local beach culture. This designation is created to protect the recreational, aesthetic, and natural values of the beach. This designation is intended to prohibit any permanent buildings or structures beyond those for lifeguard and infrastructure, and minimize the amount of space used by temporary structures or equipment.
Appropriate Land Uses
This designation provides for coastal activities and events along the sandy shoreline. The provision of permanent or temporary structures is allowed on the beach only as they are essential to the safe operation and enjoyment of the beach. Infrastructure or amenities such as restrooms, playgrounds, stormwater drainages are allowed provided they do not create visual obstructions or impede recreational activities.
Intensity Range0.0 – 0.05 Floor Area Ratio
Institutional Uses
Public Review Draft 243
PLAN HERMOSA | 67
Character Areas
While Hermosa Beach largely identifies as a close-
knit and unified community, the unique and eclectic character of Hermosa Beach is a direct result of the distinct collection of neighborhoods and commercial areas that make up the fabric of the community. To ensure this unique character is protected for future generations, it is important to define and describe the unique characteristics of each area and establish goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and transform each area.
A community’s character can be defined by the distinctive or unique physical features, or attributes (i.e. hilly, small buildings, wide sidewalks) as well as the social characteristics that are influenced by physical characteristics (i.e. pedestrian-oriented, kid-friendly, safe and comfortable).
Since, the character defining features of Hermosa Beach vary by area, this section organizes the community by neighborhood, district, or corridor (see Figure 2.4). The discussion associated with each character area is intended to describe the future vision and articulate the proposed distribution of uses and design for the built environment.
When developing new programs or submitting applications for development this section should be referenced to ensure projects are consistent and compatible with the character of the area.
Neighborhoods
The residential structure of Hermosa Beach is made
up of individual neighborhoods whose boundaries
are generally defined by their development
pattern. Some neighborhoods, like the North
End, developed as distinct communities, while
others, like the Valley neighborhood, developed
incrementally over time.
Each neighborhood offers a different mix of
housing types, with some neighborhoods providing
exclusively single-family residential uses, and others
providing a variety of housing types, often with
single- and multi-family buildings coexisting on
the same block. Many neighborhoods also offer
commercial uses to serve the neighborhood needs.
There are a multitude of neighborhoods present in
Hermosa Beach including the North End, Hermosa
View, the Walk Streets, Sand Section, Valley,
Herondo, Greenbelt, Hermosa Hills, and Eastside.
Districts
There are a number of activity centers with
clusters of similar activities or uses – located in
close proximity to one another found in Hermosa
Beach. Some districts provide a single type of use,
while others require a diverse mix of uses to be
economically successful. These districts function
as destinations or focal points in the city, and are
important places to encourage pedestrian activity
and cluster particular land uses.
The three districts in Hermosa Beach include the
Civic Center, Downtown, and the Cypress area.
Corridors
Arterial roads and other high activity areas laid out in a linear format are another area in which commercial activity occurs. While occurring over a large length of space, many corridors include a series of nodes with activities to avoid a commercial strip pattern of development.
The two key commercial corridors in Hermosa Beach are the Aviation Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway corridors.
How does this relate to Zoning?
The Zoning Code will incorporate the specific
development standards and uses allowed
within each zoning district by combining
guidance from the following components of
the General Plan:
Land Use Designation
The particular land use designation on a
parcel identifies the allowable uses and the
appropriate range of density or intensity of
development allowed.
Character Area
The character area will provide guidance on how buildings should be oriented and interact with the public realm or streetscape to encourage a cohesive and coordinated urban realm for each area.
Goals and Policies
The goals and policies should be consulted for further guidance on how to integrate new projects into the existing urban fabric.
Public Review Draft 244
68 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Figure 2.4 Hermosa Beach Neighborhoods, Corridors, and Districts Map
* Open Space is located throughout select neighborhoods, centers, and corridors.
Public Review Draft 245
PLAN HERMOSA | 69
North End Neighborhood
The North End is a well defined neighborhood with a range of low- and medium- density residential development with centralized neighborhood commercial goods and services.
Future Vision
The intent is to preserve building form and scale and maintain neighborhood connectivity and access to nearby commercial services. Buildings should orient toward the walk streets and preserve the street frontages from driveways and curb cuts to maintain the walkable qualities offered by this neighborhood’s compact grid network and scale of building that is compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
This neighborhood is comprised of a combination of single-family and multi-family dwellings, with neighborhood commercial uses nearby.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Buildings are one or two stories or up to 25 feet in height.
• Each lot accommodates a single residential unit, with a maximum of two allowed under certain conditions.
• Buildings have a primary entrance onto the numbered streets, and are encouraged to have a secondary entrance on perpendicular streets.
• Front and side setbacks may be fairly narrow, with many building frontages within 10 feet of the sidewalk.
• Front porches, stoops, balconies, and terraces provide a sense of “outdoor public living”.
• View corridors toward the beach are treasured and protected.
Public Realm Design
• Residential parking is mostly accessed off alleys, which
supports frontages that are pedestrian-oriented and active.
• It is acceptable for residences to “turn their backs” toward
Valley Drive, installing fences or shrubbery as needed.
• Sidewalks are provided on all collector streets, and where
right-of-way width allows, sidewalks are separated from the
street by parkways and planting strips.
OSNCHDMDLD
Wide sidewalks connecting arterial streets.
To achieve the intent,
buildings should preserve form and scale and maintain neighborhood
connectivity and access
to nearby commercial
services.
Public Review Draft 246
70 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
This neighborhood is perched high upon a hill, with a dramatic rise in slope moving north from Gould Avenue, creating a separate, distinct single-family residential enclave.
Future Vision
The intent is to preserve building form, orientation or scale,
and retain the unique streetscape with wide parkways and uninterrupted sidewalks. The low density residential development pattern of this neighborhood should be maintained through the retention of larger lot sizes, building orientation toward the street, and wider setbacks that provide room for parkways and sidewalks.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
This neighborhood is exclusively residential with a predominance of
single-family homes, and a few properties with two units per lot.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Within the northern area buildings are mostly long and narrow, responding to the parcel configuration.
• Single-family residences, duplexes, and townhouses are the preferred residential types.
• Residences address the street with their primary façade, with minimal front setbacks, and typically do not exceed two stories.
• The hilly residential neighborhood with larger parcels provide a variety of architectural styles and building types.
• Houses on lots greater than 5,000 square feet may be set back at considerable distance from the street in a more typical “suburban” pattern.
Public Realm Design
• Most homes along Longfellow Avenue are served by alleyways at the back of the property, providing garage access and leaving sidewalks along Longfellow Avenue uninterrupted by driveway aprons and curb cuts.
• Local streets at the south end of this neighborhood terminate at a cul-de-sac or dead end.
• Longfellow Avenue has a unique streetscape quality within this neighborhood, with wider well-kept planter strips and tall palm trees.
To achieve the intent,
buildings should preserve form, orientation or
scale and retain the
unique streetscape with
wide parkways and
uninterrupted sidewalks.
Wide planter strips separate the sidewalk and street.
Hermosa View Neighborhood
MDLD
Public Review Draft 247
PLAN HERMOSA | 71
Walk Street Neighborhood
The Walk Street neighborhood currently provides a range of beach side residential development and neighborhood commercial services within a linear street network. The walk streets that provide beach access from Hermosa Avenue out to The Strand are a feature unique to this beach front residential area.
Future Vision
The intent is to maintain the high quality pedestrian connections through the walk streets and retain the form, scale, and orientation of buildings in this area by designing buildings that take advantage of the opportunities for outdoor living.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The walk street neighborhood offers a range of low, medium, and high density residential uses as well as small pockets of neighborhood-scale commercial services around 1st Street, 4th Street, and 22nd Street.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• This beach front area provides a variety of building formats and architectural styles though the majority of buildings are one to three story wood frame residential buildings.
• Properties with frontage along The Strand are afforded sweeping ocean views, generally orienting buildings and organizing living spaces to take advantage of those views.
• Most parcels have access on both a walk street and an alleyway. Buildings are designed with porches, patios, or decks oriented toward walk streets or The Strand and parking is provided in tuck-under garages through alleyways.
Public Realm Design
• Walk streets provide the community with safe and easy
pedestrian access to The Strand and the beach.
• Hermosa Avenue provides a continuous vehicle route, running
the length of the city, while The Strand, and sidewalks along
Hermosa Avenue provide similar levels of uninterrupted paths
to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized travel.
• Right-of-way easements along walk streets and requirements
to keep walls and fences low serve a dual purpose of
protecting views and providing outdoor patio or porch space.
To achieve the intent, the
City should maintain the high quality pedestrian
connections through the
walk streets and retain the
form, scale, and orientation
of buildings in this area.
Walk street providing safe and easy pedestrian access to the beach.
BOSNCHDMDLD
Public Review Draft 248
72 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Today, the Sand Section neighborhood accommodates a range of residential development types, with neighborhood commercial services. The abundance of small, pedestrian-friendly blocks give this area its charm and intimate sense of community.
Future Vision
The intent is to enhance multi-modal connectivity and access
while preserving the building form, scale, and orientation in this neighborhood. Through new multi-modal connections, convenient access to community parks and the Greenbelt is provided and helps to maintain the compact urban format and highly connected street network of this neighborhood.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
It is appropriate to have small-scale apartments adjacent to
single-family homes in this area – an integrated mixture of housing
types is what defines the identity of the Sand Section.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Most buildings are one or two stories or approximately 15-25 feet tall.
• Flat, box-like front façades are discouraged in favor of greater articulation and stepbacks.
• Garages and parking are typically accessed through alleyways or driveways that extend behind buildings.
• Front, side, and rear setbacks in this area are narrow, with many older buildings developed up to the sidewalk.
Public Realm Design
• Monterey Boulevard is a multi-modal street that permits neighborhood residents to move through the area easily on any means of transportation they choose.
• Sidewalks are provided on all collector streets and are wider along main thoroughfares such as Hermosa Avenue.
• The rear-accessed parking minimizes curb cuts on the street, helping to maintain the public parking supply, as well as the integrity of the sidewalks and the pedestrian environment.
• Bicycle boulevards are abundant in this neighborhood, providing convenient east-west access to the beach, with safe and controlled crossing at intersections along Hermosa Avenue.
To achieve the intent, the
City should enhance multi-
modal connectivity and
access while preserving
the building form, scale,
and orientation in this
neighborhood.
Mixture of housing types with unique charm.
Sand Section Neighborhood
PF OSNCHDMDLD
Public Review Draft 249
PLAN HERMOSA | 73
Valley Neighborhood
The Valley Neighborhood includes low density, single-family homes between key community facilities. The average density for this area is roughly 10 dwelling units per acre, with parcel sizes ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. The Valley Greenbelt runs the length of this area and Valley School and Valley Park are beneficial amenities to residents in this neighborhood.
Future Vision
The intent is to improve key pedestrian thoroughfares that
enhance connectivity and access while preserving the single-family development pattern of this area. Buildings should retain larger setbacks and lower scale and massing, and new sidewalks should be added to contribute to a complete pedestrian network.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The Valley area is almost exclusively one to two-story single-family
homes, with multi-family condo developments next to Valley Park.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• The area is dominated by ranch style houses, constructed in
various architectural designs and during varying time periods.
• Due to larger parcel size, fences and/or landscaping in front
of residences are prevalent throughout and front setbacks are larger than most other areas of the City.
• Garages that are visible from the street should not dominate
front facades, and any new construction or renovation should strive to minimize their prominence.
Public Realm Design
• While many streets in this neighborhood have historically had intermittent sidewalks or no sidewalks at all, sidewalks should be added over time in key locations to facilitate greater pedestrian safety and connections.
• Access to the Valley Greenbelt and safety for children walking or biking to school from this neighborhood should be enhanced through pedestrian crossing improvements.
• Greater east-west connections for bicyclists and pedestrians are provided with multiple high priority walking and biking streets needed to connect this neighborhood with other areas.
• Traffic calming and safety techniques are employed to minimize nuisances from higher volume traffic thoroughfares.
To achieve the intent, the
City should improve key
pedestrian thoroughfares to enhance connectivity and
access while preserving the
single-family development
pattern of this area.
Traditional ranch style architecture.
LD PF OS
Public Review Draft 250
74 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The Herondo Neighborhood currently accommodates the city’s higher density and larger format residential development. Multiple connections to nearby neighborhoods, community parks, and the Greenbelt are provided throughout Herondo Neighborhood.
Future Vision
The intent is to preserve the scale and building form of this
neighborhood and maintain connections and access to nearby amenities. To ensure a diverse range of housing formats and building types, this area will be protected for larger format apartment complexes and townhouses. Permeability through the large apartment blocks should continue to be improved, allowing residents to walk to the Greenbelt and the beach.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
This area will retain higher density residential development
patterns. Along Monterey Boulevard, multi-family housing coexists
with townhouses and duplexes.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Condominium and apartment building styles are common in
this area, with larger building types than most neighborhoods.
• Most buildings are three stories tall, and are oriented towards
the street, with primary entrances to apartments connected directly to the sidewalk.
• Parking access is provided internal to blocks, along alleys or
underground in order to reduce curb cuts and disruptions to the pedestrian realm.
Public Realm Design
• Block sizes are larger than elsewhere in the city. Front setbacks are moderate, allowing space for well maintained public frontages with ample lawns and landscaping.
• Low fences should be permitted, but walling off apartments or condominium complexes from the street is discouraged. Second Avenue and Herondo Street provide the quickest access to Pacific Coast Highway and other surroundings areas for all transportation modes.
• The facilities and field at South Park are a source of recreation and leisure for residents, and many building complexes provide additional recreational amenities and open space on-site to serve residents of each complex.
To achieve the intent, the
City should preserve the
scale and building form
of this neighborhood and maintain connections and
access to nearby amenities.
Multi-family housing with ample lawn space.
Herondo Neighborhood
OSHDMD
Public Review Draft 251
PLAN HERMOSA | 75
Greenbelt Neighborhood
The Greenbelt Neighborhood offers a range of small scale residential development types and provides nearby access to commercial services along PCH. Single-family homes and duplexes currently coexist side by side.
Future Vision
The intent is to maintain the building scale and form of this neighborhood, while enhancing access to local neighborhood serving commercial uses. Neighborhood commercial uses and amenities should be added to serve the needs of nearby residents.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The Greenbelt residential neighborhood includes low- and medium-density residential uses located between the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt towards Pacific Coast Highway.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Most lots in this neighborhood range from 2,500 to 5,000 square feet, with the buildings ranging in height from one to three stories.
• Setbacks are generally smaller in this area than the predominantly single-family neighborhoods.
• Designing two to four unit complexes to resemble single-family homes with articulation and separate entrances is desirable.
• This area is similar to the Sand Section in that it contains a diversity of residential typologies on small, regularly shaped parcels. The difference is the absence of alleys, which leads to a greater need for garages to be located on front facades.
Public Realm Design
• There should be successful transitions between residential uses
and adjacent retail/service uses on Pacific Coast Highway.
• Greater east-west connections for bicyclists and pedestrians
should be provided with high priority walking and biking streets
needed to connect this neighborhood with other areas.
• The sloped nature of this neighborhood necessitates a slightly
different building design and orientation on each property,
but also offers opportunities for each property to maximize
views as buildings step down to match building height limits.
To achieve the intent, the
City should maintain the
building scale and form of
this neighborhood, while enhancing access to local
neighborhood serving
commercial uses.
OSNCMDLD
Multi-unit residential building with separate patios and entrances.
Herondo Neighborhood
Public Review Draft 252
76 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The Hermosa Hills area transitions from high- and medium- density uses adjacent to PCH and lower density single-family uses closer to Prospect Avenue. House forms are generally small in this area, with small to moderate front and side setbacks, and many streets are closed to through traffic next to PCH.
Future Vision
The intent is to improve key pedestrian thoroughfares to
enhance connectivity and access while preserving the single-family development pattern of this area. Many streets in this neighborhood have been enhanced with new sidewalks to create a complete pedestrian network.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
Though most buildings are predominantly one or two-story single-
family structures, duplexes and a few mid-size apartment buildings
back onto commercial properties along Pacific Coast Highway.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Garages, while visible from the street, should not dominate front facades, and any new construction or renovation should strive to minimize their prominence.
• There are successful transitions between residential uses and adjacent retail/service uses on Pacific Coast Highway with several of the larger, deep lots located closest to PCH.
Public Realm Design
• Prospect Avenue is the primary arterial street connecting this neighborhood to the rest of the city. Prospect Avenue is also a major pedestrian passage, with a wide planting strip to buffer pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
• The hillside area covers the residential portions of Hermosa Beach east of Pacific Coast Highway to the city boundary. Most streets in this area have a gentle upslope, encouraging homes to organize living space to include ocean views out over their neighbors.
• Greater east-west connections for bicyclists and pedestrians are provided with multiple high priority walking and biking streets needed to connect this neighborhood with other areas.
The intent is to improve key
pedestrian thoroughfares to enhance connectivity and
access while preserving the
single-family development
pattern of this area.
Landscaping and medians provide shade to pedestrians.
Hermosa Hills Neighborhood
MDLD PF OSHD
Public Review Draft 253
PLAN HERMOSA | 77
Eastside Neighborhood
The Eastside Neighborhood accommodates single-family residential development types and includes Hermosa View school and multiple neighborhood parks. In terms of street activity levels, this neighborhood is one of the quietest areas of the community.
Future Vision
The intent is to preserve building form, orientation and scale, and retain the quiet nature and unique streetscape of this area. Many streets in this neighborhood have been enhanced with new sidewalks to create a complete pedestrian network.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
This neighborhood is one of the city’s few areas that is almost exclusively comprised of single-family housing units. Centralized neighborhood commercial uses adjacent to community open spaces will be introduced for residents to easily access goods and services nearby.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• House forms are generally small in this area, with small to moderate front and side setbacks.
• Garages, while visible from the street, should not dominate front facades, and any new construction or renovation should strive to minimize their prominence.
• Buildings are predominantly one or two story single-family structures, with a few condominium developments along Prospect Ave.
• Most residential development in this area is built at densities below 13 dwelling units per acre.
Public Realm Design
• Prospect Avenue is the primary arterial street connecting this
neighborhood to the rest of the city. Prospect Avenue is also a
major pedestrian passage, with a wide planting strip to buffer
pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
• Many of the local streets have vehicle barriers along Harper
Avenue, discouraging cut-through traffic, but allowing for
excellent pedestrian connectivity.
• Most properties in this area have a gentle downslope heading
toward the city boundary, allowing for many homes to have
Los Angeles Basin views out over their neighbors.
To achieve the intent,
buildings should preserve
form, orientation and scale
and retain the quiet nature
and unique streetscape of
this area.
Front yard with parking adjacent to the building.
NCMDLD PF OS
Public Review Draft 254
78 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The Downtown District is the heart of social and commercial activity in Hermosa Beach, serving as a centralized location for social gatherings and the recreational activities of residents and visitors. Pier Plaza serves as a popular venue for outdoor events and dining, connecting Downtown to the beach, pier, and The Strand. The “pedestrian scramble” at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue is a unique pedestrian amenity that reinforces the pedestrian-oriented nature of Downtown.
Future Vision
The intent is to enhance the building form and orientation, and
maintain the pedestrian realm along Pier Ave while transforming
the realm on Hermosa Avenue. The Downtown District will
continue to offer an array of uses for residents and visitors, and
any new buildings should pay close attention to and contribute
to the high quality pedestrian environment provided throughout
Downtown.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The types of uses provide services and activities associated with
the local beach culture to residents as well as visitors to the city.
The mix of community and recreational uses serve a functional
role in meeting the daily needs and activities of residents and
visitors, and accommodate coastal-related recreation and
commercial uses which serve the year-round needs of residents
and visitors and are attractive and compatible with adjacent
residential neighborhoods and commercial districts.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• First floor street front businesses should include retail,
restaurants, and other sales tax-generating commercial uses
to promote lively pedestrian activity on Downtown streets.
• Development along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue
should conform to recommendations of the Downtown
Revitaliation Strategy to realize a town-scale Main Street
environment that supports pedestrian activity and local
serving commerce.
• Many of the unique buildings, streetscape features, and
public spaces are iconic or historic in nature, and new
buildings should be carefully integrated to retain the town’s
eclectic charm.
To achieve the intent,
buildings should enhance form and orientation and maintain the pedestrian
realm along Pier Ave while transforming the realm on
Hermosa Ave.
Small plazas and parklets adjacent to street.
Downtown District
OSCC RC PF BMH
Public Review Draft 255
PLAN HERMOSA | 79
• Buildings should be two to three stories in height, cover most or all of the parcel, and frequently abut neighboring structures.
• Enhance the area’s role as a visitor destination by facilitating the development of boutique hotels that provide specific benefits to the community.
• Public and semi-public spaces should maximize views of the coastline and ocean.
Public Realm Design
The pedestrian orientation of Downtown streetscapes should be
improved through provision of:
• Special paving or signage at the Pier Ave/Hermosa Avenue
intersection.
• Additional palm trees on Hermosa Avenue to emphasize its
importance and enhance the character of its streetscape.
• Liberalized encroachment/build-to regulations to permit more
café and recessed outdoor seating opportunities.
• Arts and cultural activities focused in and around the
Downtown.
• Café/seating spaces, plazas, parklettes, and other landscaping
features are woven into the design of streets and buildings.
• Walking and bicycling are the primary means for traveling
around Downtown while vehicles are accommodated through
consolidated parking lots and metered street parking.
• Traffic speeds along Hermosa Avenue should be managed
through traffic calming, signalization, and streetscape
enhancements.
Downtown Parking Design
• A park-once district that allows centralized, shared parking facilities providing pedestrian connections at multiple destinations should be provided in Downtown.
• Parking should be provided off-site through public or private shared parking facilities, with any on-site parking situated to the rear of the buildings and/or hidden and screened.
• Real-time parking supply signage should be added to major City lots/structures to improve circulation and access to the beach and The Strand.
Restaurants and shops open onto activity on Pier Plaza
Downtown has high levels of pedestrian activity.
Downtown District
Public Review Draft 256
80 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Civic Center District
At the physical center of town, the Civic Center area is the civic hub of services and activities for the community The Civic Center provides efficient and accessible services to the community, but is in need of modernization, repairs, and additional space.
Future Vision
The intent is to transform the building orientation and design in the Civic Center, while enhancing the streetscape and circulation of all modes and users. The Civic Center facilities will be modernized to accommodate the range of functions and services provided by the City, and will be expanded to provide consolidated parking facilities in well designed or underground parking structures to serve commercial uses both along Pacific Coast Highway and Downtown. Streetscape enhancements will provide an important connection between the main thoroughfares of Pacific Coast Highway, Downtown, and the residential neighborhoods.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The Civic Center area should provide public facilities and open space uses to serve as the City government’s primary facility presence within the community. The City’s administrative and operational facilities should be coordinated into a single, full-service facility.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• In the Civic Center area, active and well designed ground floors are critical. Ground floors should be mostly transparent and open to the public.
• Community facilities and City Hall should be designed and oriented toward the street with inviting public spaces and clearly marked entryways.
• Buildings should be two to three stories tall, with minimal (or no) setbacks,
• Design and maintain civic buildings in an architecturally distinguished manner that serves as a source of identity and pride. Architectural styles should be distinct with building entries placed along the front property line, and oriented towards Pier Avenue.
To achieve the intent,
buildings should transform
the orientation and design
in the Civic Center, while enhancing the streetscape
and circulation of all modes
and users.
The Community Center provides creative arts and athletic facilities.
OSPF
Public Review Draft 257
PLAN HERMOSA | 81
• Civic Center area facilities should be designed to accommodate parking demands for the beach, Downtown, and the PCH corridor.
• Although buildings can be accessed from rear or underground parking lots, the public street-facing entrance should be prominent and emphasized with pedestrian-oriented features.
• Community facilities should be designed and promoted for use by public and private organizations supporting tourism, conference, convention, and cultural uses.
Public Realm Design
• Provide easily accessible entryways and direct connections between civic, community, and recreational facilities.
• Streetscape enhancements should be made between Pacific Coast Highway and Valley Drive to provide a greater sense of arrival to Hermosa Beach.
• Circulation of vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes at Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore Drive is greatly enhanced.
• Non-motorized users of Ardmore Drive and Valley Drive are accommodated to facilitate safe north-south travel.
• Signage and other markers should be provided to assist residents and visitors in navigating to services and between facilities around the Civic Center.
Create a greater sense of arrival at Valley and Pier Avenue.
Public displays of art in the Civic Center help to enliven the area.
Public Review Draft 258
82 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The Cypress District currently includes a range of professional design, light manufacturing, and warehousing uses, and is home to many of the locally renowned surfboard shapers. The City operations yard occupies a large portion of this area.
Future Vision
The intent is to transform both the building design and orientation as
well as the public realm and streetscape within the Cypress District. This area is the creative, production and light industrial center of Hermosa Beach where ideas, spaces, and creativity are easily shared. The Cypress District includes a variety of flexible use spaces, co-working offices, and creative or “maker” industries. The City Yard has been re-purposed as an innovation center, with incubator space, job training programs, and related services to enhance the local economy.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The Cypress District is exclusively designated for creative light
industrial uses, with preference toward production uses aligned
with green economy. While the area should allow some retail uses,
the focus is on specialty trade services and must be accessory to
the design or production uses. The Cypress District should support
the development of new uses that will bring a wide range of
high-quality jobs accessible to people with a variety of skill levels,
including research and development and light industrial uses.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• This area should be comprised of one- and two-story industrial
buildings or lofts with entries that are visible from the street.
• The development or use of existing buildings to serve as
incubators, co-working space, or other creative sharing spaces should be encouraged.
• Greater flexibility in the application of aesthetic standards
should be provided to encourage artistic expression and creation of unique public spaces.
• Rooftops should provide green space, renewable energy and
decks.
• Adjacent residences should be buffered through the use of
landscaping, setbacks, or other techniques from businesses which produce noise, odors, high traffic volumes, light, or glare.
To achieve the intent,
building should transform both the design and
orientation as well as
the public realm and
streetscape within the
Cypress area.
Building with industrial architecture.
Cypress District
CI
Public Review Draft 259
PLAN HERMOSA | 83
Public Realm Design
• Cypress Avenue, with enhanced streetscape design, is an ideal
space for community-oriented art walks or sidewalk sales.
• Common gathering areas and meeting spaces are provided to
facilitate the sharing and exchanging of ideas.
• Unique signage, decals, or artworks should pay homage to the
area’s history as a surfboard manufacturing center.
• Artistic flair is provided through building design, signage, and
murals to enliven the area.
• Cypress Avenue should be used as a space for public
gathering and special events through the redesign of the
narrow right of way as a shared street for all modes of travel
that is comfortably scaled and designed for lower speeds.
• Parking is provided behind or to the side of buildings via
driveways and alleys.
Artistic flair is provided through signage.
Parking along side of buildings.
Cypress District
Public Review Draft 260
84 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Aviation Corridor
The Aviation Boulevard Corridor serves as the primary entry point into Hermosa Beach. There are currently a variety of commercial retail, office, and auto-oriented uses along the corridor.
Future Vision
The intent is to transform the building design, form, and orientation while enhancing the streetscape and access for pedestrians and bicycles in this area. The area has been transformed into a walkable, multi-use, active commercial corridor with services and facilities to serve the daily needs of residents east of PCH and providing artistic and cultural services to the entire community. Enhanced streetscapes with parkettes or outdoor space, paired with new commercial uses, should help to activate the street.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
The revitalized area includes key activity nodes, with retail, restaurant, and office uses and iconic architecture to mark the entry into Hermosa Beach. Gateway commercial uses should anchor each end of the corridor, creating multi-use activity centers. The installation or expansion of arts and cultural facilities along this corridor should be encouraged.
The use of a transfer of development right program to reduce intensification pressures of residential neighborhoods, and allowing vertical mixed use residential development along the Aviation Corridor with the purchase/transfer of development rights should be considered.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• Buildings should be one or two stories tall, with high floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor creating appropriately scaled buildings.
• High quality signage/materials and maximum transparency are critical features that should be included to attract shoppers and walkers.
• Redevelopment of larger parcels is designed in a way that orients new buildings around a central plaza or square and provides a mixture of retail and office uses within a single site.
• Most parking should be arranged along the sides or behind buildings, with larger parcels able to provide consolidated parking facilities that can serve uses along the entire corridor.
To achieve the intent,
building should transform
building design, form, and
orientation while enhancing
the streetscape and access
for pedestrians and bicycles
in this area.
South Bay Art Studio provides ground floor activities.
OSGCCC
Public Review Draft 261
PLAN HERMOSA | 85
• With shallow lots, buildings are placed in close proximity to the street and designed to complement the surrounding resdiential area.
• Zero lot line front and side setbacks are encouraged to ensure a consistent rhythm of storefronts.
Public Realm Design
• Street parking, wide sidewalks, and street amenities should protect pedestrians from traffic and enliven the outdoor space.
• Enhanced connectivity should be provided through new pedestrian connections to adjacent residential areas.
• Traffic speeds should be moderated to ensure a smoother flow of vehicles along the corridor while enhancing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Redevelopment at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and PCH should respond to its regional significance as a gateway and key activity center.
Redevelopment opportunity to enhance gateway.
Wide sidewalks and street level amenities provide visual interest.
Public Review Draft 262
86 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
The PCH corridor serves as the primary entry point into Hermosa Beach, as well as a pass-through corridor between Manhattan Beach and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. There should be a variety of commercial retail, office, residential, and auto-oriented uses along the corridor.
Future Vision
The intent is to enhance building design and form, and transform
streetscapes and gateways to serve pedestrians and improve vehicular circulation. The PCH Corridor is a multi-use commercial corridor with key activity nodes and iconic architecture to activate the entryways. The Corridor connects the community with
adjacent neighborhoods and cities. A regular rhythm of storefronts and streetscape enhancements should provide a welcoming atmosphere that is enticing to shoppers and pleasant to walk along. New gateway monuments and signage are added to promote Hermosa Beach’s identity.
Intended Distribution of Land Uses
A mix of office and commercial uses along the corridor should be
organized around key activity nodes, with limited residential uses. Larger scale professional office spaces, hotels and visitor serving uses, and commercial retail space are provided to serve both local residents and the region. Limited medium- and high-density residential uses are also allowed between activity nodes within the PCH Corridor.
Desired Form and Character
Building Design and Orientation
• High-quality signage or materials and maximum transparency of ground floor uses is provided to attract shoppers and provide visual interest to pedestrians.
• Redevelopment of larger parcels is designed in a way that orients new buildings around a central plaza or square and provides a mixture of retail and office uses within a single site.
• Parking is arranged along sides or underneath buildings, with gateway commercial uses providing parking structures.
• The majority of the buildings are placed towards the street, and where possible, adjacent buildings should be introduced to construct a more comfortable pedestrian environment.
• Flexibility in the design of Gateway Commercial designation should be provided so long as city-wide and project level connectivity standards are met, the uses do not adversely
To achieve the intent,
the City should enhance building design and form,
and transform streetscapes
and gateways to serve
pedestrians and improve
vehicular circulation.
Building with high quality signage and building materials.
PCH Corridor
SCCCGCHDMD
Public Review Draft 263
PLAN HERMOSA | 87
affect adjacent uses and accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit users.
• Within Community Commercial designations, zero lot line front and side setbacks should be allowed to ensure a consistent rhythm of storefronts.
• To provide greater integration and connectivity within the Corridor, the consolidation of parcels into larger assemblages should be allowed.
Public Realm Design
• The prominence of entryways to Hermosa Beach should be increased through the provision of artwork, monuments, and signage along PCH.
• Sidewalks are improved to make PCH more welcoming and
accessible to pedestrians.
• Innovative traffic calming methods should be employed along
the Corridor to improve traffic flow and foster a quieter outdoor
environment.
• Traffic speeds are moderated to ensure a smoother flow
of vehicles along the corridor while enhancing safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
• PCH should serve as a regional thoroughfare, but enhanced to
better manage congestion and traffic speeds.
Unique uses create activity centers along the corridor.
Wider sidewalks and traffic calming enhancements can increase safety.
Public Review Draft 264
88 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goals and Policies
This section contains goals and policies for land use and urban form. Given the importance of this chapter, these goals and policies are organized according to sub-topics that reflect the values and unique characteristics of Hermosa Beach. The subtopics of the goals include urban form and pattern, residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors and districts, urban design and public realm, coastal priority uses, historic resources, and public art and design.
Goal 1. Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents.
Providing a balance of housing, employment, retail and services, recreation, culture
and arts, education, and entertainment for the City’s residents and businesses in an urban environment helps to promote sustainability, safety, prosperity, and well-being of the community and improves the quality of life for residents.
Policies
1.1 Diverse and distributed land use pattern. Strive to maintain the fundamental pattern of existing land uses, preserving residential neighborhoods, while providing for enhancement or transformation of corridors and districts in order to improve community activity and identity.
1.2 Focused infill potential. Proposals for new development should be directed toward the city’s commercial areas with an emphasis on developing transit-supportive land use mixes.
1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create sustainable development patterns such that the majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, personal services, pharmacies and similar uses.
1.4 Diverse commercial areas. Promote the development of diversified and unique commercial districts with locally owned businesses and job- or revenue-generating uses.
1.5 Balance resident and visitor needs. Ensure land uses and businesses provide for the needs of residents as well as visitors.
1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing.
1.7 Compatibility of uses. Ensure the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses.
1.8 Respond to unique characteristics. Enhance the unique character and identity of the city’s neighborhoods, districts and corridors through land use and design decisions. Allow policies and programs to be focused on each unique character area of the city.
1.9 Retain commercial land area. Discourage the conversion of commercial land to exclusively residential uses.
1.10 Transition between uses. Encourage new projects in non-residential areas to employ architectural transitions to adjoining residential properties to ensure compatibility of scale and a sense of privacy for existing residences. Such transitions could include setbacks, gradations and transitions in building height and appropriate landscaping.
Public Review Draft 265
PLAN HERMOSA | 89
Goal 2. Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages, socio economic groups and
abilities, and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles.
While each neighborhood in Hermosa Beach is distinct, they each provide a variety of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and services that collectively reflect the small beach town character. The diversity of building types respond to the diversity
of the City’s population and the desire to create interesting and varied neighborhoods.
Policies
2.1 Complete neighborhoods. Strive to ensure all neighborhoods are complete and well-
structured with the following characteristics:
• Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles.
• Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
• Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
• Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
• Address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities.
2.2 Variety of types of neighborhoods. Encourage preservation of existing single density
neighborhoods within the city and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the
city.
2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types, promote a range
of housing to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
2.4 Single density neighborhoods. Preserve and maintain the Hermosa Hills, Eastside, Valley,
North End, and Hermosa View neighborhoods as predominantly single-family residential
neighborhoods.
2.5 Neighborhood preservation. Preserve and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods
by avoiding or abating the intrusion of disruptive, nonconforming buildings and uses.
2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in
areas designated for multi-family housing ranging from duplex/triplex/fourplex to courtyard
housing to multi-family housing projects.
2.7 Context sensitive design. Wherever feasible, orient residential buildings to address streets,
public spaces or shared private spaces, and consider the physical characteristics of its site,
surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure.
2.8 Neighborhood transitions. Encourage that new development provide appropriate transitions
in scale, building type and density between different land use designations.
2.9 Neighborhood-serving retail. Where appropriate, foster the development of neighborhood-
serving retail and services in key locations throughout the city.
Public Review Draft 266
90 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
2.10 Neighborhood center design. Encourage design of new neighborhood centers to be
walkable and pedestrian-friendly with buildings that front internal streets and public sidewalks
and with buildings facing major roadways.
2.11 Senior living facilities. Encourage the development of senior housing in neighborhoods that
are accessible to public transit, commercial services, and health and community facilities.
2.12 Design of single-family homes. Maintain and enhance the character of single-family home
neighborhoods by:
• Encouraging homes to engage the street and integrate with the neighborhood by requiring
the design of new carports/garages to be subordinate in scale to the primary dwelling,
to minimize views from the street, and to not occupy the majority of the street frontage of
buildings.
• Considering the building scale, form, and setbacks within the block when approving new
single-family dwellings and additions to existing housing.
• Allowing home occupations in neighborhoods so long as there is no significant impact on
the surrounding residential uses.
• Encouraging property owners to maintain their yards and the front facades of homes. Do
not allow excessive paving of front yards.
Public Review Draft 267
PLAN HERMOSA | 91
Goal 3. Unique and Vibrant Districts
A series of unique, destination-oriented districts
throughout Hermosa Beach.
Well designed districts provide space for recreational uses, creative industrial, and civic
or community uses and help to increase access to jobs, provide amenities for residents,
and improve the fiscal stability of the city.
Policies
3.1 Unique districts. Encourage the development of local and city-wide districts and centers
that address different community needs and market sectors and complement surrounding
neighborhoods.
3.2 Compatibility of districts. Require new development within the city’s creative industrial
district be designed for compatibility with surrounding uses to minimize impact and cultivate
connectivity with each district.
3.3 Redevelopment of existing retail into activity centers. Provide incentives to transform existing,
auto-dominated commercial uses into retail destinations by adding a diversity of uses, providing
new pedestrian connections to adjacent residential areas, reducing the visual prominence of
parking lots, making the centers more pedestrian-friendly and enhancing the definition and
character of street frontage and associated streetscapes.
3.4 Emerging employment sectors. Strive to create districts that support increased employment
activity, particularly for growing or emerging economic sectors.
3.5 Urban office formats. New employment uses should be urban in character with compact
buildings.
Public Review Draft 268
92 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 4. A variety of mixed use corridors throughout the city that provide opportunities for shopping,
recreation, commerce, employment and circulation.
Corridors that provide commercial, service, and office uses in a cohesive and organized
manner and supported by a connected walkable environment can easily serve local
and regional retail needs while providing efficient travel pathways and circulation.
Policies
4.1 Regional retail districts. Encourage regional-serving commercial corridors that provide a mix
of uses in a pedestrian-oriented format that can become vibrant destinations for people to live,
work, shop and congregate.
4.2 Employment centers. Encourage the development and co-location of additional office
space and employment centers along corridors,
4.3 Diverse range of uses. Allow a wide variety of uses to locate in Gateway Commercial nodes
along corridors, including destination retail centers, mixed-use life-style centers, hotels, and office
employment, among other uses.
4.4 Unique architectural design. Encourage the use of unique architectural features, facades,
and outdoor spaces within Gateway Commercial developments to signify arrival to Hermosa
Beach.
4.5 Corridor connectivity. Recognize corridors as important cross-town thoroughfares that
connect Hermosa Beach, serve as transitions between neighborhoods, provide opportunities for
local-serving retail and balance the needs of multiple transport modes.
4.6 High quality signage. Businesses are required to provide signage made of high quality
materials and design, consistent with City sign codes.
4.7 Access to transit. Support the location of transit stations and enhanced stops near the
intersection of Aviation Blvd and PCH, and adjacent to Gateway Commercial uses to facilitate
and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow residents without private
vehicles to access services.
4.8 Neighborhood buffer. Encourage all commercial property owners bordering residential
areas to mitigate impacts and use appropriate landscaping and buffering of residential
neighborhoods.
4.9 Streetscape enhancements. Facilitate streetscape improvements, add pedestrian amenities
that attract new uses, and revitalize the corridors.
4.10 Pedestrian access. For all new development, encourage pedestrian access, and create
strong building entries that are primarily oriented to the street.
Public Review Draft 269
PLAN HERMOSA | 93
Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings.
Essential to the desired small-beach town character of Hermosa Beach is the use of
high quality materials and design standards in the construction and redevelopment of buildings and structures. Use of urban design principles can help to differentiate the city from its neighbors and other similar beach cities through a focus on pedestrian-oriented
design, commitment to high quality materials, and encouragement of interesting,
unique architecture.
Policies
5.1 Scale and massing. Consider the scale of new development within its urban context to avoid
abrupt changes in scale and massing.
5.2 High quality materials. Require high quality and long lasting building materials on all new
development projects in the city.
5.3 Unique and innovative architecture. Encourage innovative and quality architecture, while
facilitating a diversity of architectural styles.
5.4 Locally appropriate materials. Require architectural designs, building materials and
landscape design to respect and relate to the local climate, topography, history, and building
practices.
5.5 Unique brand and identity. Promote city-wide identity with the addition of gateway signs,
monuments, or other features to key entrances (especially to the east and north) that display
the City’s name and identifies the area as a distinct place.
5.6 Preservation and adaptive reuse. Encourage the preservation or adaptive reuse of historic
structures, iconic landmarks, and older buildings.
5.7 Design guidelines and development standards. Seek to maintain and enhance
negihborhood character through design guidelines and development standards that articulate
building form, orientation, and scale, but allow for eclectic and diverse architectural styles.
Public Review Draft 270
94 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 6. A pedestrian-focused urban form that creates visual interest and a comfortable outdoor
environment.
By designing buildings and spaces that pay careful attention to the interface between
building frontages and the public realm, appropriately scaled design can help to
facilitate a walkable, attractive, family-friendly environment that supports healthy and
active lifestyles.
Policies
6.1 Outdoor amenities. Require all new development to be designed and constructed with
pedestrian friendly features such as wide sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define
the public realm, and, in the case of non-residential uses, have transparent ground floor building
facades that activate the street.
6.2 Streetscaping. Proactively beautify existing streetscapes with street trees, landscaping and
pedestrian-scaled lighting.
6.3 Green infrastructure network. Establish an interconnected green infrastructure network
throughout Hermosa Beach that serves as a network for active transportation, recreation and
scenic beauty and connects all areas of the city. In particular, connections should be made
between the beach, parks, the Downtown, neighborhoods, and other destinations within the
city. Consider the following components when designing and implementing the green/open
space network:
• Preserved open space areas such as the beach and the Greenbelt,
• Living streets with significant landscaping and pedestrian and bicycle amenities,
• Community and neighborhood parks, and schools.
6.4 Street lighting for safety. Improve street lighting for public safety and prioritize areas near
parks and schools for lighting improvements.
6.5 Provision of sidewalks. Encourage pedestrian friendly sidewalks on both sides of streets in
neighborhoods.
6.6 Human-scale buildings. Encourage buildings and design to include human-scale details such
as windows on the street, awnings and architectural features that create a visually interesting
pedestrian environment.
6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by
discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along
walkways, and garage-dominated building facades.
6.8 Balance pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Require vehicle parking design to consider
pedestrian circulation. Require the following of all new development along corridors:
Public Review Draft 271
PLAN HERMOSA | 95
• Where parking lots front the street, the City will work with existing property owners to add
landscaping between the parking lot and the street.
• Parking lots should be landscaped to create an attractive pedestrian environment and
reduce the impact of heat islands.
• The number of curb cuts and other intrusions of vehicles across sidewalks should be
minimized.
• When shared parking supply options are not available, encourage connections between
parking lots on adjacent sites.
• Above-ground parking structures should be designed according to the same urban design
principles as other buildings.
• Encourage the use of systems to increase parking lot efficiency, such as mechanical lift
systems or occupancy sensors.
6.9 Shared driveways. Allow and encourage new commercial and residential developments to
have common driveways serving multiple units, to minimize the number of curb cuts along any
given block to improve pedestrian safety.
6.10 Residential garages on major corridors. Develop deisgn standards for the residential
garages fronting on major corridors. Garages should not dominate the front facades, and when
possible, should be located to the side or rear of the lot.
Public Review Draft 272
96 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 7. Adequate space and appropriate integration of community and school facilities that support physical activity, civic life and social
connections for residents of all ages and interests.
Providing adequate space and preferable locations for institutional uses and
community-serving facilities is key to ensuring facilities are appropriately used and
potentially negative effects on surrounding residential, commercial, and public areas
are minimized.
Policies
7.1 Repurposing surplus property. Promote the reuse of surplus publicly-owned property for other
uses that benefit the community.
7.2 Joint use with schools. Where appropriate, maintain and enhance joint use agreements with
Hermosa Beach City School District to maximize community use of school facilities and expand
school use of City park facilities and community space to expand opportunities for physical
activity.
7.3 School modernization upgrades. Support HBCSD plans to renovate and modernize school
facilities to meet growing capacity needs in a manner that minimizes burdens to adjacent
neighborhoods.
7.4 Flexible use of school facilities. Collaborate with HBCSD to identify appropriate temporary
and flexible uses of school facilities during dips or fluctuations in school enrollment numbers.
7.5 Existing institutional uses. Allow for the continuation of recreational, cultural, medical, and
religious land uses, and support expansion that is compatible with adjacent land uses.
7.6 Education impact fees. Coordinate with school districts in assessment of the impact of new
development on existing public educational facilities.
7.7 Private recreational, cultural, and health care facilities. Encourage compatible development
of private recreation, cultural, educational, institutional and health care uses along corridors and
in Districts.
Public Review Draft 273
PLAN HERMOSA | 97
Goal 8. A range of coastal-dependent and visitor-serving uses available to all income
ranges and amenity desires.
Provision of adequate accommodations and recreational uses can help to enhance
both the visitor and resident experience when frequenting the beach and nearby
coastal destinations.
Policies
8.1 Coastal-dependent uses. Prioritize coastal-dependent uses over non-dependent
developments near the shoreline, unless future demand for such facilities is already adequately
provided for in the area.
8.2 Coastal-related uses. Accommodate coastal-related uses within reasonable proximity to the
coastal-dependent uses they support.
8.3 Land use regulations. Encourage for coastal-dependent and coastal-related commercial
uses in the Recreational Commercial and Community Commercial land use designations.
Prioritize such uses in the Recreational Commercial designation. Provide for and prioritize
coastal-related industrial uses in the Creative Industrial land use designation.
8.4 Existing accommodations. Protect the existing local inventory of visitor-serving
accommodations in the lower and middle cost ranges.
8.5 New accommodations. Encourage visitor-serving accommodations in the Recreational
Commercial land use designation, and encourage new hotel/motel development throughout
commercially zoned portions of the planning area to provide a range of room types, sizes, and
prices that serve a variety of income ranges.
8.6 Short-term rentals. Provide for, regulate, and collect fees related to the legal short-term
rental of private homes through professional marketplaces, in a manner that minimzes potential
nuisances associated with short-term use.
8.7 Amenities. Require new higher cost hotel and motel development projects to incorporate
non-overnight facilities and amenities as a component of the development that are generally
available for passive public use.
8.8 Fractional ownership. Prohibit new fractional ownership in commercially zoned portions of
the Coastal Zone.
8.9 Public access. Within the commercial core, prioritize use of private lands suitable for visitor-
serving commercial recreational facilities that enhance public coastal access over private
local-serving residential or commercial development or industrial development, but not over
coastal-dependent uses.
Public Review Draft 274
98 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 9. Local energy independence through renewable energy generation.
Ensuring future renewable energy facilities may be located in the Coastal Zone and sited in a manner that do not degrade wildlife, natural, and scenic resources is key to
achieving a clean energy future.
Policies
9.1 Ocean-based energy resources. Encourage and support research and responsible development of renewable ocean-based energy sources. Renewable energy sources appropriate to Hermosa Beach shall be limited to wave, tidal, solar, and wind sources that meet the region’s and state’s need for affordable sources of renewable energy.
9.2 Renewable energy facilities. To reduce or avoid conflicts, communicate and collaborate with affected ocean users, coastal residents and businesses, and applicants seeking state or federal authorization for the siting, development, and operation of renewable energy facilities.
9.3 Ecosystem preservation. Ensure that any future proposed offshore facilities do not have unacceptable adverse effects on the integrity, stability, and complexity of the marine ecosystem, important marine habitat, and areas important to fisheries, navigation, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment.
9.4 Adaptive management. Require renewable energy facility operators to rectify or mitigate adverse effects that occur during the lifetime of the project by monitoring and taking appropriate corrective measures through adaptive management.
9.5 Reclamation. Require renewable energy facility operators to restore the natural characteristics of a site to the extent practicable when a project is decommissioned and removed.
Public Review Draft 275
PLAN HERMOSA | 99
Goal 10. A strong sense of cultural and architectural heritage.
Recognition and celebration of the city’s cultural resources and eclectic architectural
styles provides for a unique sense of place and a deeper connection to and appreciation for the rich cultural history that has shaped Hermosa Beach.
Policies
10.1 Historic landmarks and districts. Encourage the voluntary designation of potentially historic resources as landmarks or historic districts.
10.2 Public and institutional facilities. Initiate the designation of potentially historic public or institutional resources under threat of demolition or deterioration.
10.3 Protect designated landmarks. Prohibit the demolition, degradation, and inappropriate alteration of designated landmarks.
10.4 Treatment of potentially historic resources. Discourage the demolition, degradation, and inappropriate alteration of potentially historic resources.
10.5 Evaluation prior to demolition. Require evaluation and documentation of potentially historic resources prior to demolition.
10.6 Incentives for preservation. Provide incentives for preservation of designated landmarks, potentially historic resources, and older buildings.
10.7 Historic resources as cultural tourism. Promote historic places and cultural tourism as an economic development strategy.
10.8 Adaptive reuse and sustainable development. Promote historic preservation as sustainable development and encourage adaptive reuse of historic or older properties.
10.9 History and cultural heritage. Support and encourage efforts to document and share the cultural heritage and history of Hermosa Beach.
10.10 Culturally inclusive planning. Ensure that historic preservation planning is culturally inclusive and reflective of the unique background and diversity of neighborhoods in the city.
10.11 Incentives and technical assistance. Provide expert technical assistance to owners of historic properties with tools and incentives to maintain historic resources.
10.12 Salvage architectural features or materials. Encourage salvaging of architectural features that would otherwise be transported to landfills as a result of demolition.
10.13 Archaeological and paleontological resources. Recognize the prehistory and history of the city and strive to identify, protect, and preserve archaeological and paleontological resources.
Public Review Draft 276
100 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 11. A proud and visible identity as an arts and cultural community.
Incorporation of artistic elements - whether through temporary events or permanent installations - into the urban landscape adds to the visual interest, walkable nature, and
unique identity of Hermosa Beach.
Policies
11.1 Beach-themed art. Prioritize public art that reinforces the identity of Hermosa Beach, incorporating the culture, people, neighborhoods and ideas.
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.
11.3 Art as cultural tourism. Recognize the value of the arts to the city’s quality of life and economic stability and promote cultural tourism as an engine for economic development.
11.4 Unique gateways. Celebrate the unique gateways to Hermosa Beach by enhancing them with the work of artists.
11.5 City leadership in public art. Embrace a leadership role in facilitating public art and public art partnerships with City Departments, private developers, and arts and cultural organizations.
11.6 Temporary installations. Support ongoing temporary artwork Installations and performance-based arts events in areas with strong pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
11.7 Commissioning new artwork. Encourage the commission of public art projects and events that reinforce the community’s small beach town character, vibrant economy, healthy environment, and lifestyles.
11.8 Public art in private development. Actively encourage private development to contribute to the cultural and economic health of the public realm through incorporation of public art.
Public Review Draft 277
PLAN HERMOSA | 101
Goal 12. A mix of cultural facilities that support and encourage the community’s vibrant range of art
creation and presentation.
Cultural facilities, creative spaces, and room for artistic expression are essential to
fostering creativity in community members of all ages. The City plays a role in providing
adequate space for artistic endeavors.
Policies
12.1 Existing City venues for art. Maintain City-owned recreational facilities with consideration of
their existing and potential use as venues for art creation, exhibition and performance.
12.2 Future venues for art. Consider opportunities to incorporate community performance, craft,
and other artistic facilities into the development or redevelopment of City-owned community
facilities.
12.3 Convenient use of City spaces. Make it as easy and affordable as possible for city arts
organizations to use City facilities.
12.4 Outdoor performance and exhibit space. Support the maintenance and development of
outdoor areas for the performance and exhibition of arts festivals and events.
12.5 Creative art centers. Support the development of the Aviation Blvd Corridor and Cypress
District as regional centers for the creation, study and presentation of art.
12.6 Artistic needs. Consider the unique needs of artists in City zoning and planning policy
making.
Public Review Draft 278
102 | CHAPTER 2: LAND USE
Goal 13. Land uses patterns that improve the health of residents.
Through collaboration and commitment to improving the health and well being of all residents, Hermosa Beach seeks to improve the public health of residents through
appropriate land uses, programs, policies, and environmental review.
Policies
13.1 Restrict health-harming uses. Prohibit new land uses that harm the physical health and well being of the community.
13.2 Social and health needs. Support the continuation of existing and new uses that enhance the social and health needs of residents.
13.3 Fresh food offerings. Encourage the continuation and expansion of fresh food offerings, including farmers’ markets, community gardens, and edible landscapes in Hermosa Beach.
13.4 Private health uses. Allow for the development of private recreation, cultural, educational, institutional and health care uses along Corridors and in Districts, where they are compatible with existing uses.
13.5 Improved livability. Encourage and set aside funding for the provision of a high level of neighborhood and community amenities and design features as a way of balancing increased density, recognizing the desire for a very high quality, amenity-rich, livable community.
13.6 Connecting health and land use. Seek to incorporate health and social equity considerations into land use planning decisions in a manner that reduces health disparities.
13.7 Collaborative health partnerships. Build and maintain partnerships with the Beach Cities Health District, health care providers, and community-based organizations to evaluate and implement land use projects in a manner that improves community health.
13.8 Health and the built environment. Strive to increase education and awareness of the health implications of one urban design decision.
Public Review Draft 279
PLAN HERMOSA | 103
3 mobility
The Mobility Element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout
Hermosa Beach by a variety of modes, with balanced emphasis on automobiles,
bicycles, pedestrians, and alternative fuel vehicles. How people get around town has broad implications for community sustainability. The choices we make about
our transportation system can greatly affect whether fuel use and air pollutants increase or decrease with time, whether our automobile fleet becomes cleaner
and more efficient, and even whether we can legitimately choose to walk, bike,
or use transit instead of driving a car. A safe and well-maintained transportation system is essential for the health, sustainability, and economic vitality of Hermosa
Beach. The City oversees the majority of street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, while also coordinating with partners like Caltrans, Metro, and adjacent beach cities.
This Mobility Element provides an outline of goals and policies related to the City of
Hermosa Beach’s transportation network. The Element addresses both the mobility and access needs of Hermosa Beach now and in the future, providing a framework to
help guide residents and decision-makers on issues to support continued investment and transformation of the City’s circulation system.
Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue intersection
Public Review Draft 280
104 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
State Law
This Mobility Element has been prepared to meet State General Plan law requirements for circulation as it relates to transportation of goods and people, and additionally to meet California Coastal Act requirements related to coastal access as it relates to parking and alternative transportation modes.
Additionally, the content of this Element is formed by legislation requiring local governments to consider the greenhouse gas emissions impact and vehicle miles traveled implications of their land use and transportation policies.
General Plan
The Mobility Element meets state requirements for
the “Circulation” element defined in the California
Government Code. The Element, per State law:
• Must include the general location and extent
of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals, any military
airports and ports.
• Must correlate the location and extent of
transportation facilities with the Land Use
element.
• Must plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of
all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe
and convenient travel.
• Should define the “users of streets, roads,
and highways” to mean bicyclists, children,
persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of
commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public
transportation, and seniors.
Coastal Land Use Plan
While the California Coastal Act does not include a
section specifically regarding transportation issues,
it does state how development must maintain
access to coastal resources and maintain and
distribute parking supply or adequate public
transportation so as to minimize adverse impacts.
Specific provisions of the Act related to mobility
include:
• Provide measures to expand coastal access
through sufficient parking and alternative
transportation.
• Identify measures to provide parking and
alternative transportation to recreation and
visitor-serving facilities.
• Development and design standards for
highway and roadway corridors through scenic
areas or areas of special character.
Recent streetscape enhancements along Pier Avenue.
Context
Hermosa’s transportation infrastructure supports a local economy characterized by small scale business and commercial uses that serve the needs of the city. Residents and visitors of Hermosa currently enjoy a well connected mobility network that effectively circulates people across multiple modes, including opportunities to walk, roll, ride a bicycle, take transit, and drive to the rich selection of destinations and commerce across the city and into the surrounding region. Historically, Hermosa Beach’s circulation system has been successful in sustaining past and current mobility demands, but as a beach city, Hermosa’s growing popularity continues to attract a high volume of visitors from surrounding areas seeking to enjoy the community’s distinct cultural charm and amenities. As Hermosa forges ahead into the future, the City recognizes the need to evaluate, re shape, and redevelop a comprehensive framework and vision to address changing mobility demands and increasingly complex transportation needs of residents, visitors and local businesses. In order to promote continued economic vitality and quality of life within a sustainable framework, improving City streets and public right-of-ways to better accommodate all people, regardless of their mode of travel, will ensure a high level of access, mobility, and quality for residents and visitors of all ages, physical abilities, and income levels.
Public Review Draft 281
PLAN HERMOSA | 105
Transportation Patterns
The ways in which people get around are
important indicators of the success of a
transportation system, shedding light on which
modes are most popular, convenient, and safe.
Currently, the City of Hermosa Beach is fully
developed with established traffic patterns. In the
United States, commuting makes up approximately
20% of all trips taken. Accordingly, the choice
of which mode to use, as well as the direction
and distance traveled to get to and from work,
influences travel patterns, traffic congestion, and
time spent commuting to work. As depicted in
Table 3.1, Hermosa Beach residents are more
likely to drive alone, and less likely to carpool,
take public transit, or walk/bike compared to
Los Angeles County residents. Hermosa Beach
residents are also nearly twice as likely to report
working from home compared to Los Angeles
County residents.
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Auto 80.4%72.2%
Carpool 6.4%10.9%
Public Transit 1.1%7.1%
Bike or Walk 2.3%3.7%
Other Means 1.5%1.2%
Work at Home 8.4%4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012.
The US Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics (LEHD) program combines
federal, state, and Census Bureau data to provide
local labor market information on where workers
live and work.
Of the 9,282 employed residents of Hermosa
Beach, 95 percent leave the City everyday to go
to work. As seen in Figure 3.1, residents commute
in large numbers along the Pacific Coast Highway
corridor toward El Segundo and Culver City, up
to Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, and inland to
Torrance, Burbank, and Downtown Los Angeles.
Conversely, 90% of the 4,893 persons employed in
Hermosa Beach live outside of the city. Employees
generally commute shorter distances from nearby
jurisdictions within the South Bay region, including
Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance,
Lawndale, Hawthorne, Lomita, and other nearby
locales (See Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.1 Resident Commute Patterns
Figure 3.2 Employee Commute Patterns
Table 3.1 Commute Mode Choice
Public Review Draft 282
106 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Traffic Volume Trends
Driving in the U.S. began to decline three years
before the Great Recession. After 50 years of
steady growth, total national vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) leveled off in 2004 and declined by 8%
between 2004 and 2012. Whether travel will return
to growth rates of past decades, remain static,
or continue to decline is of critical importance to
decision-makers in business and government at the
local, state and national levels.
In Hermosa Beach, traffic volumes on key corridors
have been stable or in some cases declining
in the last decade. Recent research into these
national traffic trends shows both recession-related
effects and a fundamental, possibly permanent,
leveling of the economy and travel, especially for
present and future people in younger generations
(especially 16 to 30 year-olds). Looking across the
generations at Baby Boomers, Generation Xers,
and Millennials this research envisions continued
changes across generational lines:
• The economy is having a substantial impact,
especially for Millennials. In the words of
political strategist James Carville, “It’s the
economy”.
• While many millennials still prefer driving, more frequently they are choosing low-travel urban lifestyles with emphasis on walking, cycling, ride-sharing and transit.
• Other common explanations for VMT decline –
such as the effects of technology, urbanization
and modal shifts for other generations – have
modest effects.
• Key reasons behind the late-20th century VMT growth, such as escalating labor force participation, may have reached saturation and diminishing returns.
PLAN Hermosa includes various policies aimed to
develop an integrated multimodal transportation
system that is expected to serve a flexible and
changing set of travel demands, including
extensive support for active transportation modes.
In addition to the Mobility Element, PLAN Hermosa’s
Sustainability, Parks, and Infrastructure Elements all
incorporate and support sustainable transportation.
Policies are aimed at effectively managing and
maintaining the City’s circulation system with the
goal of minimizing congestion, increasing local
and regional access opportunities, and enhancing
traffic circulation by reducing vehicle trips and
increasing access to non-motorized and low-
carbon transportation options.
Regional Connections
In Hermosa Beach, the most direct regional connection is provided by Pacific Coast Highway in the north-south direction and the closest freeway, the San Diego Freeway (I-405), is located approximately three miles east of the city border. While the Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard corridors are predominantly used by regional traffic, they also represent the major local transportation spines of Hermosa Beach. As such, they must balance local and regional needs in the design and operation of the corridors.
While Pacific Coast Highway is owned by Caltrans, the City and Caltrans are committed to collaborating to transform Pacific Coast Highway into a balanced multi-modal transportation system with choices to utilize automobiles and alternative modes of transportation, including public transit (both regional and local), walking, and biking.
Other major arterials connecting Hermosa Beach to regional freeway access include Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard. High traffic volumes have created congestion along the city’s main arterials. Most regional traffic occurs along the Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard. Generally, there is a significant amount of traffic along Artesia Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, 8th Street, and Herondo Avenue all with unacceptable Levels of Service. This is consistent with these roadways’ roles as connectors to the regional transportation network.
Goods Movement
Truck routes in Hermosa Beach are designated along major arterial and collector roadways that include Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Pier Avenue, and the segment of Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue (in the southbound direction). Most areas of the city requiring truck route access are adequately served by the existing system, with the exception of the northwestern portion of the city along Greenwich Village, 27th Street, and Manhattan Avenue. This designated truck route system directs heavy truck traffic away from local (residential) roadways in order to help maintain pavement quality on local streets and manage noise and air pollution in residential areas.
Public Review Draft 283
PLAN HERMOSA | 107
Transportation Safety + Collisions
Figure 8 Collisions by Type
Figure 3.3 Collisions 2008-2012
facility; and the highest prevalence of vehicle-pedestrian
collisions occurs on Pier Avenue, a major shopping center
and popular pedestrian destination, though notably the rate
of collisions have measurably decreased since the Upper
Pier Avenue Improvement Project was completed.
The number of vehicle collisions of any type decreased
every year during the five-year period, for a total reduction
of 32 percent from 2008 to 2012. During the same time
period, the number of collisions involving a pedestrian or
bicyclist has remained constant, meaning that the total
share of these types of collisions has increased, as illustrated
in Figure 3.4 below.
A traffic collision is considered to be any event where a vehicle strikes any object while moving. That object could be another car, a pedestrian, or something fixed in place like a light post. When collisions cause damage or injury, the details are recorded by the local law enforcement agency and loaded into the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The latest report was used to analyze collision data in Hermosa Beach.
From 2008 to 2012, there were a total of 650 vehicle collisions, with one collision resulting in a single fatality and 10 resulting in severe injuries. The top three cited factors contributing to collisions were: driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (18 percent), unsafe speed (18 percent), and right-of-way violations (17 percent). Alcohol was a factor in 150 collisions,with the share of collisions involving alcohol substantially higher on weekends, with alcohol a factor in 19 percent of collisions occurring Monday through Thursday, and in 28 percent of collisions occurring Friday through Sunday.
Figure 3.3 shows the locations and types of collisions in Hermosa Beach in the five-year period from 2008 to 2012. As illustrated in Figure 3.3, the spatial distribution of collision frequency differs by collision type. The areas with highest prevalence of collisions of a specific type are also areas in which one would expect high levels of activity for that mode choice. Specifically, the highest prevalence of vehicle-vehicle collisions in Hermosa Beach occurs on Pacific Coast Highway, the roadway with the highest volume of vehicles; the highest prevalence of vehicle-bicycle collisions occurs on Hermosa Avenue, the only marked bicycle
Figure 3.4 Collisions 2008-2012
Public Review Draft 284
108 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY Public Review Draft 285
PLAN HERMOSA | 109
Pedestrian + Bicycle Environment
Hermosa Beach has many important foundational elements that make it a great walkable city
- a feature that makes Hermosa Beach unique and draws visitors from throughout the area. The gridded street network, small blocks, and dense land uses make many of the city’s most important and interesting destinations accessible to pedestrians. Walking represents a no-cost transportation mode that improves health outcomes, reduces congestion, and improves air quality.
The City’s 22 walk streets provide safe and plentiful pedestrian connections between Downtown, residential neighborhoods, and the beach, while walking paths on the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt provide north-south connections away from the beach. However, the pedestrian environment in many areas of town suffer from a lack of continuity. In particular, sidewalks are not continuous throughout the city. In some locations, sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway, while in others – chiefly on local streets – they are present on just one side or not at all. Missing curb ramps, narrow sidewalks, steep sloping driveway entrances, and sidewalk obstructions can present challenges to users of all abilities. Various traffic calming improvements are installed and can be expanded to help reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian safety.
While bicycles are legally allowed on all streets in Hermosa Beach, many potential bicyclists only feel comfortable utilizing streets where the volume of vehicles is low, or where dedicated bicycle facilities are present. The Strand, Southern California’s famous beachside bicycle path, and segment of the California Coastal Trail, serves the Hermosa Beach community on its way between Torrance and Malibu. Other existing bicycle facilities in Hermosa Beach include bicycle routes along Hermosa Avenue, a bicycle lane in each direction along Herondo Street, and a marked bicycle route along Monterey Avenue to 22nd Street.
Crosswalk along Hermosa Avenue
Public Review Draft 286
110 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Transit Access
Transit service within the City of Hermosa Beach
is provided by three transportation agencies: Beach Cities Transit (BCT), LADOT Commuter Express, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA, or Metro); and includes a demand-responsive paratransit service. Regional transit access is provided by a network of local and regional facilities provided by Beach Cities Transit, Los Angeles Metro, and Los Angeles Department of Transportation Commuter Express. Light rail transit connections in the South Bay are served by Metro’s Green Line; the nearest stop to Hermosa Beach is the Redondo Beach Station.
Beach Cities Transit
Beach Cities Transit provides local transit service for the Los Angeles Beach Cities. Daily weekday and weekend transit services are served by two routes, Transit Lines 102 and 109. Line 109 runs north-south beginning at the Redondo Beach Riviera Village and runs along the coast through Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach and ends at the Los Angeles Airport City Bus Center. Connection to regional transit, the Metro Green Line, is served by two stops: the Aviation/LAX Station and the Douglas Station. Routes operated by Beach Cities Transit are summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Beach Cities Transit Routes
Line From To Weekday Headway Weekend Headway
102 Redondo Beach Pier Redondo Beach Green Line Station
30 – 45 min 30 – 45 min
109 Riviera Village Los Angeles Airport City Bus Center
30 – 50 min 60 min
Source: Beach Cities Transit
Los Angeles County Metro Transit
Metro operates several bus routes and rail lines
that provide regional transit service within or near
Hermosa Beach. Metro Line 130 provides east-west
coverage between the Beach Cities to the Artesia
Transit Center. Major stops along this line provide
connections to the Metro Silver and Blue Lines.
North-south transit coverage is served by Metro
Line 232. This route travels along Pacific Coast
Highway between Downtown Long Beach and the
Los Angeles Airport City Bus Center. Metro’s Green
Line provides regional east-west light rail service
to the South Bay area. This rail line provides direct
connections to north-south rail via the Metro Blue
Line. Routes operated by Metro that directly serve
Hermosa Beach are summarized in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 LA Metro Transit Services
Route Type Dir. Service To/From
Weekday Headway Weekend Headway
130 Local E-W Redondo
Beach, Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles via Gateway Cities
30 min 50 – 60
min
232 Local N-S Downtown Long Beach to Los
Angeles Airport City Bus Center
20 min 30 – 60 min
Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2015; Los Angeles Department of Transportation 2015.
Los Angeles Commuter Express
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s
Commuter Express provides one bus route
(Commuter Express Route 438) with express service
between the Beach Cities area to Downtown Los
Angeles via the Century and Harbor Freeways. This
line makes local stops in Redondo Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo. The
route operated by LADOT that directly serves
Hermosa Beach is summarized in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Los Angeles Commuter Express Transit Services
Route Type Service To/From Weekday Headway
438 Express Redondo Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, and Los Angeles
5 – 15
min
Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2015; Los Angeles Department of Transportation 2015.
Dial-A-Ride Transit Services
The WAVE Dial-A-Taxi program provides demand-responsive paratransit service for senior and disabled passengers. Paratransit is an alternative mode of flexible passenger transportation that does not follow fixed routes or schedules. Citywide WAVE operations provides same day, curb to curb transit to anyone who meets the qualifications. The standard fare for service within Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, or any area south of El Segundo Boulevard, west of Crenshaw Boulevard, and north of Pacific Coast Highway is $1.00.
Public Review Draft 287
PLAN HERMOSA | 111 Public Review Draft 288
112 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Table 3.5 Coastal Zone Public Parking Supply
Area Metered Unmetered Parking Lot Total
Overall 1,512 2,457 428 4,397
Zone 1 622 1,394 -2,016
Zone 2 419 764 428 1,611
Zone 3 471 299 -770
Parking in Hermosa Beach
Automobile parking is a coveted resource in Hermosa Beach. There are a total of just over 4,400
parking spaces in the City’s Coastal Zone.
Parking Supply
Of the 4,400 spaces, 451 can be found in one of three public parking lots located west of Hermosa Avenue
near the beach. There is currently significant parking demand in these areas of the city, particularly from
8th Street to the south city limit. This is a result of limited on-street parking and relatively few off-street
parking spaces given the number of dwelling units and visitors. Occupancy in the Coastal Zone is lightest on
weekday afternoons and heaviest on weekend afternoons, with occupancy on weekday evenings more
similar to that of afternoons on weekdays than on weekends.
Within the Coastal Zone, metered parking is available on Hermosa Avenue, on streets west of Hermosa
Avenue near the Hermosa Pier, on Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive, and on local
streets immediately to the east of Hermosa Avenue near the northern and southern City limits. Time-limited,
free street parking is available on most other streets between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive, and on
PCH and Aviation Boulevard. Off-street municipal parking is available near Pier Plaza, in City parks, and
by the Community Center. Unlimited street parking is available on a majority of local streets throughout
the remainder of the city except during street sweeping times. An appropriate quantity of well managed
automobile parking is necessary for the success of the city’s businesses and for the quality of life of its car-
owning residents. The efficient provision and management of parking can help provide sufficient space
for vehicles while also encouraging more efficient use of existing facilities, reducing the impact of parking
facilities, and reducing automobile use.
Of the 4,400 spaces, more than 400 can be found in one of three public parking lots located west of
Hermosa Avenue near the beach, while approximately 1,500 of the on-street spaces are metered. For
purposes of analysis, and with input from City of Hermosa Beach staff, the Coastal Zone was divided into
three subzones with the following geographic limits:
• Zone 1: North City Limit – 16th Street Primarily Residential land use
• Zone 2: 16th Street – 8th Street Primarily Commercial land use
• Zone 3: 8th Street – South City Limit Primarily Residential land use
Public Review Draft 289
PLAN HERMOSA | 113
FIgure 3.5 Public Parking Supply
Public Review Draft 290
114 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
City Parking Lots
A total of 428 parking spaces are provided in three
public parking facilities, Lots A, B and C, which are located between Hermosa Avenue and The Strand near Pier Avenue. Overall occupancy of the three lots was lightest on a weekday evening and highest on a weekend afternoon. Occupancy was generally higher than 85 percent, but at no surveyed time did occupancy drop below 79 percent. During the weekend afternoon survey, Lot B was closed for an event. Table 3.7 presents parking supply numbers as well as occupancy rates in the three parking facilities during each of the analyzed time periods. Additionally, the proportion of parking spaces occupied by a parking permit holder are also presented.
Table 3.7 Public Parking Lot Occupancy
Weekday Afternoon Weekday Evening Weekend Afternoon
Lot Supply
Occ Rate
Permit Occ Rate Occ Rate
Permit Occ Rate Occ Rate
Permit Occ Rate
Overall 428 89% 33% 79% 7% 95% 9%
Lot A 130 95% 5% 90% 8% 90% 11%
Lot B 37 100% 59% 97% 19%- -
Lot C 261 96% 43% 72% 4% 97% 9%
Figure 3.6 Parking Occupancy Rates
Weekday Afternoon Weekday Evening Weekend Afternoon
Parking Occupancy Rates
Occupancy in the Coastal Zone is lightest on
weekday afternoons and heaviest on weekend afternoons, with occupancy on weekday evenings more similar to that of weekday afternoons on than weekends. Geographically, utilization of parking spaces is highest in Zone 1, with more than twice as many spaces occupied in Zone 1 than in Zone 3 in each surveyed time period. Despite this, occupancy rates (the percent of spaces which are occupied, as opposed to the number of spaces unoccupied) are highest in Zone 3 due to the unequal distribution of parking spaces between subzones. In Zone 3 on Saturday afternoons, the parking supply nears capacity with an occupancy rate of 98 percent, though overall occupancy in the Coastal Zone never exceeds 80 percent. Table 3.6 and Figure 3.6 present the number and percent of occupied public parking spaces during a weekday afternoon, weekday evening, and weekend afternoon, respectively.
Table 3.6 Coastal Zone Parking Occupancy
Area Weekday Afternoon Weekday Evening Weekend Afternoon
Overall 2,367 54%2,756 63% 3,470 79%
Zone 1 1,118 55% 1,317 65%1,712 85%
Zone 2 773 48%825 51%1,005 62%
Zone 3 476 62%614 80% 753 98%
Public Review Draft 291
PLAN HERMOSA | 115
Preferential Parking Permit Program
The geographic borders of the Residential Parking
Permit District are nearly contiguous with the
Coastal Zone boundary. Residential parking
permit holders are entitled to park at 24-hour
meters without paying the meter, or in one hour
residential zones without regard to the time limit for
up to 72 hours. Employees of local businesses are
also entitled to purchase parking permits for an
additional fee. Occupancy by residential parking
permit holders within the Coastal Zone is heaviest
in the evening and on weekends, when almost
half of all spaces are occupied by permit holders.
In Zone 3 on weekends, permit holders consume
almost the entire parking supply (85 percent).
Table 3.8 presents the percent of public parking
spaces in each zone occupied by a parking permit
holder’s vehicle across the three time periods.
Table 3.8 Parking Occupancy by Parking Permit Holders
Area Weekday Afternoon Weekday Evening Weekend Afternoon
Overall 28%40%44%
Zone 1 30%45%46%
Zone 2 20%25%22%
Zone 3 37%61%85%
Electric Vehicle Parking
The number of electrical vehicle owners and drivers
in Hermosa Beach has expanded dramatically as
the number of model options has increased and
the availability of state and federal rebates and
incentives continues. According to the California
Air Resources Board, approximately 285 electric
vehicle rebates totaling $578,300 have been
issued to residents or businesses in Hermosa Beach
between 2012 and 2015.
To serve the growing number of electric vehicle
drivers, including residents, shoppers, and visitors,
the City of Hermosa Beach has installed several
electric vehicle charging stations at parking lots
throughout the city. Lot C provides three electric
vehicle charging stations on the third floor of the
parking facility; the parking lot at City Hall provides
two charging stations, and an additional set of
charging stations are provided on Pier Avenue.
In 2016, an additional 10 dual port meters will be
installed at City facilities, parks and public spaces
to provide an additional 20 electric vehicle
charging spaces. At present, the City does not
charge for parking in these spaces as a further
incentive.
Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) are also a
common form of transportation in Hermosa Beach
and are offered free parking at silver meters.
Electric vehicle parking along Pier Avenue
Public Review Draft 292
116 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Intended Mobility System + Street Network
The intended mobility system of street classifications, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and
transportation amenities will direct future roadway improvements and performance measurement for new and reconfigured streets to carry out mobility priorities more effectively and to balance the needs of all travel modes. Key highlights of the proposed mobility systems and street network include:
• Greater emphasis on east-west connections.
• Greater emphasis on pedestrian realm and complete network.
• Bike facility moved from 8th Street to 5th/6th Street.
• Identification of multi-use path connections to parks, schools, and key destinations.
Definitions of street classifications consider surrounding land uses and designate priority levels for different travel modes within each street type. Combined, the types represent a hierarchical network linked to typical design standards and anticipated traffic levels. Table 3.9 and Figures 3.7 through 3.10 delineate the planned mobility network.
Street Classifications
defines the roadway network of streets based on likely volume of traffic.
Pedestrian Facilities
identifies the facilities designated for pedestrian use and prioritizes those needed to create a complete sidewalk network.
Bicycle + Multi-Use Facilities
highlights the bicycle facilities and other shared use spaces for bicycles and other modes of transportation.
Transportation Amenities
identifies additional transportation amenities such as bicycle and electric vehicle parking, a local trolley, and crossing controls.
1 3
2 4
Public Review Draft 293
PLAN HERMOSA | 117
Table 3.9 Transportation Network Descriptions
Type Description
Street ClassificationsAlleyway Alleyways provide access to private properties, including parking spaces and garages.
Local Street Local streets provide connections within neighborhoods. Local streets are not intended
to serve through traffic and are generally one lane each direction with lower vehicle volumes.
Arterial
(major + minor)
Arterials carry the majority of vehicles entering, leaving, or traveling through the city. Major and minor arterials are differentiated by the volume of vehicles using the street
and width of the right-of-way.Pedestrian FacilitiesWalk Street A street segment designed to exclude vehicular usage, for pedestrians and non-motorized transportation.
Local Sidewalk Local sidewalks provide contiguous and level walking space primarily on low-volume
residential streets.
Wide Sidewalk Wide sidewalks provide adequate space for a frontage zone, pedestrian zone, and
buffer/planters on commercial streets.
Priority Sidewalk Priority sidewalks are facilities essential to providing a safe, accessible, and well-connected pedestrian network.Bicycle + Multi-Use FacilitiesMulti-use Path A two-way facility separated from motor vehicles (adjacent to or independent of roadways) for use by pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and bicyclists.
Shared Roadway A street segment that functions as a space for multiple users and intermittently as a gathering space, without delineations for each mode.
Bike Lane Bike lanes provide preferential or exclusive use of a portion of the roadway for bicyclists through striping or markings.
Sharrows Sharrows combine bicycle stencils with chevrons placed in the center of a travel lane.
They bring awareness to drivers that bicycles share the lane and “may use full lane.”
Bike Boulevard Bike boulevards allow for bicyclists and motorists to share the same travel lanes to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel. They are low-volume streets optimized for bicyclists and pedestrians.Transportation AmenitiesLocal Trolley A local trolley, in coordination with parking facilities, provides enhanced access to the beach and Downtown.
EV + Bike Parking Electric vehicle and bike parking facilities support the use of alternative modes to key destinations.
Crossing Control Crossing control facilities (stop sign, signal, traffic circle) ensure efficient and safe intersections for all travel modes.
Parking District District-based parking helps to manage parking supply and more efficiently use space dedicated for parking.
Public Review Draft 294
118 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
N0400’800’
0”1”2”
hermosa beach
street classificationsalleyway
local street
minor arterial
major arterial
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
A
v
e
Aviation
Bl
v
d
Pier Ave
8th St
2nd St
Go
u
l
d
A
v
e
27th StManhattan AveMonterey BlvdValley DrHermosa AveArtesia Blv
dHermosa AveProspect Ave21st St
5th StCypress Ave14th St
PCHManhattan AveArdmore DrPCHFigure 3.7 Street Classifications
Public Review Draft 295
PLAN HERMOSA | 119
N0400’800’
0”1”2”
walk street
wide sidewalk
priority sidewalk
local sidewalkpedestrian facilitieshermosa beach
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
A
v
e
Aviation
Bl
v
d
Pier Ave
8th St
2nd St
G
o
u
l
d
A
v
e
27th StManhat
tan AveMonterey BlvdValley DrHermosa AveArtesia Blv
dHermosa AveProspect Ave21st St
5th StCypress Ave14th St
PCHManhattan AveArdmore DrPCHFigure 3.8 Pedestrian Facilities
Public Review Draft 296
120 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
N0400’800’
0”1”2”
multi-use path
or buffered
bike lane
bike lane
sharrows
bike blvd
bicycle facilitiesshared spaceshared roadway
hermosa beach
Pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
A
v
e
Aviation
Bl
v
d
Pier Ave
8th St
2nd St
G
o
u
l
d
A
v
e
27th StManhattan AveMonterey BlvdValley DrHermosa AveArtesia Blv
dHermosa AveProspect Ave21st St
5th StCypress Ave14th St
PCHManhattan AveArdmore DrPCHFigure 3.9 Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities
Public Review Draft 297
PLAN HERMOSA | 121
Figure 3.10 Transportation Amenities
Public Review Draft 298
122 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
A comprehensive multi-modal transportation system is critical in Hermosa Beach’s urbanized environment where there is both a growing desire for additional transportation choice, and limited street right of way to expand streets for more vehicles and parking. By creating a high-quality multi-modal transportation network in Hermosa Beach, there are many co-benefits including a range of economic, health, sustainability, and safety benefits, all of which contribute to the high quality of life in Hermosa Beach.
Quality of Life. A diversified transportation system increases the quality of life for Hermosa Beach residents, businesses, and visitors. It gives users the option to walk, bike, or take transit, rather than sit in traffic, while simultaneously reducing congestion for those that need or want to drive. It leads to a higher quality urban environment where people can spend time outside and be physically active on streets that aren’t dominated by auto traffic, congestion, and parking, including the noise, pollution, and stress that comes with driving.
Public Health. Walkable communities generally have lower rates of obesity, heart disease, fewer air quality issues, and higher levels of physical activity by residents. Bicycling also brings significant health benefits. Active transportation options are especially important for seniors and children, two groups particularly vulnerable to health complications related to a sedentary lifestyle.
Sustainability. Less auto use means less air pollution, soil and water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Today and into the future, autos and trucks will continue to emit significant amounts of pollutants. These pollutants undermine our air quality, flow into our storm drains, and coat our streets, buildings, and open spaces. In addition, transportation is responsible for the greatest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions in the city (54% as of 2010). By providing a range of sustainable transportation choices, Hermosa Beach can reduce its impacts on the environment, both locally and globally.
Economic Vitality. There is a connection between a multi-modal transportation system and the economic vitality of a place. Many people are attracted to environments that are walkable, bikeable, and accessible by public transit. For example, creating attractive and pedestrian-friendly shopping areas draws people to commercial corridors and into the public realm that might otherwise drive through without stopping. Studies show that commercial and residential districts with walkable and bikeable streets have higher real estate values and sales than comparable auto-oriented districts.
Public Safety. One of the principal tenets of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design concept is “natural surveillance” by designing the built environment to maximize the number of eyes on the street and public spaces. By increasing the amount of bicycle and pedestrian activity, streets and public spaces are increasingly visible and foster positive social interaction among legitimate users of the space, making potential offenders feel increased scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes.
Benefits of a Multi-Modal
Transportation System
QUALITY OF LIFE
PUBLIC HEALTH
SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMIC VITALITY
PUBLIC SAFETY
Public Review Draft 299
PLAN HERMOSA | 123
Goal 1. Complete Streets that serve the diverse functions of mobility, commerce, recreation, and
community engagement for all users whether they travel by walking, bicycling, transit, or driving.
Providing well developed and people-oriented streets that are convenient, safe, connected, and integrated with adjacent land uses will play an integral role in supporting the City’s economic vitality, livability, sustainability, and local culture by
providing residents and visitors with enhanced accessibility and mobility opportunities
into the future.
Policies
1.1 Consider all modes. Require the planning, design, and construction of all new and
existing transportation projects to consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe,
livable and inviting environments for all users of the system.
1.2 Develop design standards. Encourage the development of context-sensitive street
classification design standards that will provide the City with opportunities to re-purpose and
classify targeted corridors and other roadways fitting needs of adjacent land uses and mode-
specific transport.
1.3 Monitor best practices. Consider applying the latest state of best practices in the design,
operation, and maintenance of the transportation network that is both attractive and
functional.
1.4 Target investments. Target public streetscape and infrastructure investments in locations
with high potential for both public and private return on investment and long-term
community value.
1.5 Require improvements. Require new development to provide or pay its share of
transportation and infrastructure improvements including any sidewalk improvements,
landscaping, bicycle infrastructure, traffic calming, and public realm improvements.
Goals and Policies
The community’s unified vision for the future of mobility in Hermosa Beach was established through close collaboration among Hermosa residents and City staff. Through a series of public outreach, workshops, and community meetings, the City has framed what residents have prioritized as key objectives that will guide potential changes and improvements to the City’s existing transportation system. To help the community achieve its vision of a robust, balanced, and multimodal-oriented transportation network, the Mobility Element is organized around goals to improve safety, enhance access, and support greater choice in transportation options.
To address changing trends in travel preferences, vehicles types, fuel prices, and community demographics, Hermosa’s transportation choices will be formed by the need for flexible and resilient options that will help the city thrive. Hermosa’s approach to transportation will play a key role in promoting and maintaining the economic, social, and environmental health of the community for generations to come.
Public Review Draft 300
124 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Goal 2. A public realm that is safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel via foot, bicycle, public
transit, and automobile and creates vibrant, people-oriented public spaces that encourage active living.
Public right-of-ways are shared resources used by the community and visitors every day. Changes to the public infrastructure will be aesthetically pleasing, ecologically healthy, and both practical and functional to allow the City opportunities to create communal
spaces where residents and visitors can interact and engage with the local community.
Landscaping and tree canopies will be preserved and enhanced to improve air quality and provide shade. Redesigned roadways will serve drivers as well as active transportation travelers and adjacent land uses will create an environment where people of all ages and physical abilities feel comfortable using any mode of travel,
whether it be walking, bicycling, using public transit, or driving.
Policies
2.1 Prioritize public right-of-ways. Prioritize improvements of public right-of-ways that provide heightened levels of safe, comfortable and attractive public spaces for all non-motorized travelers while balancing the needs of efficient vehicular circulation.
2.2 Encourage traffic calming. Encourage traffic calming policies and techniques that limit cut-through traffic and high vehicle speeds that may compromise the safety of non-vehicle travelers along residential areas and highly trafficked corridors.
2.3 Signage. Provide directional signage that helps travelers navigate to transit facilities, local and regional bicycle routes, civic and cultural amenities, parking infrastructures and visitor and recreation destinations.
2.4 Sustainable landscape. Use consistent and sustainable landscape and streetscape designs that reflect the city’s community identity; showcase local assets and the community’s unique and vibrant culture.
2.5 Require sustainable practices. Incorporate environmental sustainability practices into designs and strategic management of road space and public right-of-ways, prioritizing practices that can serve dual infrastructure purposes.
Public Review Draft 301
PLAN HERMOSA | 125
Goal 3. Public right-of-ways supporting a multimodal and people-oriented transportation
system that provides diversity and flexibility on how users choose to be mobile.
Planning for a more efficient multimodal mobility network will provide opportunities to explore innovative solutions and serve all types of users. Solutions will consider a variety of transportation improvement options for all modes and include management
strategies and land use practices aimed towards increasing network connections,
improving connections between different modes, and maximizing public health benefits.
Policies
3.1 Repurpose public right-of-ways. Require repurposing public right-of-ways to enhance
connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit.
3.2 Invest in sidewalks. Prioritize investment in designated priority sidewalks to ensure a complete
network of sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly amenities that enhances pedestrian safety, access
opportunities and connectivity to destinations.
3.3 Active transportation. Require that all development or redevelopment projects
accommodate active transportation through providing on-site amenities, necessary
connections to existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks, and incorporate people-
oriented design practices.
3.4 Access opportunities. Provide enhanced mobility and access opportunities for local
transportation and transit services in areas of the city with sufficient density and intensity of uses,
mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle and pedestrian network connections that can
reduce vehicle trips within the city’s busiest corridors.
3.5 Incentivize other modes. Incentivize local shuttle/trolley services, rideshare and car share
programs, and developing infrastructure that support low speed, low carbon (e.g. electric)
vehicles.
3.6 Complete bicycle network. Provide a complete bicycle network along all designated
roadways while creating connections to other modes of travel including walking and transit.
3.7 Consider all aspects. Ensure transportation planning projects provide consideration to
access, equity, health and safety, and individual responsibility that enhances the quality of life of
residents in the community.
3.8 Encourage shared streets. Encourage the concept of shared streets on low volume streets
with limited right-of-ways.
3.9 Access for emergency vehicles. Ensure that emergency vehicles have secure and
convenient access to the city’s street network.
3.10 Require ADA standards. Require that all public right-of-ways be designed per American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and
other components to provide ease of access for disabled persons.
Public Review Draft 302
126 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Goal 4. A parking system that meets the parking needs and demand of residents,
visitors, and employees in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
With emphasis on residential parking needs, public and shared parking supply, and seasonal peak parking demands, services need not be one size fits all. Innovative
parking supply solutions will be used to provide a variety of services tailored to different
users in addition to adopting policies that will incentivize targeted business and commercial development of shared parking solutions.
Policies
4.1 Shared parking. Facilitate park-once and shared parking policies among private developments that contribute to a shared parking supply and interconnect with adjacent parking facilities.
4.2 Encourage Coastal access. Ensure parking facilities and costs of such facilities are not a barrier to beach access by the public.
4.3 Reduce impacts. Reduce spillover parking impacts due to seasonal and event-based demands.
4.4 Provision of subsidized parking. Ensure the provision of subsidized on-street residential parking is limited to residences which cannot provide adequate parking on-site.
4.5 Sufficient bicycle parking. Require a sufficient supply of bicycle parking to be provided in conjunction with new vehicle parking facilities by both public and private developments.
4.6 Priority parking. Provide priority parking and charging stations to accommodate the use of Electric Vehicles (EV’s), including smaller short-distance neighborhood electric vehicles.
4.7 Parking availability. Optimize parking availability through dynamically adjusted pricing, and manage available spaces for short-term parking use to encourage rates of turnover that are responsive to fluctuating demands.
4.8 Ensure commercial parking. Ensure that prime commercial parking spaces are available for customers and other short-term users throughout the day.
4.9 Encourage TDM strategies. Encourage use of transportation demand management strategies and programs such as carpooling, ride hailing, and alternative transportation modes as a way to reduce demand for additional parking supply.
4.10 Visitor parking. Manage public parking lots to facilitate use by longer-distance visitors.
Public Review Draft 303
PLAN HERMOSA | 127
Goal 5. A robust low cost and low carbon transportation system that promotes the City’s
environmental sustainability and stewardship goals in support of social and economic objectives.
Aimed at reducing transportation-related environmental impacts, the development of a multimodal transportation network allows travelers the flexibility of choosing sustainable and low cost transportation choices that promote and improve public
health, environmental quality, and overall quality of life. Low or no carbon travel options
will be supported by the City, and barriers to their use will be addressed through the City’s transportation investments. Affordable transportation solutions will be supported by the City to ensure mobility for all members of the community and to maintain access to goods and services for older residents to age in place.
Policies
5.1 Prioritize development of infrastructure. Prioritize the development of roadway and parking infrastructure that encourages private electric and other low carbon vehicle ownership and use throughout the city.
5.2 Local transit system. Develop a local transit system that facilitates efficient transport of residents, hotel guests, and beach goers between activity centers, and to Downtown businesses and the beach.
5.3 Incentivize TDM strategies. Incentivize the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as a cost effective method for maximizing existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate mobility demands without significant expansion to infrastructure.
5.4 Evaluate projects. Ensure the evaluation of projects for transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA to consider local and statewide goals related to infill development, the promotion of healthy and active lifestyles through active transportation, and the reduction of greenhouse gases, in addition to traditional congestion management impacts.
5.5 Encourage smart growth. Encourage smart growth land use features in development projects to ensure more compact, mixed, connected, and multimodal development supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and greater ability to utilize alternative modes.
Public Review Draft 304
128 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Goal 6. A regionally integrated transportation system that provides local and regional connections to regional transit services, bicycle
facilities, and other inter-modal facilities.
The City will take advantage of improved street connectivity and resulting reductions
in travel distances between destinations, enhanced local and regional accessibility
through increasing route options for a variety of travel modes, and improved overall
walking and bicycling conditions to support and encourage regional connections for all modes.
Policies
6.1 Regional network. Work with government agencies and private sector companies to develop a comprehensive, regionally integrated transportation network that connects the community to surrounding cities.
6.2 Consider travel patterns. Require considering regional travel patterns when collaborating on regional transit and transportation projects to ensure investments facilitate greater mobility and access for residents, businesses, and visitors to and from Hermosa Beach.
6.3 Support programs. Facilitate greater local and regional mobility through programs for shared equipment or transportation options such as car sharing and bike sharing.
6.4 Coordinate with agencies. Coordinate with regional transportation agencies and surrounding cities to improve local access and connections to regional public transit services.
6.5 Coordinate with surrounding cities. Coordinate with surrounding cities to prioritize non-motorized and pedestrian connections to regional facilities and surrounding cities.
6.6 Greater utilization. Consider exploring opportunities for greater utilization of the Beach Cities Transit system for improved mobility along major corridors and as a potential means of improved regional transit connections.
Public Review Draft 305
PLAN HERMOSA | 129
Goal 7. A transportation system that results in zero transportation-related fatalities and which minimizes
injuries.
As the rate of walking and bicycling continue to rise, providing a transportation
system that safely meets the needs of people driving and more vulnerable street users
becomes increasingly important. Strategies and improved designs will be aimed at
reducing safety risks and ensuring continued economic and social well being of all people using the streets in Hermosa.
Policies
7.1 Safe public rights-of-ways. Encourage that all public rights-of-ways are safe for all users at all times of day where users of all ages and ability feel comfortable participating in both motorized and non-motorized travel.
7.2 Manage speeds. Monitor vehicle speeds through traffic controls, speed limits, and design features with the intended purpose of minimizing vehicle accidents, creating a pedestrian and bicycle environment, and discouraging pass-through traffic.
7.3 Provide street lighting. Provide pedestrian-oriented street lighting for enhanced pedestrian and bicycling safety on all City streets with appropriate land use designations.
7.4 Traffic safety programs. Prioritize traffic safety programs oriented towards safe access to schools and community facilities that focus on walking, biking, and driving in school zones.
7.5 Appropriate sidewalk widths. Encourage design and construction plans that incorporate sidewalks that are wide enough to safely accommodate high levels of pedestrian activity.
7.6 Expanding traffic enforcement. Encourage expanding traffic enforcement services and installing enhancements along streets with high collision rates and unsafe behaviors.
7.7 Formalize City procedures. Encourage formalizing City procedures for analysis and evaluation of crosswalks and crossing locations citywide, and adopt state-of-practice pedestrian improvement guidance aimed at increasing pedestrian safety.
Public Review Draft 306
130 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Goal 8. Facilitate sustainable, effective, and safe movement of goods and commercial vehicles.
With commerce and provision of goods an essential component to the economic vitality of Hermosa Beach, it is necessary to ensure that commercial vehicles are
expressly allowed and provided efficient access and circulation to businesses. However,
when commercial vehicles are not properly operated, they can have detrimental
effects on the environment enjoyed by nearby residents, business customers, and public spaces by contributing noise, air pollution, and reduced safety. Hermosa Beach is committed to promoting the commercial movement of goods and service vehicles
in and around Hermosa Beach in a manner that protects the health, safety and well-
being of residents and the environment.
Policies
8.1 Minimize truck impacts. Establish a system of truck route on specified arterial streets to
minimize the negative impacts of trucking through the City.
8.2 Prohibit excessive idling. Discourage commercial vehicles from excessive idling during
deliveries and while parked.
8.3 Reduce traffic conditions. Encourage businesses to provide commercial loading zones in the
public right-of-way and in a manner that balances the needs of businesses with the impact on
traffic conditions.
8.4 Utilize alleys. Encourage alleys for access for parking, delivery loading/unloading and trash
collection and, where possible, provide additional green space and pedestrian amenities.
8.5 Utilize technology. Encourage commercial vehicles to utilize technologies that minimize air
pollution, fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions.
8.6 Prohibit mobile advertising. Consider prohibiting mobile advertising to avoid unnecessary
traffic congestion and air pollution.
Public Review Draft 307
PLAN HERMOSA | 131
4 sustainability + conservation
Resources such as energy and water are essential elements for sustaining a healthy
life, and their consumption and deterioration of these resources can have widespread
health, environmental, and economic effects. A resource efficient and carbon neutral community are key to addressing the negative effects of climate change
by reducing ecologically disruptive greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere and through numerous energy and resource conservation measures. This chapter
embraces the conservation of natural resources through goals and policies targeting
water conservation, energy conservation, green building, air quality, and recycling and solid waste. Like so many topics in this Plan, these conservation-oriented practices
have secondary community benefits. Using less electricity and increasing reliance on renewable energy can lead to reduced power plant-related air pollutants. Using
drought tolerant landscape materials can reduce runoff and reduce water pollutants
in Santa Monica Bay. Green building techniques can improve indoor air quality and improve occupant respiratory health.
Pier Avenue Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Public Review Draft 308
132 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
State Law
This Sustainability + Conservation Element has been prepared to meet State General Plan law requirements for conservation, and additionally to meet California Coastal Act requirements related to wetlands and waterways.
General Plan
State law requires all general plans to contain a conservation element to address the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. Natural resources identified by statute include waters, forests, soils, wildlife, minerals, and other energy resources. Specific components covered in this Element:
• Must consider the effect of development on natural resources - including water, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals - located on public lands.
• Must develop the water-related portion of the conservation element in coordination with water agencies - including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies - which develop, serve, control, manage, or conserve water within the jurisdiction.
• May cover the reclamation of land and waters.
• May cover the prevention and control
of pollution of streams and other waters, the regulation of the use of land in stream channels, the prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores, and the protection of watersheds.
• May cover the location, quantity, and quality
of the rock, sand, and gravel resources.
• Must utilize urban water management plan(s)
submitted by a water agency.
Coastal Land Use Plan
Additionally, the Coastal Land Use Plan should incorporate the following components of the California Coastal Act related to sustainability and resource conservation:
• Define wetlands in a manner that is consistent
with Coastal Act Sections 30121 and 13577(b)
and guarantee that the condition of the
wetland does not affect its regulatory status as
a wetland.
• Identify allowable uses that may result in the
diking, filling, or dredging of wetlands, lakes,
and open coastal waters only when consistent
with Coastal Act Section 30233.
• Provide mitigation measures for unavoidable
impacts of recreational beach loss from
permitted development.
Climate Change in California
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) directed the California Air Resources Board to develop rules and regulations necessary to achieve statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and emissions limits equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan includes energy efficiency measures, regional transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions targets, a renewable portfolio standard, a cap-and-trade program, a light-duty vehicle standard, and a low carbon fuel standard. The Scoping Plan also recognizes the essential partnership between State, regional, and local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Local governments have authority over activities that produce both direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions through land use planning and zoning, general permitting, local ordinances, and municipal operations. Therefore, many of the strategies outlined in the Scoping Plan require local government action.
Signed by Governor Brown in April 2015, Executive Order B-30-15, provides an interim target for the State of California to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as a basis for guiding regulatory policy and investments in California and to ensure California remains on track to meet the longer term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Public Review Draft 309
PLAN HERMOSA | 133
Context
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
has identified a need to limit global warming to 2
degrees Celsius or less by 2050 to avoid potentially
catastrophic climate change impacts. Recognizing
this critical tipping point, and knowing that the
impacts of climate change are already being felt
in California and will disproportionately impact
the State’s most vulnerable populations, the
State has established a long term goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels
by 2050. To meet these emissions goals, California
has set specific time-bound reduction targets,
through legislation and executive order, including
the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32),
Executive Order S-3-05, and Executive Order B-30-
10. While many Federal and State regulations are
focused on industry and sector-wide changes to
renewable energy production and fuel efficiency
standards, which will help to reduce local
greenhouse gas emissions, there are additional
requirements for local policy and action.
In general, there are two sets of strategies to cope
with climate change: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation strategies attempt to stop future
warming by lowering the level of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, or capturing emitted
greenhouse gases prior to release into the
atmosphere. Examples of mitigation strategies
include planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide
from the air, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency to
reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted
per mile driven, and conserving electricity to
lower greenhouse gas emissions from energy
production. While mitigation efforts may curb some
greenhouse gas emissions, these efforts are unlikely
to halt climate change entirely, requiring some
adaptation (see Public Safety Element for climate
change adaptation strategies).
The City of Hermosa Beach understands the
role each community must play in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid
catastrophic impacts of a changing climate, both
globally and locally. The City of Hermosa Beach,
is committed to being a leader and innovator
in achieving carbon neutrality, as a municipal
organization and as a community, in ways that
simultaneously support the community’s livability
and economic vitality goals. In 2015, the City set
a goal to be carbon neutral in municipal facilities
and operations by 2020.
Hermosa Beach Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories
In 2014, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments received funding to conduct an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions generated by each community within the region, including Hermosa Beach. The inventory looks at community sources, as well as sources generated by the City as a municipal organization for the years of 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012. The inventories identify the sources of GHG emissions generated by energy use, transportation, water and wastewater related energy use, and waste disposal.
Community GHG Emissions
• Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions generated by Hermosa Beach activities, representing approximately 54% of total emissions.
• The community of Hermosa Beach decreased emissions 7.7% from 2005 to 2012, from 137,160 MTCO2e to 126,611 MTCO2e.
• Under the Adjusted Business-as-Usual (BAU) forecast, emissions will be 111,690 MTCO2e in 2020 and 94,162 MTCO2e in 2035. These emissions levels are 19% lower in 2020 than 2005 and 31% lower than 2005 by 2035.
137,160 132,768 127,889 126,611
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2005 (MTCO2e)2007 (MTCO2e)2010 (MTCO2e)2012 (MTCO2e)MTCO2e/yrOn-road transportation Residential Energy Commercial Energy
Solid Waste Water Off-Road Sources
Wastewater
Figure 4.1 Community GHG Emissions 2005-2012
Public Review Draft 310
134 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Municipal GHG Emissions
• Greenhouse gas emissions from municipal
operations are generally more distributed
across activities, ranging from 11% – 24%.
• Municipal emissions have decreased 9% from
2005 to 2012, from 1,501 MTCO2e to 1,372
MTCO2e.
• Emissions in the Employee Commute, Outdoor
Lights-City Owned, and Solid Waste sectors
decreased between 2005 and 2012 while
Vehicle Fleet & Equipment, Buildings and
Facilities and SCE-Owned Outdoor Lights
increased during the same time period.
• The City will need to reduce emissions by 1,751
MTCO2e from the 2020 Adjusted BAU emissions
level to meet its carbon neutrality goal by 2020.
1,501 1,541
1,339 1,372
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2005 (MTCO2e)2007 (MTCO2e)2010 (MTCO2e)2012 (MTCO2e)MTCO2e/yrEmployee Commute Buildings & Facilities
Outdoor Lights - City Owned Fleet and Equipment
Solid Waste Outdoor Lights - SCE Owned
Water Pumping and Irrigation
Figure 4.2 Municipal GHG Emissions 2005-2012
Table 4.1 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012
Sector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2007 (MTCO2e) 2010 (MTCO2e) 2012 (MTCO2e)% Change 2005 - 2012
On-road transportation 73,567 71,863 70,277 68,235 -7%
Residential Energy 32,293 31,964 32,700 33,808 5%
Commercial Energy 20,280 19,792 18,372 17,830 -12%
Solid Waste 6,015 4,584 3,510 3,334 -45%
Water 4,065 3,942 2,552 2,600 -36%
Off-Road Sources 888 588 419 745 -16%
Wastewater 52 35 59 59 13%
Total 137,160 132,768 127,889 126,611 -8%
% Change from 2005 -3%-7%-8%
Source: South Bay Cities Council of Governments, 2010.
Carbon
N
eutr
al Initi
ativ
e
Hermos
a B
e
a
ch Sustaina
bility Pl
a
n
Cool Citi
es Pro
gra
m
Beacon
A
w
ar
d Pr
o
gr
a
m
Green Buil
din
g
C
o
des
an
d L
o
w Impact
Dev
el
o
p
ment
Or
din
an
c
es
Enhanced
W
at
ersh
ed
Manag
e
m
e
nt Pl
an
Public Review Draft 311
PLAN HERMOSA | 135
Recent Efforts to Reduce Emissions
As illustrated in the inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions, the City and the community have
initiated several recent planning efforts and
policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from both community activities and municipal
operations. Recent efforts include:
Carbon Neutral Initiative: The City Council
accepted the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan and
adopted a goal to be carbon neutral by 2020
for municipal facilities and operations. The Plan
identifies a pathway to achieve this goal through
a combination of implementation measures and
offset purchases.
Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan: The City’s
Green Task Force prepared the Sustainability Plan
in 2011, which outlines actions to reduce emissions.
Cool Cities Program: The City Council became a
participant in the ‘Cool Cities Program’ in 2006.
The ‘Cities for Climate Protection’ Campaign
helps local governments to adopt policies and
implement changes that reduce local emissions,
improve air quality, and enhance urban livability.
Beacon Award Program: The City is a participant in
this program which recognizes California cities and
counties that are working to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, save energy and adopt policies and
programs that promote sustainability.
Clean Fleet Policy and Action Plan: The City
Council adopted a Clean Fleet Policy and Action
Plan on June 11, 2013 with a goal of net zero
greenhouse gas emissions for the City fleet and
alternative fuels for 100% of contracted city service
vehicles.
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, Beach Cities Livability Plan, Living Streets Policy: Adopted in
2011 these plans and policies promote active
transportation and greenhouse gas emissions
reduction.
Green Building Codes: In 2015, City Council
accepted the Enhanced Watershed Management
Plan for the South Bay beach Cities that was
proceeded by the adoption of a Green Streets
Policy and Low-Impact Development Ordinance.
Renewable energy incentives: The City is a
participant in Energy Upgrade California and
several Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
programs that can be used by residents and
businesses. The City provides incentives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in various sectors.
Solid waste reduction: In October of 2014 Governor
Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to
recycle their organic waste, and phasing in the
mandatory recycling of commercial organics
over time. Organic waste means food waste,
green waste, landscape and pruning waste,
nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper
waste that is mixed in with food waste.
Water Conservation: The City adopted a Water
Conservation and Drought Management
Ordinance in 2010.
Clean Fle
et
P
oli
c
y
a
nd
A
cti
on Pl
an
Munici
p
al
e
ner
g
y re
du
cti
o
n retr
ofits
South Bay Bicy
cle
M
ast
er Pl
a
n, B
e
a
ch
Citi
es Livability Pl
an, Livin
g Stre
ets P
oli
c
y
Renewa
bl
e
en
er
gy i
n
c
e
ntiv
es
Solid wast
e re
du
cti
on
Public Review Draft 312
136 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Code requires sustainable practices for new
development and replacement of buildings. The Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan identifies Community Choice Aggregation as the most powerful tool for reducing GHG emissions from energy use. Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to procure alternative renewable energy supplies while maintaining the existing electricity provider for transmission and distribution services.
Green Building
Green building concepts can be incorporated into site and building design to reduce energy use, improve aesthetics and comfort, and provide a more cost-effective means of living. Six concepts of green building can help conserve energy and preserve the environment:
• Sustainable sites
• Water efficiency
• Energy and atmosphere
• Minerals and resources
• Indoor environmental quality
• Innovation and design process.
The majority of building permit activity in Hermosa
Beach consists of remodels, renovations, and
tenant improvements. The City and utility providers
offer rebates and incentives for residents and
businesses to reduce their water and energy use.
Water Conservation
Water service is provided by California Water Service’s Hermosa-Redondo District using groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled supplies. Groundwater satisfies between 10% and 15% of the water demand in any given year. The District supplied 14,563 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2010 and foresees that with additional anticipated conservation measures will have demand for 16,152 AFY by 2040. In response to recent drought conditions, the City has adopted a ‘Water Conservation and Drought Management Ordinance’ that applies to the use of water by individuals, households and businesses. It also applies to installation of various devices. Hermosa Beach residents have also engaged in educational competitions, like the Wyland Water Challenge, committing to further conservation of water at both an individual and community wide scale.
Air Quality
Air quality, which is both a local and regional issue,
is an important contributor to health and quality of life and determinant in rates of asthma, respiratory disease and some cancers. The majority of air-borne emissions in Hermosa Beach are attributable to mobile sources from major roadways including PCH, Artesia Boulevard, and Aviation Boulevard, as well as major Freeways, shipping ports (Long Beach and Los Angeles), and airports. In addition to mobile sources, stationary sources may also contribute to air pollution within the city such as refineries in surrounding cities. Although these sources have the potential to affect air pollution within the city, these sources are regulated by SCAQMD permitting process to minimize pollutant emissions and impacts to sensitive uses. Indoor air quality can also include contaminants from building materials or other pollutants. Air quality can also be influenced by very localized conditions such as the presence of cigarette smoke. To protect the public health and safety, the City introduced Healthy Air Hermosa in 2012, ensuring residents and visitors can enjoy a smoke-free environment at public outdoor gathering spaces.
Energy Resources
Residential and nonresidential
(businesses, industrial processes,
government operations) activities in Hermosa
Beach such as building heating and cooling,
lighting, and appliance operation require
electricity and natural gas. Energy is generated
over large areas by many different sources, so
tracking the specific source of energy used in
any one place can be difficult. Energy that is not
generated at a facility by an energy provider
can be purchased from other producers and
transmitted to the energy user through energy
transmission networks. Energy sources used in
Hermosa Beach include hydroelectric, waste-to-
energy transformation, geothermal, solar, wind,
coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Electricity within the
planning area is provided by Southern California
Edison, while natural gas is supplied by the
Southern California Gas Company.
The City is required to implement the California
Building Code, the latest requirements governing
design and construction of buildings to achieve
safety and sustainability in new and remodeled
development. In addition, the City’s Building
Public Review Draft 313
PLAN HERMOSA | 137
Solid Waste and Recycling
More than half of the solid waste generated by
Hermosa Beach residents, businesses, and visitors
is diverted from local landfills through recycling
and reuse. Solid waste disposal services in Hermosa
Beach are provided by a franchise waste hauler.
Solid waste is hauled to a regional Waste Materials
Recovery Facility, where it is sorted and recycled.
Waste materials are then transported to a variety
of landfills throughout the region. Residential
hazardous waste disposal is available at a facility
operated by the City of Los Angeles in Playa Del
Rey. Additionally, the City organizes a variety of
education and outreach opportunities to the
community, including events to collect household
hazardous waste, shredding, and composting.
To comply with State Law, the City is required to
create a waste management plan that promotes
waste source reduction, recycling and composting,
and environmentally safe transformation and
disposal to help achieve the statewide goal that at
least 75% of solid waste generated in California be
source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the
year 2020. The Sustainability Plan waste reduction
and recycling programs focus on characterizing
the municipal and community waste streams,
providing a comprehensive recycling and diversion
program, providing green waste recycling and
backyard composting programs, considering a
food waste diversion program, improving multi-
family residential recycling options and household
hazardous waste programs, and setting a “zero-
waste” goal for the community.
Regional Geology
Hermosa Beach is located at the southwest end of Santa Monica Bay, with rolling hills ranging in elevation from sea level in the west to about 200 feet above sea level at inland locations. The planning area is located along the southwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin and Coastal Plain. The Los Angeles Basin is bounded by the Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean and Palos Verdes Hills to the west and south. It is filled with sedimentary deposits up to 35,000 feet thick, and since the basin was submerged beneath the ocean until approximately five million years ago, much of the sediment is marine deposits. Beneath multiple layers of alluvial deposits, stratified sands, sandstone, and siltstone are offshore oil reservoirs.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is a normal process whereby
earth materials are loosened, worn
away, decomposed, or dissolved and
are moved from one place to another by water,
wind, and gravity. While erosion is naturally a
slow process, acceleration can occur from the
steepening of slopes, removal of ground cover,
paving, and other human activities associated
with construction and landscaping. For example,
hillside construction often requires land grading
activities that can result in steeper slopes, which
are more prone to soil erosion. Preparing land
for construction can also remove ground cover,
exposing soils to wind erosion. Accelerated erosion
within an urban area can cause damage by
undermining structures, blocking storm sewers,
and depositing sand or mud in roads and tunnels.
Eroded materials are eventually deposited into
coastal waters where the carried silt remains
suspended for some time, polluting the water
and altering the normal balance of plant and
animal life. Potential issues involving soils, such as
the potential for soil expansion or corrosion, are
analyzed on a project-by-project basis.
Mineral Resources
California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act directs the classification and mapping of regionally significant mineral resource zones (MRZs). The State and City are then required to designate future uses within such areas that maintain or preserve mineral resources to meet the region’s future need for construction quality aggregates. The entirety of Hermosa Beach is classified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) under the California Mineral Land Classification System. In MRZ-3 areas, mineral resources are present, but the significance of the resource is considered speculative because mining has not historically occurred in the area. Additionally, since most of the area has been developed, mining activities would not be feasible.
Subsurface oil deposits are also present in Hermosa Beach. However, in March 2015, the City’s populace voted, at a rate of four to one, against Measure O, upholding the prohibition of oil drilling within the City of Hermosa Beach. If Measure O is overturned at some point in the future, additional measures would be needed to mitigate potential environmental and health hazards associated with oil extraction.
Public Review Draft 314
138 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Goal 1. Carbon Neutral Municipal Facilities andOperations by 2020 and sustained into the future.
Hermosa Beach has committed to a holistic approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This approach will ensure major planning decisions are evaluated for how
effective, how quick, and how cost-effective each action will be in helping to achieve
the goal of being a carbon neutral municipal organization by 2020. Once achieved,
the City will need to sustain carbon neutrality achievement beyond 2020 through continued leadership and commitment.
Policies
1.1 Carbon neutral organization. Demonstrate environmental leadership and achieve carbon neutrality as a municipal organization by 2020.
1.2 Highest return on investment. Prioritize the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction projects that simultaneously reduce ongoing operational costs to the City.
1.3 Align reductions with sources. Pursue a diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction strategies across the range municipal activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions.
1.4 Carbon offsets as needed. When necessary, purchase carbon offsets to achieve the municipal carbon neutral goal.
1.5 City leadership. Create a culture of leadership, innovation, and ingenuity to implement creative and cost-effective greenhouse gas reducing projects for City facilities and operations.
1.6 Demonstration and pilot projects. Utilize demonstration and pilot projects as a means to evaluate the greenhouse gas reduction potential and cost effectiveness of projects.
1.7 Promotion of carbon neutrality. Highlight the City’s carbon neutrality efforts as a means to attract additional investment and new green and cleantech business enterprises.
Goals and Policies
A primary objective of this Plan is to set Hermosa Beach on a path toward a low, or no, carbon future. To achieve that objective, it is essential that greenhouse gas reducing measures are integrated throughout this Plan. Goals, policies, and actions specific to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from each activity sector, can be found throughout this element as well as the mobility, land use, parks and open space, and infrastructure elements.
Public Review Draft 315
PLAN HERMOSA | 139
Goal 2. Hermosa Beach is a Carbon Neutral Community by 2040.
Climate change, often cited as the environmental crisis of our generation, poses a threat to the safety, health and welfare of the community. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to being a leader of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has engaged in a number of innovative efforts to move toward carbon neutrality.
Policies
2.1 State targets and goals. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with State targets and goals, and achieve carbon neutrality as a community no later than 2040.
2.2 Triple bottom line projects. Prioritize the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction projects that simultaneously provide the greatest economic and health benefits to the community.
2.3 Diversify GHG reduction strategies. Pursue a diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction strategies across the transportation, energy, waste sectors, commensurate with their share of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions.
2.4 Land use and transportation investments. Promote land use and transportation investments that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced number and length of automobile trips.
2.5 Carbon offsets as needed. When necessary, purchase carbon offsets to achieve the community carbon neutral goal.
2.6 Grants and incentives. Seek grant funding to support implementation of greenhouse gas reduction projects for the City, as well as residents and businesses.
2.7 Discretionary projects. Require discretionary projects to substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, and offset the remainder of greenhouse gas emissions produced to meet annual thresholds.
2.8 Ministerial projects. Encourage ministerial projects to directly offset potential greenhouse gas emissions generated.
Public Review Draft 316
140 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Goal 3. Improved air quality and reduced air pollution emissions.
It is a well documented fact that poor air quality can contribute to respiratory health
problems such as asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases, therefore improving local air quality is an important public safety and health priority for the City. By proactively limiting stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, and supporting
techniques and technologies that will improve air quality, Hermosa Beach can
maintain its reputation as a clean and healthy place to live.
Policies
3.1 Stationary and mobile sources. Seek to improve overall respiratory health for residents
through regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, as feasible.
3.2 Mobile source reductions. Support land use and transportation strategies to reduce
vehicle miles traveled and emissions, including pollution from commercial and passenger
vehicles.
3.3 Fuel efficient fleets. Promote fuel efficiency and cleaner fuels for vehicles as well as
construction and maintenance equipment by requesting that City contractors provide
cleaner fleets.
3.4 Two-stroke engines. Discourage the use of equipment with two-stroke engines and
publicize the benefits and importance of alternative technologies.
3.5 Clean fuels. Support increased local access to cleaner fuels and cleaner energy by
encouraging fueling stations that provide cleaner fuels and energy to the community.
3.6 Healthy Air Hermosa. Maintain high quality outdoor and public spaces in Hermosa Beach
through the Healthy Air Hermosa program.
3.7 Regional air quality. When possible, collaborate with other agencies within the region
to improve air quality and meet or exceed State and Federal air quality standards through
regional efforts to reduce air pollution from mobile sources, including trucks and passenger
vehicles.
Public Review Draft 317
PLAN HERMOSA | 141
Goal 4. A leader in reducing energy consumption and renewable energy production.
The built environment has a profound impact on our natural environment, the economy, community health and well-being, and productivity. Green building, energy conservation, and renewable energy generation can help the community maintain
valuable resources over the long term, cut utility costs for businesses and residents, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By encouraging both green building and energy
conservation, the City can realize green and resource-efficient development and foster conservation behaviors that are essential to a carbon neutral community.
Policies
4.1 Renewable energy generation. Require, promote, and facilitate the installation of renewable energy projects on homes and businesses.
4.2 Building energy disclosure. Require large buildings to report their energy and water use on a regular basis.
4.3 Retrofit program. Provide an energy retrofit program to assist home and building owners to make efficiency improvements.
4.4 Rental efficiency. Adopt a financing program to incentivize rental efficiency retrofits, such as green leasing.
4.5 Municipal facilities. Utilize renewable energy sources at City facilities to support achieving municipal carbon neutrality by 2020.
4.6 Sustainable building standards. Use sustainable building checklists to minimize or eliminate waste and maximize recycling in building design, demolition, and construction activities.
Public Review Draft 318
142 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Goal 5. Water conservation practices, recycled water use, and innovative water
technologies support a carbon neutral community.
Conserve the city’s water supply and reduce the negative environmental impacts of
water use through water efficiency, conservation, capture, and reuse.
Policies
5.1 Recycled water facilities. Enhance the availability of recycled water supply and distribution facilities are available throughout the city.
5.2 Rainwater collection. Encourage innovative water recycling techniques such as rainwater capture, use of cisterns, and installation of greywater.
5.3 Water conservation programs. Update and improve water conservation and efficiency programs, requirements, and incentives on a regular basis.
5.4 Conservation behavior. Maximize water conservation and efficiency upgrades through education, regulation, and incentives covering every aspect of water use.
5.5 Greywater. Encourage the installation of greywater irrigation or disposal systems.
Public Review Draft 319
PLAN HERMOSA | 143
Goal 6. Hermosa Beach is a zero-waste community with convenient and effective options for recycling,
composting, and diverting waste from landfills.
California has set a statewide goal of reaching 75% source reduction, composting,
and recycling by 2020. Reaching this State mandate is an obvious goal for the City.
More importantly, the Hermosa Beach community has explicitly stated an independent commitment to continually strive to reduce waste and be an example of a sustainable, carbon neutral community.
Policies
6.1 Franchise agreements. Ensure waste franchise agreements and program offerings provide progressively higher rates of waste diversion.
6.2 Food waste collection. Ensure food waste collection is available and convenient for all residents, businesses, and organizations.
6.3 Multi-family and commercial recycling. Require the provision of convenient recycling options in multi-family residential and commercial uses.
6.4 Material source reduction. Support and enforce requirements to minimize the use of non-recyclable materials or materials commonly found on the beach, such as plastic bags and polystyrene.
6.5 Recycled materials. Encourage and support the sale of products that minimize packaging or are made from recycled materials.
6.6 Composting programs. Provide composting equipment at community facilities and events and encourage home and commercial composting.
6.7 Green purchasing. Evaluate “green purchasing” options across all City departments and consider the life cycle effects of purchases.
6.8 Recycled building materials. Where cost effective and structurally feasible, maximize the use of recycled building materials in new construction projects.
6.9 Building salvage. Maximize building salvage and deconstruction in remodeling or building demolition projects.
Public Review Draft 320
144 | CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY + CONSERVATION
Goal 7. Essential topsoil is retained and erosion is minimized.
The land on which Hermosa Beach is set determines what types of uses can be
supported, what hazards should be considered, and what mitigation should be completed when development occurs. The City strives to protect these resources, and to comply with regulatory requirements.
Policies
7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas.
7.2 Soil erosion. Minimize soil erosion by ensuring best practices are used in grading and construction.
Public Review Draft 321
PLAN HERMOSA | 145
Beautiful, accessible, and well maintained parks, open space, and recreation
facilities, and quality recreational programs are essential amenities for Hermosa Beach. They help create community and make the city more livable and attractive,
provide a place of relaxation and relief from the urban environment, encourage
physical activity and health, provide a forum for gathering and interaction, and reduce urban heat islands. Many urban areas – including Hermosa Beach – have
both high demand for these amenities and limited options for providing them. This puts a premium on the parks and open space provided, and reinforces their
importance. Parks and open space play a key role in sustainability. Open space is the
primary land use that provides ecosystem services within a community, providing for opportunities that range from groundwater recharge to food production to wildlife
habitat. Additionally, parks and open space provide valuable recreational amenities to communities, leading to increased property values, safety, economic activity,
and better health. Over and above the State requirements, this Element includes
policy guidance about recreational programming, beach management and special events, enhanced access to the coast, the protection of scenic views, natural
habitats, and the urban forest.
5 parks + open space
Public Review Draft 322
146 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
State Law
This Parks and Open Space Element has been prepared to meet State General Plan law requirements for open space, and additionally to meet California Coastal Act requirements related to coastal access, scenic views, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and temporary events. Additionally, this Element incorporates context and policies to meet the California Endangered Species Act and the Quimby Park Fee Act.
General Plan
California General Plan Law requires an open space element to address the following topics:
• Must identify any areas intended to preserve natural resources and any areas intended to manage the production of natural resources.
• Must identify any areas intended to serve outdoor recreation needs, including links or access points to recreational areas.
• Must identify any areas that, due to increased exposure to natural hazards, should not be occupied by buildings or structures.
• Should identify the demands for trail-oriented recreational use.
• Should identify publicly owned corridors (abandoned rail lines, utility corridors, easements) for future use as recreational trails and open space.
• Should identify the potential integration of trail routes with regional and State segments of the California Recreational Trails System.
Park Fees
The collection of park and recreation facility fees
are important to address within the General Plan.
As part of approval of a final tract or parcel map,
the California Quimby Act allows a city to require
dedication of land, the payment of in-lieu fees, or
a combination of both to be used for the provision
of parks and recreational services. Cities can
require land or in lieu fees for a minimum of 3 acres
per 1,000 residents, with the possibility of increasing
the requirement to a maximum of 5 acres per 1,000
residents if the city already provides more than 3
acres per 1,000 residents.
In Hermosa Beach, parks and recreation
facility fees are assessed on new development
applications and used solely for the acquisition,
improvement, and expansion of public park,
playground and/or recreation facilities.
Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Act requires that the City’s Local Coastal Program contain specific coastal access and beach management components to “assure that maximum public access to the coastal and public recreation areas is provided.” Given the importance of recreational activities on the beach to the City’s cultural identity and economic vitality, beach management has been elevated to a priority issue with dedicated goals and policies in PLAN Hermosa. The Coastal Land Use Plan incorporates specific components related to parks and open space as follows:
Coastal Access
• Provide to the maximum extent practicable, a public access inventory, including a map showing the specific locations of existing and proposed public access to the coast, including segments of the California Coastal Trail and the status and location of those subject to offers to dedicate easements or deed restrictions.
• Provide measures to ensure new development does not impede access and is compatible with public access areas.
• Provide estimates of current visitor and facilities use, and unmet or future demand by location and type of access.
• Identify potential public agency acquisitions, development or redevelopment, and management of public recreation and visitor-serving facilities.
• Identify dedication or in lieu fee requirements for recreation and open space to accompany new development and to mitigate the cumulative impacts of development.
Public Review Draft 323
PLAN HERMOSA | 147
Scenic Views
• Identify public scenic and visual characteristics
including: view corridors, viewsheds, and highly
scenic coastal areas.
• Provide descriptions of any development
encroachments, including signs, billboards, and
lighting, on public views and scenic areas.
• Identify coastal view and visual quality
protection policies
Natural Habitat Areas
• Define and map Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) for known sensitive habitat areas and state that ESHA maps are not an exhaustive compilation of habitat areas.
• Identify requirements for conducting site-specific biological evaluations, historical analysis of disturbed areas, and field observations to identify ESHA and other sensitive resources and potential impacts.
• Provide designations in and surrounding ESHAs, where practical, that limit uses and ensure compatibility between ESHAs and adjacent land uses through open space easements, deed restrictions or buffers to ESHAs.
• Identify requirements for ensuring detailed restoration and monitoring plans for projects involving habitat mitigation and restoration.
• Identify measures to address beach grooming, consistent with protection of sensitive species (e.g., grunion and western snowy plover).
Additionally, numerous California regulations, including the California Endangered Species Act protect special-status species and important habitat areas, including Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). The General Plan must comply with State and Federal requirements to protect special-status species, native plants, beach areas, and the Santa Monica Bay watershed.
Temporary Events
The California Coastal Act specifically addresses
“temporary events,” noting that temporary events are “[a kind of] development, but are authorized without permit when they do not have any significant adverse impact upon coastal resources.” The Coastal Land Use Plan:
• Must identify and address the criteria to be
used to mitigate potentially adverse impacts from temporary events.
Context
The City owns, operates, and maintains many
developed park and recreation facilities providing
green space, picnic facilities, a skateboard
park, tennis courts, lawn bowling, and space for
sporting events, as well as a community garden.
These facilities and open spaces provide much
of the City’s natural and green space and areas
for wildlife habitat. In addition to providing
facilities, the Community Resources Department
manages requests for special events, processes
facility reservations, and offers programs to serve
everyone from youths to seniors.
Shakespeare by the Sea performance at Valley Park
Public Review Draft 324
148 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Park Name Address Park Type Size (Acres)
1 Shaffer Park Ingleside Ave & 33rd Pl Parkette < 0.1
2 Valley Park Valley Dr & Gould Ave Park 8.8
3 Valley Greenbelt Trail/Open Space 19
4 Sea View Park Prospect Ave & 19th St Park 0.3
5 Scout Parkette Prospect Ave & 14th St Parkette < 0.1
6 Greenwood Park PCH & Aviation Blvd Park 0.5
7 Fort Lots-o-Fun Prospect Ave & 6th St Park 0.4
8 Edith Rodaway Friendship Park Prospect Ave Park 0.8
9 4th & Prospect Parkettes 4th St & Prospect Ave Parkette < 0.1
10 Oceanview Parkette 3rd St Parkette < 0.1
11 Moondust Parkette 2nd St Parkette < 0.1
12 City Beach, Strand, Pier Trail/Open Space 63.4
13 Noble Park 1400 The Strand Park 0.8
14 Clark Stadium/Lawn Bowling Green 861 Valley Dr Park 6.6
15 8th & Valley Parkette 8th St & Valley Dr Parkette < 0.1
16 South Park 425 Valley Dr Park 4.5
17 Ardmore Park 491 Ardmore Park Park 0.2
18 Bicentennial Park Valley Dr & 4th St Park 0.4
19 Kay Etow Parkette Herondo St Parkette < 0.1
TOTAL 105.7
Facility Name Address Park Type Size (Acres)
20 Hermosa Beach Community Center 710 Pier Ave Community Center 4.8
21 View School 1800 Prospect Ave School 4.6
22 Valley School 1645 Valley Dr School 8.8
23 North School 417 25th St School 1.8
TOTAL 20.0
Table 5.1 Parks + Community Facilities
City Parks + Open Space
Hermosa Beach currently has 105.7 acres of
parkland with a total of 19 parks and parkettes
(See Table 5.1). The beach, which is owned by
the City, provides a valuable and prominent
open space resource for residents and visitors,
accounting for 63 acres of open space. The
Hermosa Valley Greenbelt encompasses 19 acres,
providing a vegetated open space corridor that
runs north-south along the entire length of the city.
The City’s largest parks or recreational spaces:
the Community Center, Valley Park, South Park,
and Clark Stadium are located adjacent to the
Greenbelt with smaller parks or parkettes, less than 1 acre in size, distributed throughout the city. Parks within the city provide play fields, tennis courts, lawn bowling, a skate park, and space for a number of activities for picnics, youth programs, and other outdoor recreation activities. In 2011, the City established a temporary community garden at South Park to test options. The community garden area will be permanently constructed as a part of the park renovations underway. The three school sites incorporate playgrounds, courts, and playing fields which add to the range of recreational spaces available to the community when school is not in session.
Public Review Draft 325
PLAN HERMOSA | 149
Figure 5.1 Parks + Public Facilities
Public Review Draft 326
150 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Youth Programs
Youth program offerings vary in length from one day or week in length, to seasonal or year-round activities and include athletic programs, creative arts activities, and social programs. Additionally, the P.A.R.K. (Positive Active Recreation for Kids) Program is an after-school program offered at the Hermosa Beach Community Center and South Park for Hermosa Beach residents, emphasizing active recreation for children in 1st through 8th grades.
Adult Classes & Leagues
Adult classes and leagues offer athletic and creative arts programming for beginner to advanced levels. In addition to seasonal classes, the City offers social excursions for adults to locations, typically encompassing tours of cultural landmarks and activity centers around the region.
Senior Programs
Senior services are needed to serve the unique needs of older community members. Private facilities, such as Sunrise Senior Living, provide living arrangements for older residents ranging from independent housing to assisted medical care for persons with Alzheimer’s disease. For recreational purposes, the City opened the Hermosa Five-O Senior Activity Center in May 2010. The center provides group activities and classes to all South Bay residents who are 50 years of age or older.
Community Facilities
The public facilities designed to serve the
community include buildings like the Community
Center and Clark Building, as well as parks and
trails like the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt and The
Strand. Three facilities, Valley Park, Clark Stadium,
Edith Roadway Park, and South Park, support
activities and sport leagues for both youth and
adult participants. Clark Stadium also provides
lawn bowling. The Clark Building, located at 861
Valley Drive, provides a multi-purpose hall and
lighted sports fields. South Park, located at 425
Valley Drive, provides lawn areas, a new play area,
and a community garden.
The Community Center and Hermosa Beach
Community Theater are located at 710 Pier
Avenue, at the intersection of Pacific Coast
Highway and Pier Avenue. This complex includes
a community center with meeting rooms, senior
center, large and small theaters, gymnasium, skate
park, tennis courts and the Hermosa Beach History
Museum.
Recreational Programming
The Community Resources Department provides recreational programming to serve the needs of Hermosa Beach residents of all ages. The department offers targeted programs for youth, adults, and seniors, as described below.
Hermosa Beach Community Center and Lawn
Public Review Draft 327
PLAN HERMOSA | 151
Access to Parks, Schools,
and Community Facilities
Certain areas of the city are better served by parks than others. Even in neighborhoods with existing parks, many residents are located farther from a park than the commonly accepted standard of access of one quarter mile walk distance.
Improving park access throughout the city is critical, and upgrading pedestrian connections to existing parks is the primary means to achieve this goal (apart from adding new parks).
The Strand and Greenbelt provide city-long paths. Following a ballot initiative (Measure O, 1986), redesignation of park land designated Open Space in the General Plan to any other use requires voter approval. The Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail, located between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue, runs the length of the city and connects to Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. The Greenbelt provides a walking and jogging trail.
While the Greenbelt and The Strand serve important north-south connections, safe and convenient east-west connections are lacking.
Given its gridded street network, small blocks, dense land uses, and low posted speed limits, Hermosa Beach holds the potential for a greater pedestrian environment. The City’s 22 walk streets provide safe and plentiful pedestrian connections between Downtown, neighborhoods, and the beach, while walking paths on the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt provide north-south connections away from the beach. The Strand, Southern California’s famous beachside bicycle path, also serves the Hermosa Beach community on its way between Torrance and Malibu.
Despite these inherent benefits, the pedestrian environment suffers from a lack of continuity. Sidewalks, in particular, are not continuous throughout the city. In many places, sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway, while in others – chiefly on local streets – they are present on just one side or not at all. Missing curb ramps, steep driveways, and sidewalk obstructions present challenges to users of all abilities.
Hermosa Valley School playground
Public Review Draft 328
152 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
View: a sight or prospect that can be taken in from a particular place
View corridor: a continuous line of sight from which natural scenery is observed
Viewshed: the compilation of viewpoints that can observe a particular view
View point: a particular place from which natural scenery can be observed
Scenic Resources
The character and beauty of Hermosa Beach are inextricably linked to its coastal location and natural topography. Views of the Pacific Ocean are plentiful, and on a clear day, there are several locations that provide views of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the south, the Santa Monica Bay and Santa Monica Mountains to the north, and the Los Angeles Basin and San Gabriel Mountains to the east and inland. The beach and The Strand provide some of the most expansive and uninterrupted scenic vistas in Hermosa Beach. Other scenic vistas are best viewed from higher elevations along Loma Drive, Pacific Coast Highway, and Prospect Avenue (see Figure 5.2).
In addition to the ocean vistas, the visual character of Hermosa Beach itself is considered a unique resource. Features such as the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt, the Downtown District, Hermosa Pier, and the Bijou Theater represent aspects of the City’s history. Encouraging future development and renovation projects enhance and build on the character of these areas is described in the Land Use element.
Figure 5.2 Regionally Important Views
Public Review Draft 329
PLAN HERMOSA | 153
Coastal Access
The City of Hermosa Beach is home
to a wide sandy beach that runs the
length of the city. Access to the beach is
provided by 22 walk streets that run perpendicular
to and connect with Hermosa Avenue. Walk
Streets occur approximately every 200 to 500 feet.
An additional five street ends occur along Beach
Drive. Most access points (alleys and street ends)
are located no more than 300 feet apart. The main
exception is in the northern stretch of Hermosa
Avenue between 25th Street and 35th Street where
some access points are more than 1,000 feet
apart. Figure 5.3 depicts existing coastal access
points in Hermosa Beach. No additional access
points are currently planned or anticipated. The
following describes access conditions and features
along the coast.
Access and transportation to the beach is a
major issue both for community members and for
compliance with the Coastal Act. A number of
beach access points are provided from public
streets and alleys including walking and biking
paths. The Strand also provides access within
Hermosa Beach and from neighboring cities. In
2014, many visitors arrived by car and utilized
public or private parking, which is addressed in
more detail in the Mobility Element.
The Strand
The Strand is a multi-use path that runs along the beach for the length of Hermosa Beach. The Strand provides horizontal access across the beach, and is well served by the many access points in Hermosa Beach. The Strand continues north into Manhattan Beach and south into Redondo Beach. The Strand was the first completed segment of the California Coastal Trail in Los Angeles County and fulfills the City’s commitment to completing the state wide Coastal Trail. The Strand is heavily trafficked, and during high use periods, becomes congested, particularly when pedestrians stand on the path to socialize.
Beach Area North of 24th Street
Six public access points to the beach are located
north of 24th Street. Access points include locations where The Strand crosses into Hermosa Beach, and five walk streets. This segment of the coast has the longest gaps between access points; two of the access points between 26th Street and 35th Street are over 1,000 feet apart. Where access points do occur, no signs indicate whether the walk streets are intended for public access.
Beach Area North of the Pier to 24th Street
Including 24th Street, 12 coastal access points are located north of the Pier, including an access point to the public restroom located on the beach at 22nd Street. Beach access is provided via street ends at 22nd Street, 15th Street, and 14th Street, as well as via the parking garage at 13th Street. The remaining access points are walk streets.
The Pier and Pier Plaza
Pier Plaza is a major commercial pedestrian area that is accessed via adjacent parking lots, a Class III bicycle route along Hermosa Avenue, and pedestrian connections from Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue. Pier Plaza provides access to The Strand, adjacent beach areas, and the Pier. The Pier extends into the Pacific Ocean, providing access to numerous recreational activities including fishing, sightseeing, and walking.
Beach Area South of the Pier
Thirteen access points are located south of the Pier. This section of the coast has the most frequent access, with access points occurring every 200 to 300 feet. Street end access is provided at 11th Street, 10th Street, and 2nd Street, in addition to access to The Strand at the Redondo Beach border. The remaining access points are walk streets.
Public Review Draft 330
154 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Figure 5.3 Coastal Access Inventory Map
Public Review Draft 331
PLAN HERMOSA | 155
Beach Visitors + Recreational Activities
Hermosa Beach is one of the most heavily visited beaches on the coast of California. The Strand,
the Pier, and the beach itself are all heavily used resources. Visitors to these areas come from all over the Los Angeles region and from throughout California, the United States, and abroad. Surveys conducted each year by Los Angeles County Ocean Lifeguards on the beach indicate that, on average, close to 500,000 individuals visit the beach each month. In peak summer periods, this can increase to well over 1.5 million visitors per month.
The beach area offers numerous public amenities distributed through and includes 4 sets of restrooms, 14 lifeguard towers, 76 volleyball courts, 4 sets of playground equipment, and 3 beach tennis courts (see Figure 5.4). According to a 2014 beach user survey, conducted to support the Local Coastal Program, visitors are generally happy with the quality and management of beach facilities and resources.
The area of the beach between 11th and 14th streets is considered to be the “commercial area” where the City permits special events such as concerts, volleyball tournaments, surfing events, and other organized activities or large group gatherings to occur. Other than The Strand, this is the only area of the beach in which special events are permitted, and the area where the City retains the responsibility of maintaining the volleyball courts. Residents take responsibility for maintaining volleyball courts on other areas of the beach.
Figure 5.4 Hermosa Beach Amenities
North Hermosa - 16th St. to 35th St.
South Hermosa - 1st St. to 16th St.
Public Review Draft 332
156 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Special Events
The City of Hermosa Beach receives
applications for nearly 100 special
events each year. Events range in size
from dozens of people participating in volleyball
tournaments to thousands of people attending
concerts, fiestas, parades, and beach events.
Given the importance of managing events in the
Coastal Zone to the City’s cultural identity and
economic vitality, special event management
has been elevated to a priority issue. While these
events are a major economic driver and attract
many visitors, they can also constrain parking
capacity, divert public safety resources, and
crowd local restaurants and services, which may
limit the use and general enjoyment of the beach
by members of the public, families, and residents
who simply wish to access the coastline.
Because the beach is a key part of the Southern
California beach culture, a number of social
and recreational events occur at these locations
throughout the year. Some events draw several
thousand visitors, with events like the Discovery
Channel’s FinFest attracting an estimated 15,000
attendees, the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade
attracting 30,000 spectators, and the annual Fiesta
Hermosa events on Memorial Day and Labor
Day weekends attracting 150,000 visitors over the
course of each three-day weekend.
An analysis of special events programmed for
2014 and 2015 coinciding with preparation of
PLAN Hermosa indicated that the majority of
special event days in Hermosa Beach are for
small, single-day events. However, there are a
substantial number of large events, which have a
heavier impact on coastal access, parking, and
Figure 5.5 Events by Number of Participants
Figure 5.6 Number of Event Day by Quarter
other services in surrounding neighborhoods. Small events occur throughout the year, with a peak of event days during the spring. Large events with greater than 1,000 participants are most prevalent in the summer, but also occur in the spring and fall. Special events use the beach area close to and north of the Pier most frequently, with nearly 30 event days each spring and an additional 30 event days each summer. Fewer event days are typically scheduled for The Strand, the Pier, or Pier Plaza. However, because of constrained space and direct proximity to other uses, the events may be more obtrusive in those areas.
To identify the cumulative effect of special events over an annual calendar year, subdivided into summer and other months, the City has established a Days Used by Events (DUE) metric. In 2014–2015, a special event of one type or another took place in the Coastal Zone on about 93% of available summer days in Hermosa Beach between Memorial Day and Labor Day (an annually variable span of approximately 100 days). If setup days are included, special events occurred nearly every day during the summertime. For events with more than 1,000 participants, a special event took place in the Coastal Zone on about 37% of available summer days. If setup days are included, these large events occurred on approximately 53% of available summer days. It should be noted that the City considers 2014–2015 to represent an above-average condition with regard to special events.
Public Review Draft 333
PLAN HERMOSA | 157
The City acknowledges that special events can simultaneously benefit and impact the quality of life in Hermosa Beach. The following discussion highlights important community issues related to special events.
Community Character
Special events contribute to the beach culture desired by residents and the community. However, while adding to the diversity of the community, the frequency and size of special events can also create congestion and reduce the availability of facilities for locals or visitors who are not participating in the event.
Economic Vitality
Special events bring visitors to Hermosa Beach
who spend money in local establishments.
This strengthens the business community and
contributes to the tax base. Special events also
advertise Hermosa Beach’s desirability, which can
help increase tourism revenues.
Environmental Sustainability
Special events in Hermosa Beach are expected to implement measures to reduce impacts and costs to the environment, the City, and the community. Applicants are required to complete Environmental Protection Plans, specifying how they will comply with applicable measures for recycling and waste reduction, transportation, energy, marine protection, and public education using a green matrix that is part of the special event application.
Healthy Active Lifestyles
From volleyball tournaments to concerts, special events provide numerous public recreation and cultural opportunities that community residents can participate in or enjoy as spectators. On occasion, volleyball tournaments occupy a large number of municipal courts within the commercial area between 11th and 14th Streets, which can make it challenging for residents or the public to utilize the amenity at certain times. The City strives to balance the concentration of events at Pier Plaza, the beach, the Pier, and The Strand to balance access to the beach by the public.
Special Events + Beach CultureFiesta Hermosa attracts nearly 150,000 people over a three-day weekend
Public Review Draft 334
158 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Natural Habitat +
Wildlife
Despite being part of the dense urban fabric along the Santa Monica Bay, Hermosa Beach is home to important habitat and wildlife resources. The shoreline and pockets within the city support habitats and wildlife typical of the urban landscape. Hermosa Beach includes numerous parks, beach and marine habitats that support hundreds of ornamental and non-native plants and various animals common to the urban landscape. Open space areas include the beach, Hermosa Valley Greenbelt, the hillside between Loma Drive and the Valley Neighborhood, and numerous large and small parks.
Because Hermosa Beach is an urbanized community, open space and areas not disturbed or heavily used by humans are scarce. However, there are opportunities to enhance existing habitat in open space areas. For example, the Greenbelt has potential to function as an important resource for local and migratory species such as monarch butterflies, and the restoration of vegetated dune habitat along the beach would significantly enhance habitat and wildlife diversity.
Habitat and wildlife located off the shore of Hermosa Beach includes a rich diversity of migratory and resident species of mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. Managing surface water runoff to protect water quality in Santa Monica Bay affects the quality and viability of these off-shore marine resources.
Western Snowy Plover
The western snowy plover (charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is a federally endangered species and a California species of special concern. They are small, sand-colored birds that sit in foot prints and tire tracks along the wrack line and mid-beach areas. Relying on camouflage to evade predators, they usually go unnoticed by beachgoers. This species typically nests on coastal beaches, sand spits, sparsely vegetated dunes, beaches at river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries.
Designated critical habitat for the western snowy plover occurs on Hermosa Beach. The critical habitat subunit stretches roughly 0.5 miles from 11th Street southward to 1st Street and totals approximately 27 acres. This subunit supports wintering flocks of snowy plover.
Snowy plover counts conducted by the Los
Angeles Audobon Society for the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife indicate
approximately 40 and 46 snowy plovers were
observed in Hermosa Beach over a two-day period
in February 2014 and January 2015, respectively.
Urban Forest
The beach and adjacent marine habitats also support hundreds of ornamental and non-native plants and various animals common to the urban landscape.
As the biggest plants on the planet, trees have many essential qualities that protect health and safety. They produce oxygen, store carbon, stabilize the soil and provide a home for wildlife. The canopies of trees act as a physical filter, trapping dust and absorbing pollutants from the air – annually removing up to four pounds per tree, and also provide shade from solar radiation and reduce noise.
Landscaping and trees in Hermosa Beach are located in parks and open space settings, within street parkways, and on private property. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code regulates the provision and maintenance standards for trees. To prevent the installation of invasive or water intensive tree species, has established an approved tree list.
Western snowy plover bird on Hermosa Beach.
Public Review Draft 335
PLAN HERMOSA | 159
Goal 1. Abundant parks, open space, and recreational facilities to serve the community.
Since little land is currently available to acquire for recreation use, other approaches
are necessary to meet the needs of the community. The principles of good planning and design need to be applied to all existing park sites and facilities to maximize their use, and when facilities cannot meet the recreational needs of the community, the City
should explore the possibility of sharing facilities with neighboring communities on an
organized basis.
Policies
1.1 Diverse programs and facilities. Offer diverse recreational programs and facilities to meet the
needs of seniors, youth, families, and persons with disabilities.
1.2 Parks fees. Require new discretionary development to contribute fees, consistent with State
law, for expanded park space when publicly accessible open space is not provided on-site.
1.3 Creative parks and open space. Encourage creativity and innovation during the
development and provision of additional open space or parks, rooftop gardens, and park
space integrated into parking structures.
1.4 Park expansion opportunities. Consider the purchase of property to create additional parks
and open space as opportunities arise to expand existing parks or create new parks.
1.5 Shared use agreements. Work with adjacent jurisdictions, the school district, and private
facilities to offer recreational opportunities or activities not available at City of Hermosa Beach
facilities.
Goals and Policies
This section provides guidance for the distribution, maintenance, and creation of recreational space and trails in Hermosa Beach. This section identifies the long-term goals of the community to be a steward of existing park and recreational spaces. These goals are supported by specific policies associated with park land acquisition, classification of recreational space, enhanced access and safety, design and development standards to protect views, program and service policies, and operation and maintenance objectives.
Public Review Draft 336
160 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Goal 2. First class, well maintained, and safe recreational facilities, parks and open spaces.
Simply providing parks and open space is not enough to encourage their use. Facilities
must be safe and well maintained to manage a balance between overuse and underuse. The lighting of facilities extends their availability to the residents of Hermosa Beach, many of whom are commuters who pursue recreation activities in the early
morning or evening hours.
Policies
2.1 Facility upgrades. Improve and update park and open space facilities on a regular basis.
2.2 Lighting and visibility. Provide appropriate lighting and visibility within park facilities while avoiding adverse impacts to adjacent properties.
2.3 CPTED principles. Utilize “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) Principles in the design and renovation of new and existing parks and open space facilities.
2.4 Low-maintenance design. Promote environmentally sustainable and low maintenance design principles in the renovation, addition, or maintenance of parks and recreation facilities.
Public Review Draft 337
PLAN HERMOSA | 161
Goal 3. Community parks and facilities encourage social activity and interaction.
Parks should be designed and programmed to meet the community’s diverse needs and interests through a variety of social, cultural, and recreational programs, which promote physical activity, facilitate cultural exchange and increase community social interactions. These qualities help to make Hermosa Beach an attractive and socially
supportive place to live, work, and visit.
Policies
3.1 Social and cultural events. Design and program parks and open space to accommodate
unique social and cultural events to foster connectedness and interaction.
3.2 Family-friendly events. Encourage, permit, and support community group, nonprofit, or
business organized events on City property that support physical activity, beach culture, and
family-friendly social interactions.
3.3 Commercial use of facilities. Regulate commercial use of City parks and open spaces to
ensure activities do not impact general use and enjoyment.
3.4 Balance space needs. Balance the space needs and demand on public resources of formal
and informal events.
3.5 Health and physical activity. Increase the availability of space and activities that promote
community health and physical activity such as community gardens, fitness stations/equipment,
and fields/courts.
3.6 Community Gardens. Increase available space and necessary infrastructure to incorporate
community garden plots at parks.
Public Review Draft 338
162 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Goal 4. Direct and accessible routes and connections to parks, recreational facilities, and
open space are provided.
The active transportation and trail network is envisioned to serve both recreational
needs as well as viable transportation choice for commuting, shopping, and social
activities in Hermosa Beach. By providing direct and accessible routes to parks that are located in close proximity to residents, the need for valuable park space to be dedicated to vehicle parking is decreased.
Policies
4.1 Close proximity to parks. Provide a variety and distribution of parks, open space, and recreational facilities to enhance proximity and easy access to all residents.
4.2 Enhanced access points. Increase and enhance access to parks and open space, particularly access points that promote physical activity such as pedestrian- and bike-oriented access points.
4.3 Safe and efficient trail network. Develop a network of safe and efficient trails, streets, and paths that connect residents, visitors, and neighboring communities to the beach, parks, and activity centers.
4.4 ADA accessible park access. Ensure all park access points and facilities are ADA accessible.
4.5 Parking to parks. Consider converting parking areas adjacent to parks into additional greenspace, as access to parks for alternative modes is enhanced.
Public Review Draft 339
PLAN HERMOSA | 163
Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are protected and enhanced.
The culture and identity of Hermosa Beach is defined in part by scenic value. The City
seeks to preserve and enhance the beauty of Hermosa Beach, and to ensure future development does not impact scenic views or values, particularly within the Coastal Zone.
Policies
5.1 Protection of views. Identify and protect the public view points, view corridors, and viewsheds from which scenic vistas can be observed.
5.2 Visual character. Accommodate economic growth and new buildings in a way that preserves the visual character of the community.
5.3 Building sites and designs. Require massing, height, and orientation of new development be sited and designed to protect public coastal views to and along the ocean and scenic areas.
5.4 Landscape design. Require new public and private landscape installations to consider public access to vistas and encourage landscape design that protects or enhances those views.
5.5 Pacific Coast Highway. Protect Pacific Coast Highway as a potentially scenic highway and important view corridor.
5.6 Signage and infrastructure. Encourage signage, infrastructure, and utilities that do not block or detract from views of scenic vistas.
5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline.
5.8 Lifeguard structures and views. Limit the number, size, and spacing of lifeguard structures to provide unobstructed views of the ocean from coastal access points while maintaining good safety practices.
Public Review Draft 340
164 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Goal 6. The coast and its recreational facilities are easily accessible from many
locations and by multiple transportation modes.
Providing and maintaining public access both to and along California’s coast is a
central premise of the California Coastal Act. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed
to maintaining and enhancing public access through the provision of multiple access
points, increased visibility and signage, and increased opportunities for alternative modes to safely travel to the beach.
Policies
6.1 Visible access points. Enhance visibility of existing public access points to and along beaches, coastal parks, and trails.
6.2 Coastal sign program. Coordinate the design of signs and graphics in the Coastal Zone to clearly mark coastal views and access points.
6.3 Safe and accessible connections. Ensure public access points provide safe and accessible connections to The Strand and shoreline, including access for persons with disabilities.
6.4 Transit access. Coordinate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to improve regional and local transit access to beach access points.
6.5 Bicycle and pedestrian access. Maximize bicycle and pedestrian access and safety getting to and around the Coastal Zone through infrastructure and wayfinding improvements.
6.6 Universal access. Provide resources that improve accessibility to the beach for all visitors.
6.7 Minimal impact to access. Require new development and substantial redevelopment projects to minimize impacts to existing public access to and along the shoreline.
6.8 High quality connections. Support high quality connections to adjacent jurisdictions along The Strand to promote safe and efficient circulation of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized uses.
6.9 Maximize open space. Create additional parkettes, open space, and pedestrian amenities along The Strand.
6.10 Paid parking. Strive to provide parking payment systems that respond to demand and improve ease of use.
6.11 Regional parking coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop consistent parking rules, rates, and enforcement.
6.12 Complete South Bay Bike Master Plan. Prioritize completion of proposed South Bay Bike Master Plan improvements in the Coastal Zone that connect to other bike routes and paths throughout the city and to the surrounding region.
Public Review Draft 341
PLAN HERMOSA | 165
Goal 7. The beach offers high quality
recreational opportunities and amenities desired by the community.
Residents and visitors from the region and beyond use the beach for a variety of activities, from sunbathing and swimming to jogging and volleyball to major sporting and cultural events. The community is proud of the beach area and its amenities and
upkeep. To maintain these attributes, beach management practices must be upheld.
New practices should also be established that improve the sustainability of extensive beach use and ensure potential conflicts between beach uses are minimized.
Policies
7.1 Beach maintenance. Maintain the beach and ocean as natural recreational resources, not
only for the city but also for the Southern California region.
7.2 Amenity upkeep. Continue to update, replace, and add new public restrooms, water
fountains, and other City-maintained beach facilities on an ongoing basis.
7.3 Recreational asset. Consider and treat the beach as a recreational asset and never as a
commercial enterprise.
7.4 Beach structures. Restrict buildings and structures on the beach with regard to size and
number consistent with current access, safety, and beach use.
7.5 Preferred recreational uses. Consider devoting certain portions of the beach to different
preferred recreational uses while providing access for all users and meeting the recreation
needs of visitors and residents.
7.6 Children’s recreational equipment. Limit children’s recreational equipment to slides, swings,
and climbing apparatus of a non obstructive design. Locate near major or primary entrances to
the beach, at least 100 feet from the Strand wall.
Public Review Draft 342
166 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Goal 8. Special events are balanced to support community recreation and economic
development without restricting coastal access or impacting the community.
Without proper management, the cumulative number of organized events at the beach, the Pier, The Strand, and Pier Plaza can limit public access and enjoyment of coastal recreation resources. While these events are a major economic driver and
attract many visitors to the community, without proper management, they can also
constrain parking capacity, divert public safety resources, and crowd local restaurants and services, which may limit the use and general enjoyment of the beach by members of the public, families, and residents who simply wish to access the coastline.
Policies
8.1 Cumulative special events limit. Limit the number of days during summer months (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) that the beach may be used for special events:
• Summer events with greater than 1,000 participants: maximum 30 days used by events, including both setup and event days
• Total summer events: maximum 70 days used by event, including setup and event days
8.2 Off-peak season events. Incentivize event producers to host special events during off-peak seasons through reduced fees or accommodating location/reserved area preferences.
8.3 Community-focused events. Prioritize the approval of special events that enhance the sense of community, improve economic vitality, and foster a healthy environment and active lifestyles.
8.4 Family-focused events. Prioritize events that are family-focused or appeal to a wide segment of community members.
8.5 Volleyball courts. Protect volleyball courts for public use and continue to limit the number of simultaneous volleyball special events occurring north and south of the Pier.
8.6 Special event impact fees. Require special event applicants pay a fair share of costs associated with impacts on City services and facilities required to support special events.
8.7 Public access. Ensure that special events do not impede public access to the beach, the Pier, and The Strand.
8.8 Event transportation. Enhance alternative transportation options during special events to improve public access to special events as well as to other portions of the beach.
8.9 Special event review process. Employ a multi-departmental special event review for large events.
8.10 Sustainable events. Improve sustainability and environmental protection associated with special events.
8.11 Safe events. Identify evacuation routes and capacity levels to maximize safety during large events.
Public Review Draft 343
PLAN HERMOSA | 167
Goal 9. Coastal and marine habitat resources and wildlife are protected.
Habitat areas and wildlife can be negatively affected by certain types of development
and human activity. The City seeks to protect and restore these spaces that are fundamental components of Hermosa Beach’s environment and that help define its identity.
Policies
9.1 Protect critical habitats. Preserve, protect, and improve remaining open space areas to the greatest extent possible to improve on existing limited habitats and prevent further extirpation of species.
9.2 Beach Maintenance. Consider species and habitat impacts and potential improvements when implementing beach maintenance activities.
9.3 beach habitat. Ensure beaches can function as a quality habitat for permanent and migratory species.
9.4 Coordinated habitat protection. Enhance information sharing and research regarding habitat and wildlife with resource agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to ensure coordinated decision-making and management.
9.5 Minimal activity impacts to habitat. Protect coastal and marine habitats from impacts from maintenance, construction, recreation, and industrial activities.
9.6 Tree protection. Protect existing trees and tree copses that may provide temporary or permanent bird habitat and encourage replacement with specimen trees whenever they are lost or removed.
Public Review Draft 344
168 | CHAPTER 5: PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Goal 10. Abundant landscaping, trees, and green space provided throughout the community.
Increased tree canopy and green space, paired with proper maintenance, has the
ability to provide a myriad of environmental, social, and economic benefits. Because of the numerous benefits of green space, the City is committed to creating, maintaining and promoting a safe, healthy and environmentally sound urban forest.
Policies
10.1 Urban forest. Expand the urban forest and green spaces citywide on public and private property.
10.2 Native landscapes. Require the planting of native, non-invasive, and drought-tolerant landscaping and trees, and encourage the planting of edible landscapes and fruit trees.
10.3 Green space co-benefits. Recognize the many positive qualities provided by landscaping, trees, and green space including reduced heat gain, controlled stormwater runoff, absorbed noise, reduced soil erosion, improved aesthetic character, and absorption of air pollution.
10.4 Scenic features. Ensure landscaping, trees, and green spaces on public and private property are designed to conserve scenic and natural features of Hermosa Beach.
10.5 Park landscaping. Landscaping in parks located within the Coastal Zone shall consist of non-invasive, native, drought-tolerant plants.
10.6 City landscaping. Encourage landscaping, trees, and green spaces across the city consist of non-invasive, native, drought-tolerant plants.
Public Review Draft 345
PLAN HERMOSA | 169
6 public safety
The City is committed to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community
by addressing natural and public safety hazards. These topics are critical for quality
of life and economic stability. First, a safe and healthy environment is critical for good quality of life; we cannot have one without the other. Second, if we do not adequately
prepare for natural hazards and create a resilient community, natural disasters will have a greater effect on our community, leading to increased injuries, death, and
property damage. The City has been proactive and has a history responding quickly
to crimes and hazards, maximizing safety and ensuring a high quality of life. As part of this commitment, the City’s public safety strategy is four-fold: (1) reduce potential
risks or exposure to natural and manmade hazards, (2) build community capacity and preparedness for unavoidable hazards, (3) ensure efficient response to hazardous
events, and (4) enact recovery plans to build greater resiliency to future hazards. The
Public Safety Element places specific focus on hazards that could be made more severe with anticipated impacts of climate change. This element also incorporates
the Noise Element, required by State law, addressing major noise sources, existing and future noise levels, and the potential noise exposure to vulnerable populations. These
topics are critical for quality of life and economic stability.
Hermosa Beach Fire Department Ambulance
Public Review Draft 346
170 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
State Law
This Public Safety Element was prepared to meet State General Plan law requirements for both the safety and noise topics, and additionally to meet Coastal Act requirements related to coastal hazards. While State law does not require police and fire safety services to be addressed beyond the location of facilities, Hermosa Beach has a demonstrated commitment to a safe community, and therefore this Element provides goals and policies related to police and fire services needed to keep the community safe.
General Plan
California planning law requires the General Plan to address topics of both safety and noise, with specific focus on identifying and mitigating the risk and exposure of the population from hazards.
Safety
• Must identify and protect the community from
any unreasonable risks associated with natural
hazards, including seismically induced, slope
instability, geologic hazards, flooding, and
wildland or urban fires.
• Must include mapping of known seismic and
other geologic hazards.
• Must address evacuation routes, peak load
water supply requirements, and minimum
road widths and clearances as they relate to
identified fire or geologic hazards.
• Must identify information regarding flood
hazards, including flood hazard zones,
national flood insurance program maps, dam
failure inundation maps, floodplain mapping,
levee protection zones, inundation areas,
historical data on flooding, existing or planned
development in flood hazard zones, agencies
with responsibility for flood protection, and
essential public facilities during flooding.
• Must coordinate flood hazard mapping with US
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Emergency
Services, and Department of Water Resources.
• Must identify and address risks of fire for land
classified as state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones.
• Must review and incorporate new information
regarding hazards into the Safety Element, with each revision of the Housing Element.
• If a FEMA approved flood plain management
ordinance exists, the plan may incorporate the ordinance provisions by reference.
• Must consult with Office of Emergency Services
• May incorporate portions of County Safety
Element if detailed and relevant to the city.
• Must submit draft Safety Element to the
California Geologic Survey of the Department of Conservation and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and all fire protection agencies with jurisdiction in the planning area.
• If certified by FEMA, the Hazard Mitigation Plan
may be incorporated by reference.
Noise
• Must analyze and quantify, to the extent
practicable, current and projected noise
levels.
• Should incorporate the following sources into
analysis: highways and freeways, primary
arterials and major local streets, passenger and
freight operations, aviation operations, local
industrial plants, other ground noise sources
contributing to the noise environment.
• Must present noise from all listed sources in
terms of community noise equivalent level
(CNEL) or day-night average level(Ldn).
• Must prepare noise contours on the basis of
noise monitoring or generally accepted noise
modeling techniques.
• Should use noise contours as a guide for
establishing land use patterns that minimize
exposure of residents to excessive noise.
Additionally, noise and vibration sources are
regulated and mitigated through the California
Environmental Quality Act, California State Building
Code, and Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Public Review Draft 347
PLAN HERMOSA | 171
Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Act requires that the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan identify potential coastal hazards and address such hazards in a manner that protects public safety and maintains coastal access. Specific provisions include:
• Provide hazard maps showing present and future areas of potential inundation, flooding, beach erosion, and bluff retreat.
• Map or inventory describing existing shoreline protective devices, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction and their permit history.
• Provide policies to limit the time period over which a permit for a shore protection device is valid and to tie the approval of the shore protection device to the continued existence of the existing structure only.
• Identify policies to address repair, maintenance, and removal of protective devices, and policies related to siting/design of development to avoid the need for armoring.
• Identify coastal or riverine flood hazard areas, tsunami inundation run-up areas, geologic hazards, like landslide areas and areas of bluff and cliff instabilities, expansive or highly corrosive soils, subsidence areas, fire hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, including areas of potential liquefaction.
• Identify beach or bluff areas subject to seasonal or long-term erosion, and consider bluff retreat and beach erosion rates that take into account projected sea level rise, especially for areas subject to high waves, such as those from storms, surges, and seiches.
• Identify and minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
• Address climate change and sea level rise effects on ESHA.
• Identify beach nourishment measures.
• Define the economic life of structure, coastal structure, principal structure, littoral cell, mean high tide line, coastal bluff, and coastal redevelopment or major remodel.
Hermosa Beach coastal infrastructure
Public Review Draft 348
172 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Context
Hermosa Beach is exposed to various manmade, natural, and coastal hazards, including flooding, fires, and earthquakes. While the City cannot completely eliminate the threat of such disasters, it can create a resilient built environment and community through programs and policies to reduce damage from hazards. Additionally, activities and area roadways can expose residents of Hermosa Beach to high and potentially unhealthy levels of noise.
Coastal + Natural Hazards
Additional information on hazards in
Hermosa Beach can be found in the Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, which presents a comprehensive
risk assessment of natural hazards that have the
potential to affect the city. The Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan is required to be developed in
accordance with the Federal Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
suggests mitigation actions for reducing the effects
of potential hazards. It is incorporated by reference
into the Public Safety Element and should be
consulted when addressing known hazards to
ensure the general health and safety of people
within the City of Hermosa Beach. The goals and
policies within this Safety Element support and
are consistent with the recommended mitigation
strategy within the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Severe Weather
Extreme events such as heat waves, severe storms, droughts, and hurricanes have always had an impact on communities worldwide. Of particular concern to Hermosa Beach are the storm or weather events such as heavy precipitation, thunderstorms, hail storms and even tropical systems. Severe weather events can come in the form of episodic, short-lived events, or as seasonal weather patterns. Seasonal events like El Niño winter, pose a number of hazards to both coastal resources and visitors to those coastal resources.
Severe weather can cause increased beach erosion, flood damage, and hazardous conditions like high surf, riptides, storm surges, water spouts, and lighting. Since 1995, the LA County coast has
experienced 36 extreme weather events, resulting in 9 fatalities, 41 severe injuries, and damage to private property, as reported to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA).
Flooding Hazards + Coastal Flooding
Coastal flooding poses a threat to life and safety,
and can cause severe damage to public and
private property. Large portions of Hermosa Beach
beachfront development lies less than 15 feet
above sea level. Normally, the very wide beach
buffers these areas from the high surf. During heavy
storm seasons, this beach can be eroded to such
an extent that these properties are subject to wave
run-up. This has occurred during past El Niño events
and during astronomical high tides. Resulting
damage has been primarily to private property.
Figure 6.1 FEMA Flood Zone Map
Public Review Draft 349
PLAN HERMOSA | 173
Figure 6.2 Liquefaction and Landslide AreasFigure 6.1 illustrates the FEMA 100-year flood zone
within Hermosa Beach, where the entirety of the
sandy beach (extending inland to The Strand) is
located within the 100-year flood zone, at the time
of this update. As sea levels rise, described later
within this section, the risk and degree of coastal
flooding and other coastal hazards increases.
Hermosa Beach is a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Program, and while there is no
current base flood elevation determined by FEMA
for properties beyond the beach, future maps
that account for sea level rise could identify flood
zones in developed areas that would include
base flood elevations. Vulnerabilities related to the
sewer system, alleys and walk streets, private and
public structures, and business activities align with
the greatest exposure to flooding, particularly in
central and southern Hermosa Beach. Although
ponding may occur during precipitation events,
the city is not located adjacent to any river or
channel that poses a flood threat from excessive
precipitation or runoff, and no portion of Hermosa
Beach is subject to inundation from dam failure.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Earthquakes and their related effects have the potential to affect a large portion of the City’s population. Seismic activity causes pressure to build up along a fault, and the release of pressure results in ground shaking. Although Hermosa Beach is located in a seismically active region, there are no known active faults and the City is not susceptible to fault rupture. However, earthquakes can cause damage through ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Historical records indicate that the Hermosa Beach has experienced ground shaking from a number of seismic events over the last century and a half.
A landslide is the downhill movement of masses of earth material under the force of gravity. Factors contributing to landslide potential include steep slopes, unstable terrain, and proximity to earthquake faults. In Hermosa Beach, landslide hazards are limited to an area along the eastern City limit between 7th Place and 8th Street, an area above Gould Terrace, part of South Park, and properties located south of the park on Culper Court in the Coastal Zone (see Figure 6.2).
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soil behaves as a liquid during an earthquake. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated and loose, fine- to medium-grained soils, in areas where the
groundwater table lies within 50 feet of the ground
surface. As shown in Figure 6.2, much of the area
west of Hermosa Avenue and an area along
2nd Street between Monterey Boulevard and
Valley Drive are located atop soils susceptible to
liquefaction, all within the Coastal Zone. Because
liquefaction potential is related to groundwater
depth, the number and size of areas subject to
potential liquefaction could become larger as sea
level rises and causes groundwater tables to rise.
Additional geologic conditions within the Coastal
Zone include expansive soils, corrosive soils, and
subsidence. Soils and bedrock throughout Southern
California have varying degrees of sulfate and
corrosion potential. Corrosion of infrastructure can
result in weakening of metal and resultant leaks
to the environment. Expansive, collapsible, and
corrosive soils are known to occur within Hermosa
Beach and are currently analyzed and mitigated
on a project-by-project basis.
Public Review Draft 350
174 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Tsunamis
A tsunami is a series of long-period traveling
ocean waves primarily generated by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor. In the deep ocean, tsunami waves move with a speed exceeding 500 miles per hour and a wave height of only a few inches. As they reach shallow waters off the coast, the waves slow down and water can pile up into a wall up to 30 feet or more high. The probability of a tsunami in Hermosa Beach is extremely low. However, if a tsunami should occur, the consequences would be great. As illustrated in Figure 6.3, the tsunami inundation line runs parallel with Hermosa Avenue.
While the frequency and magnitude of tsunamis are not directly affected by climate change, as sea level rises, the baseline and the maximum run-up of waves and surge generated by a tsunami also rise.
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Redondo Beach
Manhattan Beach
Hermosa Beach
Torrance
Pacific Ocean Coasta
l
Zone
Boundary
Tsunami Inundation Zone
$
0 0.3 0.6Miles HERMOSA BEACHPepared by Raimi + Associates for the City of Hermosa BeachSource: City of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, November 2013City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Update 2035
Legend
City Boundary
HB_streets
Coastal Zone Boundary
Parking
Public Space
Beach
Public Facility
Fire/Police
Park
School
#*TsunamiSigns
TsunamiInundationZone Ardmore Ave
Pine Ave
Go
u
l
d
A
v
e
Aviation Bl
v
d
8th St.
2nd St.Ardmo
re AveHermosa AvePacific Coast HwyValley D
rHermosa
Ave
27th StManhattan
Ave
Artesia Blv
d
Prospect AveValley DrFigure 6.3 Tsunami Map
Shoreline Erosion
The stretch of shoreline extending south of Los
Angeles to the Palos Verdes Peninsula is highly vulnerable to shoreline change. This vulnerability is attributed to the soft substrate (sand dunes) the area has been built on, and reduced sediment flow south through the Santa Monica Bay. Natural processes, including coastal storms, particularly when combined with sea level rise, have the potential to erode and narrow the beach. Wide sandy beaches are considered one of Hermosa Beach’s greatest recreational and economic assets. Among other things, the beach provides a buffer that protects residents, visitors, and businesses from coastal hazards. Substantial erosion would reduce recreational opportunities and increase exposure of assets such as beach restrooms, The Strand, and private property to coastal hazards.
Over the last century, there has been heavy sand replenishment at neighboring Santa Monica Bay beaches. Hermosa Beach has benefited from beach replenishment upstream in the littoral cell which created a wider beach than would otherwise naturally exist. Additionally, King Harbor in Redondo Beach appears to serve as a sediment trap that prevents sand from being eroded along the shoreline. Absent continued beach replenishment in the littoral cell, it is anticipated that the shoreline would retreat at an accelerated rate as the sea level rises.
Fire Hazards
Fire hazards can come in the form of both
wildfires and urban fires. Hermosa Beach is
not generally exposed to wildfire risk, and no
areas of Hermosa Beach are located within the
wildfire hazard severity zones established by the
State of California. However, much of the city
is susceptible to the threat of urban fires. Given
the susceptibility to earthquakes, the greatest
urban fire threat is potential for burst natural gas
or fuel lines resulting from seismic shaking. In the
event of an urban fire, fire growth is related to
the type of building construction, water supply,
fire department response time and resources,
and building density and fire breaks. To reduce
potential fire risks, the California Building Standards
Code provides building design standards for new
and rehabilitated buildings reduce the ignition and
spread of fire.
Public Review Draft 351
PLAN HERMOSA | 175
Figure 6.4 100-yr Flood Zone with 55 inches of Sea Level Rise
Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation
While climate change will not create new types of
disasters in Hermosa Beach, it may instead make
existing hazards, become more severe or occur
more frequently. While many of the City’s existing
disaster and emergency preparedness policies
and programs are already in place to address
disasters like coastal flooding, heat events, or
severe weather, the intent of highlighting them
here is to bring attention to a likely future change
in the frequency or severity of these conditions and
identify hazards that may require additional study,
policy, or attention.
Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is largely a result of warming ocean
waters and melting ice caps. It is among the most
certain consequences of climate change, and will
affect the severity of most other coastal hazards in
Hermosa Beach.
Over the past century, sea level has risen by
approximately 7 inches along the California coast,
which is consistent with the observed global
average. A 2012 study by the National Research
Council (NRC), commissioned by the States of
California, Oregon, and Washington to assess
the state of sea level rise science for the West
Coast, projected that sea level along Southern
California’s coast will rise approximately 12 inches
by 2030, 2 feet by 2050, and 5.5 feet by 2100. While
there remain scientific uncertainties around these
“best estimates,” the consensus among experts
expressed in the NRC report is that the rate of
sea level rise over the next several decades may
be as much as four to nine times larger than that
observed over the 20th century.
Along the coast of Hermosa Beach and nearby
portions of Los Angeles County, sea level rise could
lead to the following impacts:
• Increased erosion of beaches that are either
already retreating or are maintained in place
by sand replenishment.
• Coastal flooding with higher storm surges and
flood elevations during coastal storms.
• Permanent inundation of the few remaining or
restored coastal wetlands, as well as beaches
and other low-lying areas.
• Reduced capacity to absorb increased runoff
and drain it away from inland areas as sea
level rise elevates coastal groundwater levels.
• Increased risk of liquefaction, leading to
elevated coastal groundwater levels.
• Saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater
basins from which freshwater is drawn to serve
regional (residential and commercial) water
users.
Within Hermosa Beach, the 100-year flood zone
is projected to increase by about 300% under a
scenario of 55 inches of sea level rise (from 0.034
square miles at present to 0.1 square miles with 55
inches of sea level rise). The projected flood zone
extends beyond the sandy beach into developed
portions of the Coastal Zone, encompassing
more than 200 buildings, including 143 residential
structures, and about 1,000 residents. The 100-year
flood zone with 55 inches of sea level rise extends
inland from The Strand to Hermosa Avenue,
particularly in central and southern portions of the
City (Figure 6.4).
Public Review Draft 352
176 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Additional Climate Change Hazards
Climate change may also create a variety of
changes for California and have direct or indirect effects on Hermosa Beach, including:
• Public health: Climate change is expected
to exacerbate some forms of air pollution, increase extreme heat days, affect the timing or severity of allergens, and potentially increase incidences of infectious disease, particularly vector-, water-, and food-borne illness.
• Precipitation: Research suggests that in
California, annual precipitation amounts are likely to decrease by more than 15% by the end of the 21st century. Seasonal precipitation will change more significantly with March and April receiving less rainfall than in the past likely resulting in longer periods of drought, as the summer dry season starts earlier in the spring and extends later into the fall.
• Water: Regional population growth is likely to
increase water demand as temperatures rise, while sea level rise threatens aging coastal water infrastructure.
• Biological resources: Two-thirds of California’s
native flora will experience a greater than 80% reduction in suitable climate range.
• Agriculture: May very likely see significantly
declining yields due to warming.
• Marine resources: Marine biological systems
are strongly influenced by climate conditions including currents, winds, and temperatures, as well as ocean acidification. Changes to climatic and environmental conditions affect the specific ranges of plants and animals threatening the ability of species to survive.
• Energy sector: Higher temperatures combined
are expected to increase demand for energy. Energy generation at hydroelectric plants may be reduced with changes in snowpack and precipitation.
In California, studies predict that conditions will become hotter and drier, with decreased snow levels and accelerating rates of sea-level rise. California should also expect an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. California’s extreme warm temperatures, which have historically occurred in July and August, will most likely extend into June and September.
Figure 6.5 Extreme heat days
Extreme Heat
Since the early 20th Century, average surface
temperatures worldwide have risen at an average rate of 0.15°F per decade (1.5°F per century). In the U.S. average surface temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.36 to 0.55°F per decade), with seven of the top ten warmest years on record since 1998. Scientists predict that over the next century, global temperatures will increase between 2.5°F and 10.4°F. For Hermosa Beach, scientists expect average temperatures to increase between 3.2°F and 5.6°F as shown in Figure 6.5. Along with changes to average annual temperature, climate change is expected to alter seasonal temperatures, where average July temperatures may increase by as much as 7°F.
With these changes in average temperatures, Hermosa Beach is likely to see a significant increase in the number of days when temperature exceeds the extreme heat threshold of 84°F. Between 1950 and 2011, the average number of extreme heat days was four per year. In Hermosa Beach, the number of extreme heat days could increase to more than 30 per year by mid-century, and exceed 50 per year by the end of the century.
Climate change, particularly extreme heat events, present serious health risks to California’s most vulnerable populations. The effects of extreme heat (over 84°F) on human health are well documented. Increased temperature or extended periods of elevated temperatures can increase heat-related mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, respiratory mortality, and heart attacks, while increasing hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Extreme heat can also affect a person’s ability to thermo-regulate, causing heat stress and sometimes leading to death.
Public Review Draft 353
PLAN HERMOSA | 177
Emergency Preparedness
Since the threat of many hazards cannot be avoided completely, reducing exposure and risk from those
hazards to avoid damage or injury is the next best step. Exposure and risk to hazards can be minimized through retrofits and engineering of structures as well as education and training.
Emergency Management
The City of Hermosa Beach’s Emergency Management Program works in coordination with all city departments to strengthen the City’s ability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from natural, technological and human-caused disasters. Additionally, it provides services to the City organizations and the community to prepare for emergencies. The Fire Department is the lead department coordinating all emergency management activities. The Fire Department annually conducts a variety of activities, programs, and projects designed to enhance the City’s preparedness. The current Emergency Management Program includes all elements necessary to respond quickly and effectively to major emergencies such as the Emergency Operations Plan, Emergency Operations Center and Community Emergency Response Teams.
Preparedness Events and Drills
In Hermosa Beach, the responsibility for reducing risk and exposure engages many departments, including Community Development, Public Works, and the Fire Department, in particular the City’s Emergency Management Coordinator. Additional support for emergency preparedness policy and education in Hermosa Beach is provided by the City’s Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee. Educational programs, events, and drills like the Annual Fire Inspection Program, the Tsunami Walk, and the Great California Shakeout ensure the community and City staff are prepared and ready to respond quickly to reduce injury and damage in the event of a disaster.
Critical Facilities
Critical facilities include utilities, roads, hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency operations centers, communication centers, high-risk or high-occupancy facilities, and care facilities with special evacuation considerations. Critical facilities must maintain operational continuity during a disaster to continue their function of supporting emergency responders, providing basic services, and protecting vulnerable residents.
The HBFD depends on access to pressurized water to fight fires and respond to other disasters. While there is no standard water flow rate for fire response, California Water Service Company (Cal Water) collaborates with the City and project applicants to ensure that required flows for new and significantly redeveloped projects are met. The City’s development review process requires Cal Water and HBFD approval for new and significant redevelopment projects.
During the preparation of this General Plan, the HBFD confirmed that parked cars or existing roadway widths hinder neither its apparatus nor personnel. New roadway construction will be subject to applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Chapter 15.36 of the California Fire Code, and other design regulations. The City’s development review process requires Fire Department approval for new and significant redevelopment projects, as well as for projects involving vehicular circulation facilities.
Community Risk Reduction
Community risk reduction is the identification and prioritization of risks followed by the coordinated application of resources to minimize the probability or occurrence and/or the impact of unfortunate events. It means that the HBFD exists not only to respond to emergencies after the fact, but also acts proactively as a risk reduction entity for the community to prevent or reduce the effects of their occurrence in the first place.
The HBFD provides these preventative measures through fire prevention plan check, inspections, code enforcement and public education. The plan checks ensure businesses and residences are constructed up to the latest codes including sprinkler systems, smoke alarms, and heat regulating technologies. The inspections confirm that the businesses and residences are built as approved and continue to function in a safe manner. Code enforcement activities include but are not limited to fireworks, bonfire, and overcrowding mitigation. Finally, the public education aspect of community risk reduction includes school presentations, service group and neighborhood watch talks, and fire station tours.
Public Review Draft 354
178 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Fire Protection
The Hermosa Beach Fire Department (HBFD) provides fire protection, emergency medical services, and
natural disaster preparedness. The mission of the HBFD is to protect life and property from fire and other emergencies through incident response, public education, and code enforcement. HBFD operates one fire station located at 540 Pier Avenue, and maintains the City’s emergency operations center.
Fire Response
Regional communications and dispatch services are provided for the HBFD by the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority, referred to locally as South Bay 911 or Regional Call Center (RCC). The RCC processes approximately 250,000 police and fire incidents annually in the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach. In Hermosa Beach, 2,427 calls were reported between May 1, 2012, and April 30, 2013, as recorded in the National Fire Incident Reporting System. Of these, 1,152 calls were for emergency medical service (EMS) (47.4%), 322 were for fire incidents (13.2%), and 186 calls were canceled (7.7%). The HBFD received 775 calls for mutual aid requests within other jurisdictions (31.9%), of which 314 calls were canceled. The HBFD received an average of 6.6 calls per day throughout the year, with the highest average number of calls per day occurring in July (7.8), January (7.5), and June (7.4). The average number of units dispatched was 2.4 for EMS calls, and 1.7 for fire calls.
Mutual Aid Agreements
Because no community has resources sufficient
to cope with all emergencies that could occur, a
statewide system of mutual aid provides assistance.
The HBFD has automatic aid agreements with
the Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach Fire
Departments. This means that the dispatch of units
to an incident is handled automatically by the
dispatch center.
The HBFD has mutual aid agreements with the
Los Angeles County Fire Department and the
Torrance and El Segundo Fire Departments. Under
the mutual aid agreement, units from the County,
Torrance, and El Segundo could be dispatched
to Hermosa Beach. Likewise, units from Hermosa
Beach could be requested to assist in those
jurisdictions. Mutual aid requests are processed
through the California Office of Emergency
Services. Under this system, each jurisdiction
relies on its own and/or neighboring jurisdiction’s
resources to deal with an incident before calling
for outside assistance.
HBFD Emergency Response Unit at 540 Pier Avenue
Public Review Draft 355
PLAN HERMOSA | 179
Emergency Medical
Response
Prehospital 9-1-1 emergency response is one of the essential public safety functions provided by the Hermosa Beach Fire Department in support of community health, security and prosperity. Fire service-based emergency medical services (EMS) systems are strategically positioned to deliver time critical response and effective patient care. Fire service-based EMS provides this pivotal public safety service while also emphasizing responder safety, competent and compassionate workers, and cost-effective operations.
Automatic External Defibrillators
The purpose of the Hermosa Beach Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) Program is to increase the chances of survival for people who have heart-related emergencies. With the AED program, trained individuals will are better prepared to save the life of a coworker, friend, family member or stranger. Ninety-five percent of Sudden Cardiac Arrest victims die before reaching the hospital, chances of survival may increase to 74% if shocked in 3 minutes or less. The goal of Hermosa Beach AED program is to deliver defibrillation to a cardiac arrest victim within three to five minutes after collapse by placing AED’s at various locations throughout the City.
Lifeguard Services
As millions of visitors are attracted to Hermosa
Beach each year, ocean protection and
lifeguarding services are important public services
that ensure safe use and enjoyment of the beach.
The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Fire
Department’s Lifeguard Division for these services.
The Lifeguard Division operates out of four sectional
headquarters, one of which is located in Hermosa
Beach. The Hermosa Beach sectional headquarters
staffs a 24-hour emergency medical technician
response unit, and is connected to the 911 system.
The City of Hermosa Beach and LA County
Lifeguards work collaboratively to maintain safe
operation of the beach and shoreline facilities such
as the Hermosa Beach Pier. During storm events
or other circumstances requiring beach closure to
protect public safety, the City of Hermosa Beach
will close the pier until such hazards are no longer
present.
Hazardous Materials
The goal of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department
is to protect life, property, and environment and provide economic stability from all hazards. This requires a highly trained adaptable workforce that has the ability to quickly recognize hazards and limit the public’s exposure to those hazards. This often requires working in tandem with other City organizations and mutual aid partners.
The Hermosa Beach Firefighters are trained and equipped to address emergencies arising from any type of hazard natural or technological, accidental or intentional. Although Hermosa Beach includes historic hazardous sites, most have been successfully remediated and are no longer considered hazardous. Lead and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contamination affects the northeast corner of the City Maintenance Yard.
Hazardous materials are transported through Hermosa Beach on highways and City streets. The US Department of Transportation regulates the transport of hazardous materials on major transportation corridors such as Pacific Coast Highway as well as on designated truck routes in Hermosa Beach, such as portions of Pier Avenue, Valley Drive, Herondo Street, and Artesia Boulevard. When acutely toxic hazardous materials are transported, the California Highway Patrol must be notified. If City streets are used, the Hermosa Beach Police Department and Hermosa Beach Fire Department must also be notified.
The Hermosa Beach Fire Department would be the field incident commander for a hazardous materials incident. The Los Angeles County Fire Department manages potential hazardous materials situations and is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for Hermosa Beach.
Public Review Draft 356
180 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD)
is a full-service Police Department providing police protection services to preserve peace and prevent crime and disorder by enforcing state laws and city ordinances. Its primary mission is to maintain safety and protect the community through law enforcement, crime prevention and criminal apprehension. The HBPD responds to emergency situations and patrols neighborhoods, commercial areas, and the beach to promote a safe environment. The staff maintains official criminal records, investigates crime, and in an emergency, assesses the situation and dispatches appropriate responders. Police services provided include: (1) Detective Bureau (2) Honor Guard Detail (3) Mounted Enforcement Unit (4) Narcotics K9 Units (5) Patrol (6) Reserve Unit (7) Traffic Bureau (8) Volunteers in Policing (9) Community Service.
The HBPD operates one police station, located at 540 Pier Avenue. Officers are assigned to City and beach-related events including beach volleyball, concerts on the beach, the Surf Festival, Hermosa Arts Fair, and the Hermosa Triathlon. The two days of the year which draw the largest crowds are the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve, days in which the entire department is deployed.
Calls for Service
Regional communications and dispatch services are provided for the HBPD by the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority (RCC). The RCC processes approximately 312,000 police and fire incidents annually in the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach. Between July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015 HBPD officers handled 25,266 calls which included officer initiated calls. This averages approximately 69 calls per day. Of those calls, approximately 27 percent (6784 calls) were initiated by the police, and 73 percent or 18,482 calls were direct calls from the public. Approximately 19 percent of total calls for service (5015) were for traffic enforcement.
For HBPD response, a priority code of 1 to 4 is assigned to each call by the dispatch center, with 1 being the highest priority. Between July 2014-June 2015, the highest priority calls were responded to within 5.48 minutes from call initiation to on scene, or 3.67 minutes from time of dispatch to onscene.
• Public Information Banners
• Automatic Aid Agreement with Manhattan Beach
• Opticom Traffic Pre-Emption System
• Accela Asset Management
• Electronic Patient Care Reporting (ePCR)
• Smart Classroom
• National Night Out
• Emergency Action Plans (EAPs)
• Fire Ground Survival (FGS)
• Sidewalk CPR
• Respiratory Protection Program
• Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC)
• Santa Sleigh Ride
• Pancake Breakfast/Open House
• Fire Station Traffic Signal
• New Fire Engine and Rescue Ambulance
• Deployment Study
• Community CPR/AED Training
• Annual Fire and Life Safety Inspections
• Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Update
• Fireground Survival (FGS) Training
• CERT Training
Police + Fire Accomplishments of 2014-2015:
Public Review Draft 357
PLAN HERMOSA | 181
HBPD patrol unit at Pier and Hermosa Avenue
Crime and Safety
The diversity of people and events within the City of Hermosa Beach challenges the HBPD to sustain the
high quality of life within the City, while also ensuring both the safety of visitors and the enforcement of
codes within the City’s limits. HBPD maintains the highest levels of professionalism, honesty and fairness
through engagement and enforcement strategies to create a safe and healthy environment for everyone
that lives, works, or plays in Hermosa Beach.
Crime Rates
As defined by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, seven major Part I offenses are used to measure the extent, fluctuation, and distribution of serious crime. Part I crimes are split into violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft). In 2014, Hermosa Beach reported 37 crimes Part I violent crimes or 1.9 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, and 543 Part I property crimes or 27.3 reported crimes per 1,000 residents. The reported number of violent crimes was 53 percent lower than the statewide rate, and 49 percent lower than the national rate. Property crime rates were 12 percent higher than the state average, and 5 percent higher than the national average.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
In addition to police protections, the City can reduce crime through smart environmental design. The concepts of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) offer non-invasive measures to prevent crime in the city. The central tenets of CPTED include clearly demarcating property boundaries, designing buildings and spaces to face streets for natural surveillance purposes, controlling access to sites and buildings through pathways and bollards, supporting legitimate street level recreational activities, and maintaining public spaces. CPTED concepts enable developers and designers to incorporate crime prevention measures into building design and City staff to incorporate crime prevention intentions into maintenance and recreation program schedules.
Public Review Draft 358
182 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Programs and Resources
To fulfill HBPD’s commitment to a safe community, the City has prioritized communication and engagement
strategies. The following is a list of HBPD’s engagement programs and services. These act as excellent resources and maintain active communication between officers and the Hermosa Beach community.
Online Crime Reporting: The online crime reporting system gives residents another way to report concerns directly to HBPD. This system allows officers to quickly address issues or complaints, which allows them to better fulfill their mission.
Facebook: HBPD has an active Facebook page,
providing residents with a news feed of safety and
crime updates in the City. This informative page
showcases the department’s commitment to the
city and strengthens community participation.
Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Watch (HBNW): HBNW partners with the Police
Department to educate the community on crime
prevention and awareness, observation skills
training, and reporting. The program provides
resources, training sessions, and activities that
improve life of Hermosa Beach residents and brings
unity to neighborhoods.
“You are Not Alone Program” (YANA): Family members can receive help from the Hermosa Beach Police Department to check on their senior citizen family members who live alone in Hermosa Beach. Hermosa Beach Police Department Volunteers (VIPS) and/or Police Officers, upon request, can conduct weekly visits with identified senior citizens. The Volunteer and/or Police Officer during the visit will document: medications taken by the senior, doctors contact information, physical condition of the senior, and general living conditions (available food, cleanliness, etc.).
“Homeward Bound Program”: Seniors with Alzheimer’s disease can provide (via family member) the Hermosa Beach Police Department with their personal information and family contact information. This information is vital in contacting family members in the event the senior is located away from their home/care facility.
“Home Check Program”: Hermosa Beach
residents who are leaving town for a period of time
or are having their homes fumigated can have
Hermosa Beach Police Department Volunteers
(VIPS) and/or Police Officers conduct daily/weekly
exterior checks of their homes. Residents can
provide contact information while they are away in
the event something is found abnormal.
Public Review Draft 359
PLAN HERMOSA | 183
Noise + Vibration
The City of Hermosa Beach is located in an urbanized and developed environment that is subject to
numerous noise sources. The primary noise source in the city is currently vehicular traffic along local streets, especially Aviation Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, typical urban noise sources (e.g., hospitality businesses such as bars and restaurants, entertainment venues, community events, construction activities, landscape equipment, refuse collection, and emergency vehicle sirens) contribute to the overall noise environment. Because of the City’s distance from airports - Los Angeles International Airport, Torrance Municipal Airport, and the Hawthorne Municipal Airport are each located approximately 5.5 miles from the City - noise from aircraft over-flights is not considered excessive.
Zoning Maximum Ambient Noise Levels
R-1 45 dBA or below (also schools, hospitals, nurseries and rest homes)
R-2 50 dBA or below (also parks and
playgrounds)
R-3 55 dBA or below
C-1 55 dBA or below
C-2 / C-3 60 dBA or below
M 65 dBA or below
Table 6.1 Hermosa Beach Maximum Ambient Noise Levels
The results of the noise measurements, together
with data provided in the Circulation Element,
were used to analyze and calibrate the existing
traffic noise environment in the City of Hermosa
Beach. The results of the analysis are provided as a
noise contour map in Figure 6.6. The map provides
the existing CNEL contours ranging from 60 dB to 70
dB in 5 dB increments.
Using data provided in the Mobility Element,
two future (Year 2040) traffic scenarios were also
analyzed for the city. The first scenario assumes
that the City continues to develop based on
the policies identified in the current General
Plan (October 1979), while the second scenario
assumes that the city develops in the future based
on the objectives, goals, and policies outlined in
PLAN Hermosa. Figure 6.7 provides a noise contour
map for the PLAN Hermosa scenario.
Traffic Noise
In order to document the existing traffic noise environment in Hermosa Beach, measurements were obtained at 10 locations throughout the City during the month of August 2014. All of the measured ambient noise levels were well above the City’s current Noise Element policy standards. This policy restricts maximum ambient noise to the following levels:
Table 6.2 summarizes the results of the analyses for the existing and future traffic scenarios. The results are presented in terms of an unmitigated CNEL at the distance of the nearest existing receptor from the centerline of the roadway segment. Referring to the table, there is anticipated to be relatively little change in traffic noise exposures in the future within the City of Hermosa Beach. The anticipated changes of up to ±2 dB from existing traffic noise levels will not be noticeable to the majority of residents. However, comparing the two future year scenarios that were analyzed, the adoption of PLAN Hermosa is expected to result in a slightly quieter future noise environment within the city.
The State of California’s Building Code Standards require that all multi-family residential dwellings be designed to achieve a CNEL of 45 dB within the interior of all habitable spaces. The City of Hermosa Beach’s current Noise Element extends this requirement to include all single-family residential dwellings as well. Typically, residential construction in California provides about 20 dB of noise reduction with all windows and doors closed. Therefore, it may be reasonably assumed that all residential dwellings located in an area where the exterior CNEL is 65 dB or less will be exposed to an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less, complying with both the State’s standard and the City of Hermosa Beach’s Noise Element policy. Referring to Table 2, the CNEL is estimated to be 65 dB or less at the exterior of all residential dwellings adjacent to the street segments analyzed for this study with the following exceptions: residences adjacent to Aviation Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Prospect Avenue, and adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway between Artesia Boulevard and 2nd Street. This is the case for existing traffic volumes in the City as well as for both future year (2040) traffic scenarios (i.e., with and without the implementation of PLAN Hermosa).
Public Review Draft 360
184 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Figure 6.6 Existing Noise Contours within the City of Hermosa Beach
Public Review Draft 361
PLAN HERMOSA | 185
Figure 6.7 Future (2040) Noise Contours in the City of Hermosa Beach with PLAN Hermosa
Public Review Draft 362
186 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Roadway/Segment
CNEL at Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Existing Year Year 2040 with PLAN Hermosa Year 2040 without PLAN Hermosa
8th Street
Hermosa to Valley
PCH to Prospect
57 dB
47 dB
57 dB
45 dB
57 dB
45 dB
Ardmore Avenue
16th to 11th
8th to 2nd
58 dB
57 dB
58 dB
56 dB
58 dB
57 dB
Artesia Boulevard
PCH to Prospect 65 dB 65 dB 65 dB
Aviation Boulevard
PCH to Prospect 70 dB 69 dB 69 dB
Gould Avenue
Ardmore to PCH 64 dB 63 dB 64 dB
Hermosa Avenue
27th to 22nd
22nd to 16th
16th to 8th
8th to Herondo
62 dB
62 dB
62 dB
62 dB
63 dB
62 dB
62 dB
63 dB
63 dB
63 dB
63 dB
63 dB
Herondo Street
Hermosa to Valley 65 dB 65 dB 65 dB
Pacific Coast Highway
Artesia to 16th
16th to Aviation
Aviation to 2nd
72 dB
67 dB
68 dB
71 dB
67 dB
67 dB
72 dB
67 dB
67 dB
Pier Avenue
Hermosa to Valley
Ardmore to PCH
62 dB
65 dB
62 dB
64 dB
62 dB
65 dB
Prospect Avenue
Artesia to Aviation
Aviation to 2nd
59 dB
63 dB
60 dB
63 dB
61 dB
64 dB
Valley Drive
Gould to Pier
Pier to 8th
59 dB
60 dB
58 dB
59 dB
59 dB
60 dB
Table 6.2 Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors
Public Review Draft 363
PLAN HERMOSA | 187
Bar and Restaurant Noise
Noise from bars and restaurants is a frequent
source of complaints in beach communities, including Hermosa Beach. Often this is because the bars and restaurants have outdoor dining areas, operate late into the night, and/or provide live or recorded entertainment. Because bar and restaurant noise typically consists primarily of human speech or laughter, as well as music, it stands out from the background ambient “hum” produced by traffic and by waves crashing on the beach. This increases its potential to annoy nearby residents. The low frequency content of music (e.g., bass guitars and drums) easily propagates through walls and windows over large distances, increasing the area that is affected by the bar or restaurant.
The noise level produced by a bar or restaurant varies widely depending on a number of factors. Measurements indicate that average noise levels within the building can range from 75 dBA (with low background music or no music at all) to over 95 dBA (with entertainment). Maximum noise levels can be up to 20 dBA higher than these average levels. Typical building construction will reduce these noise levels by about 10 dB with windows and doors open, or by about 20 dB with windows and doors closed. Outdoor dining areas can produce average noise levels of 65 dBA to 70 dBA and maximum noise levels of 85 dBA to 90 dBA at a distance of 20 feet from the dining area.
The City of Hermosa Beach does not have quantitative standards by which to assess the impact of noise from bars and restaurants. Rather, the City’s Municipal Code regulates it in the following manner:
• Prohibits “repeated or sustained noise from
the premises of any commercial establishment which is adjacent to one or more residential dwelling units, including any outdoor area part of or under the control of the establishment, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that is plainly audible from the residential dwelling unit’s property line.”
• Prohibits “sustained amplified music from the
premises of any commercial establishment on Pier Plaza that is plainly audible eighty (80) feet from the property line of the establishment.”
• Requires that “all exterior doors and windows of
a business establishment located on Pier Plaza shall be closed while amplified music is being played in the establishment.”
Event and Party Noise
Hermosa Beach plays host to a number of public
and private events throughout the year. For the most part, these events take place at the beach or around the pier, with occasional events held downtown or in a park. Some of these events (for example, the summer concerts at the beach) can generate significant levels of noise that can be heard over large areas of the city. To identify typical noise levels that can be generated by these events, a measurement was obtained on The Strand in front of a residence during a summer concert being held at the pier. The results of the measurement indicated median noise levels of 73 dBA and maximum noise levels of 82 dBA.
The City of Hermosa Beach does not regulate the noise levels generated by public and private events held on public property other than to require that a permit be obtained prior to the use of sound amplification equipment. The permit application does not require the applicant to identify the noise levels that will be generated by the equipment. In general, the Chief of Police must approve the application unless, among other things, he or she determines that issuance of the permit would substantially interfere with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or community.
Commercial/Industrial Activity Noise
Within Hermosa Beach, industrial properties
are generally concentrated along Cypress
Avenue between 8th Street and South Park.
These properties are occupied by various light
manufacturing facilities, warehouses, construction
supply sites, a surfboard manufacturing use, auto
shops, air conditioning and heating manufacturing
uses, and the City’s maintenance yard.
Surrounding these industrial properties are various
residential properties, commercial properties, and
South Park. Another industrial property, occupied
by a telecommunications company, is located on
Valley Drive adjacent to a mobile home park and
Hermosa Valley School.
Commercial properties are generally concentrated
along Pacific Coast Highway, Pier Avenue,
Hermosa Avenue, Aviation Boulevard, and Artesia
Boulevard. They include retail stores and shopping
centers, hotels and motels, restaurants, professional
office spaces, auto-related uses, entertainment
uses, and personal services. These commercial
properties are typically backed by noise-sensitive
residential properties.
Public Review Draft 364
188 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
The primary complaints associated with
commercial/industrial properties are related to noise generated by trucks and heavy equipment, loading dock operations, trucks entering and leaving the area, and mechanical equipment located both inside and outside the buildings. Commercial/ industrial noise impacts primarily result when activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), or the activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses. The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provides no quantitative standards by which to identify and assess potential noise impacts resulting from commercial/ industrial operations. Rather, it limits the hours during which certain specific noise sources can occur. The City’s General Plan identifies “noise tolerance standards” for various types of land uses within the City, ranging from 45 dBA or below for R-1 zones (including schools, hospitals, nurseries, and rest homes) to 65 dBA or below for M zones. It is likely that the City’s General Plan “noise tolerance standards” are being exceeded at all residential properties located adjacent to commercial/industrial properties.
Refuse Collection Noise
Trash pickup and compacting vehicles typically
use hydraulic equipment to raise and lower
the trash bins and to compact their contents.
Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dBA
at 50 feet during the raising, lowering and
compacting operations. A typical trash pickup
takes approximately three minutes, with the higher
noise levels occur during about one-half of the
operation. Noises associated with refuse collection
are disturbances that are necessary for the
health and welfare of a community. They are not
regulated by the City of Hermosa Beach.
Construction/Demolition Noise
Construction activities generate considerable
amounts of noise, especially during the demolition phase and the construction of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Noise levels resulting from construction depend on the number and types of construction equipment being used, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and receptors.
The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction typically range from about 90 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels are about 81 dBA to 89 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods, such as when earth moving equipment and impact tools are being used. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in much lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.
Typically, small residential, commercial, or office construction projects do not generate significant noise impacts when standard construction noise control measures are enforced at the project site and when the duration of the noise-generating construction period is relatively short (typically one year or less). Construction noises associated with projects of this type are disturbances that are necessary for the construction or repair of buildings and structures in urban areas. Larger construction projects are typically built out over more than one year, and some construction methods, such as pile driving, generate higher noise levels and noise that would be considered impulsive.
Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. The City of Hermosa Beach minimizes the potential for noise impacts by limiting the hours when construction can occur.
Public Review Draft 365
PLAN HERMOSA | 189
Construction/Demolition Vibration
The only significant vibration source within the City of Hermosa Beach is construction equipment.
Construction of new projects on sites adjacent to existing developments could result in the generation of
excessive ground-borne vibration on a temporary basis. Construction activities may include demolition of
existing structures, site preparation work, excavation of below grade levels, foundation work, pile driving,
and framing. Demolition activity at an individual site may last several weeks and at times may produce
substantial vibration. Excavation for underground levels could also occur on some project sites and
vibratory pile driving could be used to stabilize the walls of the excavated area. Piles or drilled caissons may
also be used to support building foundations.
Pile driving has the potential to generate the highest ground vibration levels and is the greatest risk
factor in causing structural damage, particularly when it occurs within 100 feet of structures. Vibration
levels generated by pile driving activities would vary depending on project conditions including type,
construction methods, and equipment used. Other construction activities, such as caisson drilling, the use
of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked
vehicles, compactors, etc.) may also generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Depending on the proximity of existing structures to each construction site, the structural soundness of the
existing buildings, and the methods of construction used, vibration levels caused by pile driving or other
impact work may be high enough to damage existing structures.
The City of Hermosa Beach has no regulations by which to assess the potential impacts associated with
groundborne vibration levels.
Land Use
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Exterior Interior
Residential 65 dB 45 dB
Hotels/Motels 65 dB 45 dB
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 dB 45 dB
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 65 dB 45 dB
Sports Arena, outdoor Spectator Sports 65 dB N/A
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 dB N/A
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 dB N/A
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 70 dB 50 dB
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dB 65 dB
Notes:
1. Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family residences; private patios of multi-family residences that are accessed by a means of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.
2. Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. Noise level requirement is with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Table 6.3 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Public Review Draft 366
190 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Uses
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
<55 dB 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80+ dB
Single-, multi- family A A B B C D D
Mobile home A A B C C D D
Hotel, motel, transient lodging A A B B C C D
Retail, bank, restaurant, movie theater A A A A B B C
Office building, research &
development, professional office
A A A B B C D
Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, meeting hall B B C C D D D
Children’s amusement park, miniature
golf, go-cart track, health club,
equestrian center
A A A B B D D
Service station, auto dealer, manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities
A A A A B B B
Hospital, church, library, school
classrooms
A A B C C D D
Parks A A A B C D D
Golf course, nature center, cemetery,
wildlife reserve, wildlife habitat
A A A A B C C
Agriculture A A A A A A A
Table 6.4 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix
Interpretation:
Zone A,
Clearly Compatible
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that buildings are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Zone B,
Normally Compatible
New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise
insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction,
with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally
suffice.
Zone C,
Normally Incompatible
New construction or development should normally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis or noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design.
Zone D,
Clearly Incompatible
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Public Review Draft 367
PLAN HERMOSA | 191
Goal 1. Injuries and loss of life are prevented, and property loss and damage are minimized.
To protect the community from avoidable risk and harm by factoring natural hazards
such as seismic hazards, flooding, landslides, severe weather events, and fires into community planning and outreach, maintenance and upgrades, and municipal operations.
Policies
1.1 Evaluate risks. New buildings and infrastructure will evaluate seismic, fire, flood, and coastal storm hazard risks and comply with California Building Code standards to minimize risk.
1.2 Prepare geotechnical reports. Geotechnical reports will be prepared for new development projects in areas with the potential for liquefaction or landslide.
1.3 Tsunami Playbook. Utilize the Los Angeles County Tsunami Playbook in the evaluation and response of tsunami risk.
1.4 Reduce fire hazards. Reduce fire hazards associated with older buildings, multi-story structures, and industrial facilities.
1.5 Minimize coastal flooding. Natural interventions, green infrastructure, and infiltration systems will be utilized to minimize damage from coastal flooding.
1.6 Minimize coastal hazards. Injuries and loss of life are prevented, and property loss and damage from coastal hazards are minimized.
1.7 Reduce flood vulnerability. Encourage existing structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure to reduce flood vulnerability.
1.8 Reduce stormwater runoff. Reduce stormwater runoff consistent with local stormwater permits.
1.9 Facilitate retrofits. Encourage and facilitate retrofits of seismically high-risk buildings.
1.10 Consider site-specific soil conditions. Require new structures to consider site-specific soil conditions.
1.11 Secure funds. Establish centralized internal procedures to coordinate efforts for securing funds that support risk reduction measures.
Goals and Policies
To address the risk of natural and manmade hazards, Public Safety approaches in Hermosa Beach are formed by the need for flexible and resilient options that will help the city thrive. Hermosa’s approach to public safety will reduce potential risks or exposure to natural and manmade hazards, build community capacity and preparedness for unavoidable hazards, ensure efficient response to hazardous events, and enact recovery plans to build greater resiliency to future hazards.
Public Review Draft 368
192 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal 2. The anticipated effects of sea level rise are understood, prepared for, and
successfully mitigated.
With the sandy beach considered one of Hermosa’s greatest natural assets for
aesthetic, safety, and recreational tourism purposes, the loss or erosion of the
beach due to sea level rise would be catastrophic to the vitality of Hermosa Beach.
By monitoring, evaluating, and enacting interventions to address changes in sea levels, and greater effects of storm events, Hermosa Beach will be well positioned to minimize infrastructure and private property vulnerabilities.
Policies
2.1 Integrate resilience. Integrate resilience to anticipated sea level rise impacts into project designs when repairing and replacing aging infrastructure.
2.2 Mitigate impacts. Require new development and redevelopment projects to consider and mitigate relevant sea level rise impacts.
2.3 Enhance awareness. Enhance local understanding of sea level rise and keep decision-makers and the community aware of potential impacts based on best available science.
2.4 Provide public information. Provide public information describing new flooding risks under a 55-inch sea level rise scenario in areas previously not affected by flooding.
2.5 Maintain beach widths. Maintain current beach widths under changing sea level conditions.
2.6 Consider sea level rise. Consider the combined effects of sea level rise when evaluating potential tsunami and storm surge impacts.
2.7 Support regional approaches. Support regional approaches to sediment management, beach replenishment, and adaptive shoreline protection to allow Hermosa Beach to voice its needs, allow for coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, and identify creative finance mechanisms to continue the replenishment program.
2.8 Identify erosion problems. Continue to monitor beach width and elevations to identify potential erosion problems
Public Review Draft 369
PLAN HERMOSA | 193
Goal 3. Hermosa Beach residents, businesses, and coastal resources are protected from hazardous materials.
Minimizing community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous materials,
especially those that can reduce exposure to delayed, chronic and/or acute health effects.
Policies
3.1 Hazardous material setbacks. Restrict the storage and transport of hazardous materials only to areas where risks to residents are adequately minimized through setbacks or other measures.
3.2 Hazardous material incident response. Coordinate with allied agencies to prepare for and respond to hazardous materials incidents.
3.3 Use, storage and transport. Require businesses that use, store, or transport hazardous materials to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect public health and safety.
3.4 Hazardous materials in Coastal Zone. Restrict the siting of new uses involving hazardous materials in the Coastal Zone to coastal-related industrial uses in the Cypress District.
3.5 Safe disposal practices. Maintain City’s website and other outlets with information regarding the safe handling and disposal of household chemicals.
Public Review Draft 370
194 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal 4. The community has the capacity and is prepared for unavoidable hazards.
The community’s ability to react and respond during hazardous events is predicated on both an awareness of the potential risks, and an understanding of how to respond to hazardous events.
Policies
4.1 Public awareness. Increase public awareness of hazards, emergency response, and recovery through updated evacuation routes and informational signage.
4.2 Promote community-based programs. Promote community-based programs in fire safety and emergency preparedness, including neighborhood-level programs and programs with businesses.
4.3 SEMS and NIMS training. Increase City employee capacity through the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliant training and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) drills to identify hazards, and assist in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.
4.4 Utilize City media resources. Establish communication protocols and utilize City media resources and emergency alert notification systems to provide information prior to, during, or after events posing risk to community health safety, and welfare.
4.5 Responsive neighborhood groups. Encourage neighborhood groups to identify, consider, and prepare for the needs of neighbors with access and functional needs to adequately respond to disasters.
4.6 Vulnerable populations. Establish an emergency plan to take care of vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and tourists during hazardous events.
Public Review Draft 371
PLAN HERMOSA | 195
Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors.
Providing fire, police, and emergency medical response services are among the City’s highest priorities. The City provides high quality police and fire protection services to residents and visitors and has set response standards to effectively and rapidly respond
to emergencies. Ensuring law enforcement, fire protection/emergency medical
services, and lifeguard services are being adequately provided by addressing core
issues related to service provision, including law enforcement within the community, resource pooling with neighboring jurisdictions, and anticipation of community needs due to growth and development is one of the City’s highest priorities.
Policies
5.1 High level of response. Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response and protection within the community.
5.2 Use of technology. Provide and use up-to-date technology and communication systems to improve crime prevention and inform the community regarding actions to take in case of emergency.
5.3 Physical design standards. Reduce opportunities for criminal activity through physical design standards, youth programs, recreation opportunities, educational programs, and counseling services.
5.4 Adequate emergency access. Require new development to be designed to provide adequate emergency access and to maintain current levels of emergency services.
5.5 Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. Cooperate and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions and social services to maximize public safety and emergency services.
5.6 Nuisance abatement. Encourage Police Department review of uses which may be characterized historically by high levels of nuisance (noise, nighttime patronage, and/or rates of criminal activity); providing for conditions of control of use to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residences, schools, religious facilities, and similar “sensitive” uses.
Public Review Draft 372
196 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal 6. Hermosa Beach is prepared for, responds to and recovers quickly from natural disasters.
Resiliency is the ability to overcome challenges of all kinds – trauma, tragedy,
emergencies – and bounce back stronger, wiser, and more powerful. While natural disasters and hazardous events can cause damage and injury, by learning from those events, and using them to be better prepared for future events, Hermosa Beach can
minimize the degree of damage and injury from future unavoidable events.
Policies
6.1 Regularly update plans. Regularly update disaster preparedness and emergency response plans.
6.2 Coastal incidents. Collaborate and maintain communication between the City, LA County Lifeguards, and the United States Coast Guard concerning incidents on or near the coast.
6.3 Invest in critical facilities. Invest in public and critical facilities to make them more resilient to the potential impacts of natural disasters.
6.4 Post-disaster evaluation. The Emergency Operations Center and Police/Fire Facilities shall be the top priority in conducting post-disaster building evaluations.
6.5 Optimize community benefits. Ensure that post-disaster recovery decisions optimize long-term community benefits.
6.6 Assist businesses. Assist local / small businesses in planning for continuity of operations and emergency preparedness.
Public Review Draft 373
PLAN HERMOSA | 197
Goal 7. Noise compatability is considered in the land use planning and design process.
Consideration of the effects of noise early in the land use planning and design process can minimize or avoid detrimental impacts, and create a community where noise compatibility between differing types of land uses is ensured.
Policies
7.1 Noise standards. Adopt, maintain, and enforce planning guidelines that establish the acceptable noise standards identified in Table 6.3.
7.2 Noise compatibility. Utilize the Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Table 6.4 as a guide for future planning and development decisions.
7.3 Noise analysis and mitigation. Require all proposed development projects and modifications to existing developments to be compatible with the existing and future noise levels by using the Land Use/Noise Compatibility matrix shown in Table 6.4. Where proposed projects are not located in an area that is “clearly compatible”, the City will require that an acoustical study be prepared as a condition of building permit approval demonstrating compliance with the noise standards shown in Table 6.3.
7.4 Condominium conversions. Require conversion projects from existing apartments into condominiums submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the State of California Noise Insulation Standards.
7.5 Noise ordinance. Establish a quantitative noise ordinance based on Chapter 12.08 of the Los Angeles County Code.
7.6 Vibration control. Groundborne vibration levels induced by construction and demolition activities can be controlled to minimize damage and annoyance within the community.
Public Review Draft 374
198 | CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal 8. Transportation noise sources are minimized.
Transportation-related activities are primary sources of noise affecting the quality of
life in Hermosa Beach. Effective reduction of noise associated with transportation is necessary to ensure protection from the detrimental effects of excessive noise.
Policies
7.4 Transportation facility compatibility. Periodically review County, regional, and local plans for transportation facilities and new developments to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approval.
8.1 Alternative modes of transportation. Reduce noise impacts by encouraging the use of walking, biking, carpooling, use of public transit, and other alternative modes of transportation.
8.2 Traffic calming. Where roadway noise levels exceed the “normally compatible” range shown in the Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix (Table 6.4), consider the implementation of traffic calming measures such as reduced speed limits or roadway design features to reduce noise levels through reduced vehicle speeds and/or diversion of vehicular traffic.
8.3 Enforcement. Enforce the posted speed limit and the noise standards included in the State’s Motor Vehicle Code to reduce noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
8.4 Public transit. Work with Beach Cities Transit and MTA to establish bus routes that meet public transportation needs and minimize noise impacts in residential areas.
Public Review Draft 375
PLAN HERMOSA | 199
A safe, healthy, and well maintained public infrastructure system is essential to the
functioning of any community. The means by which water, energy, waste, and
people are transported from one place to another must function well to ensure a high quality of life for residents, workers, and visitors to Hermosa Beach. These systems must
also be resilient to changing environmental and economic conditions. Much of the City’s infrastructure design and operation affects both the natural environment and
local economy. The availability of low cost renewable energy is a prime example of
infrastructure solutions that benefit everyone in the community, reinvest money in the local economy, while reducing impacts to the environment.
Upgrades to these infrastructure systems are costly and often happen on an as-needed repair basis rather than as comprehensive system upgrades. Hermosa
Beach is committed to providing high quality and reliable infrastructure in a fiscally
sustainable manner.
7 infrastructure
Public Review Draft 376
200 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Context
In Hermosa Beach, much of the infrastructure was initially built early in the 20th century, and has not kept up with modern standards. The sewer system, storm drain system, and numerous public buildings are in need of replacement or upgrades that exceed $100 million in estimated cost, and the City has started to systematically address each of these needs. This section describes the infrastructure systems and capacity, as well as the standards of care for maintenance and repair of this infrastructure to ensure they continue to operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Roads
The Public Works Department maintains public roads and sidewalks in Hermosa Beach, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Artesia Boulevard, which are owned and operated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Annual maintenance budgets ($1,000,000 in 2014) were adequate to improve the backlog of maintenance work, including preventive improvements that reduce future maintenance costs. For additional information on the roadway system, please refer to Streetscapes and Living Streets. Poor roadway conditions such as potholes, uneven pavement, or root damage can be hazardous to drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. They also degrade the city’s visual quality. As Hermosa Beach moves toward its carbon neutral goal, additional infrastructure will be needed for active and public transportation to provide the most convenient and positive experience for people moving throughout Hermosa Beach.
State Law
The State of California does not require that a city’s general plan include a separate Infrastructure Element, but does require the topic of infrastructure to be addressed. Since the City of Hermosa Beach views infrastructure as a critical topic, it is included as an optional element and includes specific components related to infrastructure to comply with the California Coastal Act.
General Plan
As it relates to infrastructure and utility networks, California Planning law requires the City’s General Plan to:
• Include the general location and extent of existing and proposed utilities and facilities.
• Correlate to the Land Use Element of the plan.
• Address urban water management and stormwater, recycled water use, and the integration of water and land use planning.
Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Act additionally
identifies specific components related
to infrastructure and water quality to be
incorporated into the Coastal Land Use Plan to:
• Identify current and projected infrastructure
capacity based on only those service
improvements that are consistent with Coastal
Act and LCP policies.
• Identify land use designations and intensities
commensurate with the level of available
infrastructure (e.g., sewer, water, and road or
transit systems, with Highway 1 limited to two
lanes in rural areas).
• Identify grading regulations to minimize
alterations of natural landforms.
Public Review Draft 377
PLAN HERMOSA | 201
Sewer System
The sanitary sewer system network in Hermosa
Beach comprises approximately 37 miles of sewer
lines. Much of the sewer system is believed to have
been installed in the late 1920s using concrete and
clay pipe replacements. The system is primarily
a gravity flow system, with the exception of one
pump station. The effluent collected by sewer
lines is discharged into the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District trunk lines. The effluent collected
by the sewer eventually flows to the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District’s Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant, one of the largest wastewater
treatment plants in the world. The facility serves
a population of approximately 3.5 million people
throughout Los Angeles County and provides both
primary and secondary wastewater treatment.
Treated discharge from the plant is transported to
the Pacific Ocean through a network of outfalls,
which extend 1.5 miles off the Palos Verdes
Peninsula to a depth of 200 feet.
The City approved a sewer fee in June 2015
allowing City Council to impose a fee on properties
within the city. Funds must go towards sewer
construction, repair, operations, and maintenance.
Storm Drainage
Urban runoff (stormwater) flows from inland locations through Hermosa Beach to the Pacific Ocean through a network of drainage lines identified in Figure 7.1. The network is a mixture of County-owned and City-owned lines that generally run east to west along major roads, including 16th Street, Pier Avenue, and 2nd Street. The lines generally terminate at one of 11 outfalls located on the beach or in the Pacific Ocean.
In Hermosa Beach, paved surfaces prevent the absorption of rainfall into the ground, as would occur in a natural system. Instead, stormwater is ushered into storm drains, a system of pipes that carry rainfall directly to the ocean. Under a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City is responsible for the development, implementation, and enforcement of stormwater runoff and drainage requirements to protect water quality.
Stormwater that runs over streets and sidewalks can pick up debris and pollutants, which are carried, untreated, into the ocean. To help reduce the amount of pollution from contaminated
stormwater, the City has adopted a Low Impact
Development (LID) ordinance and a Green
Streets Policy. LID uses landscape design to retain
or filter stormwater runoff, using development
techniques such as rain gardens, permeable
pavers, and bioswales. As the Green Streets Policy
is implemented, low impact development will add
to the existing fabric of stormwater infrastructure.
Stormwater management facilities provided in
private developments, such as retention basins,
swales, or vegetation planted for stormwater
filtering and containment operate independently
of the storm drain system. These systems help to
reduce drainage loads through the storm drain
system and while encouraged, must be carefully
sited and integrated into the design of a site to
avoid breaking up the urban form and function.
Figure 7.1 Storm Drain Lines
Public Review Draft 378
202 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Water Quality
The Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency developed four total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards that apply to Hermosa Beach. These establish the amount of bacteria that is acceptable in Santa Monica Bay around Hermosa Beach’s outfalls.
1. Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry Weather TMDL
(established 2002)
2. Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Wet Weather TMDL
(established 2002)
3. Santa Monica Bay TMDL for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs) (established 2012)
4. Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore
Debris TMDL (established 2010)
The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry Weather
TMDL notes that elevated bacterial indicator densities were causing impairment of water
The City of Hermosa Beach used Federal stimulus funds, State grants and bond funds that could only be spent on improvements aimed towards streetscape and amenities to finance the $4.76 million Pier Avenue Beautification Project. As part of the project, the City installed an innovative infiltration/storm drain system that captures trash, stormwater and urban runoff from a 36- acre drainage area before it can pollute ocean waters. Once captured, the system treats the polluted water and infiltrates it for deep root irrigation and groundwater recharge along Pier Avenue. The system is unique because the storm drain component plays an auxiliary role in management of run-off and is only activated as the infiltration systems reach capacity.
“The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to protecting the environment, and the Pier Avenue Beautification Project is a shining example of how a city can create a cleaner and greener community for us all.”
Hermosa Beach Mayor Peter Tucker
Upper Pier Avenue streetscape enhancements.
Pier Avenue Beautification Project
Water Service +
Hydrology
Hermosa Beach is located in the West Coast sub basin of the Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles watershed, one of 19 major watersheds in the South Coast Hydrologic Region. The South Coast Hydrologic Region covers 11,000 square miles (nearly seven percent) of the state’s total land area and contains about 54% of the state’s population. The West Coast sub basin is bounded on the north by the Ballona Escarpment, an abandoned channel from the Los Angeles River, on the east by the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, and on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean and consolidated rocks of the Palos Verdes Hills. All of the South Coast Hydrologic Region watersheds flow into the Pacific Ocean.
Marine waters offshore from Hermosa Beach are a part of the Santa Monica Bay, which extends south from Point Dume, in Malibu, to the Palos Verdes Peninsula. No freshwater waterways or surface water bodies are located in Hermosa Beach.
Public Review Draft 379
PLAN HERMOSA | 203
contact recreation beneficial uses at many Santa
Monica Bay beaches. Dry weather bacteriological objectives identified in the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan include limits for total coliform density, fecal coliform density, and enterococcus density.
The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry Weather TMDL sets the number of days that can be in exceedance of the limits identified in the Basin Plan. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has also established TMDL for the number of days exceeding bacteria count limits established in the Basin Plan during wet weather. As a co-permittee to the Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Hermosa Beach is responsible for meeting water quality–based effluent limitations that allow Santa Monica Bay to meet TMDL targets identified in the Santa Monica Bay Total Daily Maximum Loads for DDTs and PCBs and Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL.
Electricity
Electricity is provided to Hermosa Beach by
Southern California Edison (SCE) via a network
of overhead and underground distribution lines.
For additional information regarding electricity
generation, renewable energy, and energy
conservation, please refer to Green Building and
Conservation and Energy.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is provided through Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, via a network of underground distribution lines. Natural gas is predominantly used for heating and stove use in residences. For additional information regarding energy conservation, please refer to Green Building and Conservation and Energy.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Hermosa Beach
include cable television, high speed Internet, and wireless and ground-line telephone services. A variety of private companies provide these services and have infrastructure located throughout the city to provide consistent and reliable telecommunication services to the community. In August 2015, Hermosa Beach had a total of 13 Internet providers including 1 cable provider, 2 Copper providers, 3 DSL providers, 1 fiber provider, 1 fixed wireless provider, 5 mobile providers.
Fiber-Optic Infrastructure
Fiber-optic infrastructure is provided through submarine cables that provide international connectivity. The City of Hermosa Beach is the North American landing site of multiple transpacific submarine cables. In 2015, existing sites included APX-East, which connects to Sydney Australia, and SEA-US, which connects to Davao, Philippines, Manado, Indonesia, Piti, Guam, and Oahu Hawaii.
The City is additionally considering an application to develop an additional four transpacific submarine cables with the terrestrial components generally located within public street rights-of-way. This infrastructure includes a buried conduit system, directional bores, power feed equipment, and beach manhole landings. The project would bring an estimated $1.9 million at the beginning of construction, and $300,000 annually for hosting the cables.
Public Review Draft 380
204 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal 1. Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained.
Though often unnoticed and in the background, public infrastructure and services – utilities, water and wastewater services, stormwater treatment, and transportation
infrastructure – are essential to the high quality of life afforded in Hermosa Beach. They
require regular maintenance and upgrading both to meet the demands of a growing
population and to improve their environmental performance.
Policies
1.1 Infrastructure systems plan. Establish and adopt an integrated, holistic systems approach to
guide infrastructure development, improvement, maintenance, and resilience.
1.2 Priority investments. Use City Council established priorities and the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) to identify and allocate funding for projects identified in the infrastructure plan.
1.3 Right-of-way coordination. Ensure infrastructure maintenance and repair projects within the
public right-of-way are coordinated to minimize additional roadway repaving or accelerated
deterioration.
1.4 Fair share assessments. Require new development and redevelopment projects to pay their
fair share of the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project, and ensure
that needed infrastructure is available prior to or at the time of project completion.
1.5 New technologies. When feasible, utilize emerging technologies and funding strategies that
improve infrastructure efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency.
1.6 Utility Infrastructure Siting. Ensure new infrastructure is sited in a manner to minimize negative
impacts to the community and prioritize projects to address the greatest deficiencies.
1.7 Aesthetic and urban form. Require infrastructure and infrastructure improvements that are
aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the scenic character of the surrounding area.
1.8 Minimize recurring repairs. Ensure that recurring repairs to City facilities are minimized by
investing in low maintenance materials and performing preventive procedures where available.
1.9 Street slurry projects. Include street slurry projects and other preventive projects in the CIP
each year, with sufficient funding.
Goals and Policies
The City recognizes and supports the need to maintain a high level of service to the community. It further recognizes the need to pursue and embed various technologies into developing and maintaining the City’s infrastructure to increase the efficiency and cost of operating. The City is committed to providing high quality infrastructure and maintaining infrastructure in a way that reduces ongoing costs to the City.
Public Review Draft 381
PLAN HERMOSA | 205
Goal 2. Roadway infrastructure maintenance supports convenient, attractive,
and complete streets and associated amenities.
Development of a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network requires
a commitment and investment in the street infrastructure of both roadways and
sidewalks. Encouraging multimodal and attractive streets can provide for the
needs of diverse members of the community, balance the different modes of transportation, promote physical activity, and support environmental sustainability.
Policies
2.1 Preventive street maintenance. Maintain streets, sidewalks and other public rights-of-way to provide a reliable network for circulation through a proactive preventive maintenance program.
2.2 Pavement rating system. Prioritize roadway repavement projects by regularly evaluating pavement ratings and identifying roadway segments with the greatest deficiencies.
2.3 Street and sidewalk standards. Require the use of standardized roadway, sidewalk, parkway, curb and gutter designs to ensure continuity and consistency as property redevelops over time.
2.4 Sidewalk improvements. Consider innovative funding strategies, such as cost-sharing, ADA accessibility grants, or sidewalk dedications, to improve the overall condition, safety, and accessibility of sidewalks.
2.5 Active transportation dedications. Require new development and redevelopment projects to provide land or infrastructure necessary to accommodate active transportation, such as sidewalks, bike racks, and bus stops.
2.6 Traffic signal coordination. Maintain and operate the traffic signal system with advanced technologies to manage traffic operations and maintain traffic signal infrastructure.
2.7 Restore to City standards. Require utility and other service providers working in the public right-of-way to restore or improve trench areas to return the site to conditions that comply with City standards and prevent roadway and sidewalk deterioration.
2.8 Timely repairs and maintenance. Ensure that repairs and maintenance are completed in a timely manner when reported.
Public Review Draft 382
206 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal 3. Adequate water supplies from diverse sources provide for the needs of
current and future residents, businesses, and visitors.
Water is fundamental to life and crucial to the health and well-being of Hermosa
Beach residents, businesses, visitors, and marine and terrestrial biological
communities. Hermosa Beach is located in a naturally dry region and contains no surface water bodies. However, the City’s susceptibility to drought, climate change, and other conditions has created opportunities to reduce demand, respond to
drought, and diversify the water supply to ensure the entire community, and region,
has access to adequate water supplies.
Policies
3.1 Demand monitoring. Continue to evaluate and monitor the adequacy of available
water supply and distribution systems relative to proposed development and redevelopment
projects.
3.2 Alternative water supplies. Pursue expansion of recycled water infrastructure and other
alternative water supplies to meet water demands of the community that cannot be offset
through conservation measures.
3.3 Recycled water infrastructure. Require the use of recycled water in areas currently served
by infrastructure, and encourage integration of recycled water into new buildings which may
be served by appropriate infrastructure in the future.
3.4 Climate change impacts. Consider the impacts of climate change in projections used
to establish which water supply and distribution facilities as well as conservation efforts are
necessary to sustain future water demands.
3.5 Drought management. Ensure measures to respond to drought conditions are enforced
through the City’s ‘Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Ordinance.’
3.6 Water infrastructure. Support the development of water storage, recycling, greywater
treatment, and necessary transmission facilities.
Public Review Draft 383
PLAN HERMOSA | 207
Goal 4. The sewer system infrastructure is modernized and resilient.
By modernizing the sewer system to better meets community needs, the City can
reduce longer term infrastructure costs through efficiently managing, operating, and maintaining the system. In addition, the modernized sewer system will be less susceptible to additional stress from future floods and changing groundwater levels
with anticipated sea level rise, which is beneficial to both the health and welfare of the
residents and business community by minimizing overflows and improving beach water
quality.
Policies
4.1 Sewer system master plan. Ensure that the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan contains an effective
and proactive maintenance program that reduces future operation costs.
4.2 Priority improvements. Give priority to sewer system sections recommended for near-term
replacement or rehabilitation in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, and pursue repairs aggressively.
4.3 Service fees. Ensure that allocation of the Sewer Service Charge is efficient and transparent
to the public.
4.4 System capacity reviews. Require new development and redevelopment projects to
demonstrate available sewer system capacity and resiliency.
4.5 Sewer system rehabilitation. Implement the rehabilitation projects recommended in the
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
4.6 Sewer system resilience. Anticipate sea level rise impacts when planning, upgrading, and
operating the sewer collection and treatment systems.
4.7 Sewer system operation. Continue to implement maintenance and operation measures
established in the Sewer System Management Plan.
4.8 Holistic systems planning. Develop a comprehensive approach to water infrastructure that
integrates sewer system planning with potable and recycled water systems, stormwater systems,
and increased conservation awareness.
Public Review Draft 384
208 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal 5. The stormwater management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable.
To reduce dangers from flooding, protect community safety and property, the City of
Hermosa Beach is committed to providing well maintained stormwater infrastructure and reducing the negative environmental impacts of storm run off into the Santa Monica Bay.
Policies
5.1 Integration of stormwater best practices. Integrate stormwater infiltration best practices when initiating streetscape redevelopment or public facility improvement projects.
5.2 Green infrastructure. Naturalize flood channels that enhance flood protection capacity before employing other management solutions.
5.3 Natural features. Integrate natural features, such as topography, drainage, and trees, into the design of streets and rights-of-way.
5.4 Conservation behavior. Encourage community behavior changes to reduce urban runoff pollution.
5.5 Stormwater system maintenance. Maintain, fund, and regularly monitor the City’s stormwater infrastructure.
5.6 Stormwater system repairs. Ensure that stormwater system repairs are included in maintenance plans for other City infrastructure and that repairs and maintenance are completed in a timely manner to prevent additional repair costs.
5.7 Stormwater permits. Strictly implement, enforce, and monitor MS4 NPDES Permit requirements through stormwater ordinances.
5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff.
Public Review Draft 385
PLAN HERMOSA | 209
Goal 6. Utility services are reliable, affordable, and renewable.
Citywide access to clean, dependable, and affordable energy positions the community for a sustainable energy future. By encouraging local production of
renewable energy, the community can simultaneously benefit from the economic and
environmental paybacks of renewable energy, and potentially attract new innovations
and technology by committing to a renewable energy future.
Policies
6.1 Utility maintenance permitting. Allow efficient and streamlined permitting for the
maintenance, repair, improvement, and expansion of utility facilities and infrastructure.
6.2 Below ground utilities. Phase out and replace overhead electric lines with subsurface lines to
reduce visual obstructions and the need for utility poles which can impede sidewalk accessibility.
6.3 Environmental compatibility. Ensure that utility facilities and infrastructure cause minimal
damage to the environment and that utility service providers are responsible for costs associated
with damage caused to the environment and public right-of-way so that providers will seek to
minimize those costs.
6.4 Innovative and renewable technology. Encourage the exploration and establishment of
innovative and renewable utility service technologies. Allow the testing of new alternative
energy sources that are consistent with the goals and policies of PLAN Hermosa and comply
with all relevant regulations.
6.5 Renewable energy facilities. Unless a renewable energy facility would cause an
unmitigatable impact to health or safety, allow them by right.
6.6 Community choice aggregation. Collaborate with nearby local and regional agencies to
develop a community choice aggregation system that provides greater renewable energy
choices to the community.
Public Review Draft 386
210 | CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal 7. A reliable and efficient telecommunications network available to every resident, business, and institution.
Telecommunication systems support advanced and innovative communication
methods between residents, businesses, visitors, and the City. Telecommunications infrastructure and services are critical to businesses for economic growth and job creation. Residents rely on telecommunications for quality of life, education, research,
and access to health care and government services.
Policies
7.1 Accommodate future technologies. Encourage telecommunications providers and building developments to size infrastructure and facilities to accommodate future expansion and changes in the need for technology.
7.2 Appropriate siting of telecommunications infrastructure. Design and site all facilities to minimize their visibility, prevent visual clutter, and reduce conflicts with surrounding land uses while recognizing that the entire community can have access to communication infrastructure.
7.3 Co-location of facilities. Encourage telecommunications facilities located adjacent to, on, or incorporated into existing or proposed buildings, towers, or other structures.
7.4 Revenues from telecommunications. Require any revenue generated from the leasing of public space for telecommunications infrastructure to go toward specific projects or enhancements to benefit community spaces.
7.5 Emergency services technology. Prioritize telecommunications services used for the safety and well being of the community.
7.6 Access for all. Encourage the installation and availability of facilities that provide free telecommunication access at key activity and business centers throughout the community.
Public Review Draft 387
PLAN HERMOSA | 211
For some topics in this Plan, the
new adopted policies are sufficient
to realize certain goals. However,
most goals will require additional
implementation actions to help
achieve our vision. This section ties
together the goals and policies
in the General Plan and Coastal
Plan with such actions. Some of
these are onetime actions, such as
creating an ordinance or updating a
master plan, while other actions will
need to re-occur or be periodically
evaluated. Actions have been
organized and grouped based on
a series of priority tasks and whether
they are considered a physical
improvement, program, or new
process.
implementation
Public Review Draft 388
212 | IMPLEMENTATION
Community Collaboration
Hermosa Beach is a small city, with big ideas and a clear vision of its future. The City staff and elected
officials welcome and encourage community organizations, the business community, other public agencies,
neighborhood groups and passionate individuals to help implement many of these actions. While, some
actions will be prioritized by the City, that should not preclude any partner organization or individual from
making other actions a top priority in their own work in collaboration with the City.
Municipal Code Amendments
Similar to the Zoning Code, the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code is a body of rules and regulations that govern everything
from signs to sidewalks. The actions in this category comprise the new rules and
regulatory updates necessary to implement
various goals and policies of PLAN
Hermosa.
Environmental Thresholds + Guidelines
The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) plays a critical role in shaping
the built environment of Hermosa Beach
and disclosing the environmental effects
of projects. Every discretionary action
undertaken by the City must be evaluated
under CEQA. The development of
thresholds and guidelines for evaluating
projects subject to CEQA will offer greater
transparency and consistency in how
each project is evaluated. Actions to be
incorporated in the creation of local CEQA
procedures are included in this section.
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are a tool to help direct
the form and style of new buildings. These
guidelines supplement zoning standards, articulating the City’s preferences for
new design. They are specified as design guidelines rather than regulatory standards
to allow for variety and eclectic design
while encouraging high quality and authentic building character. The actions
identified in this grouping will be considered in the development of Design Guidelines.
Priority Implementation Tasks
The implementation section attempts to group the myriad of actions needed to
achieve the vision, into a set of priority
tasks to be programmed and completed
as resources become available. While
directly associated with PLAN Hermosa, it is important that the implementation matrix
be adopted separate from the rest of this
Plan so that it may be updated and kept
current as council set priorities on an annual
basis and conditions change over time. The implementation work program includes the
following discrete tasks:
Local Implementation Plan (Coastal)
To implement the Coastal Land Use Plan
components of PLAN Hermosa, the City
must develop a series of implementing
ordinances that articulate the intent of the California Coastal Act with consideration of
local context and needs. The actions in this
category will comprise the Implementation
Plan to support certification of the Local
Coastal Program.
Zoning Code Update
The Zoning Code regulates land use, form,
and design and is the primary mechanism
for implementing the land use strategies of PLAN Hermosa. The actions identified in
the zoning code update category should
be incorporated into the next update of
the zoning code, to bring the development
standards of the City of Hermosa Beach
into alignment with PLAN Hermosa.
Public Review Draft 389
PLAN HERMOSA | 213
Additional Implementation
Tasks
Additional implementation actions have
been categorized and included as a physical improvement, program, or process
to be implemented on an ongoing basis in
the future.
Physical Improvements
While much of this Plan is intended to direct private investment in a clear and
deliberate way, the City plays a role in shaping the public realm through
investment of resources in physical
improvements on City-owned or operated land. Specific public investments that
would result in physical changes to publicly owned spaces are listed below.
Programs
Programs are specific activities that are
focused on the community or a subset of
the community. These actions are meant to inform, enrich, or support the community.
In many cases, these programs are support activities that are intended to complement
more formal regulatory implementation
actions. In other cases, these actions are intended to help achieve PLAN Hermosa
outcomes through incentives.
Processes
Processes are those activities that the City undertakes as a municipal organization
that pertain to organizational function. The
items below are intended to improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the City’s
operations. Additionally, these items also relate to the coordination and consultation
that the city undertakes as an official
government agency.
Implementation Organization
Lead Department
The lead department responsible for
implementing the priority task. Other departments will be involved in the
successful implementation of specific actions within each task.
Timeframe
Priority tasks have an identified timeframe
in which they should be implemented. Since many of these priority tasks influence
subsequent actions, their implementation
is critical within the first several years after adoption of PLAN Hermosa. Additional
actions presented as a physical improvement, program, or process will be
implemented on an ongoing basis.
Primary Funding Source
Potential funding sources that may be used in implementing each set of priority tasks
have been identified. More specific funding
resources may be identified for individual actions.
List of Relevant Actions
Within each priority task, there will be are a
series of numbered actions. Each action is numbered to correspond to the following
elements of PLAN Hermosa:
Governance (G)
Land Use + Design (LU)
Mobility (M)
Sustainability + Conservation (S)
Parks + Open Space (P)
Public Safety (PS)
Infrastructure (INF)
Public Review Draft 390
214 | REFERENCED PLANS
referenced plans
Sustainability Plan
Created by Hermosa Beach’s Green Task Force, the
Sustainability Plan sets goals to reduce human impact on the environment. The Sustainability Plan includes topics on water, waste, transportation, buildings, energy, and marine/coastal issues, with goals to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions and protect the City’s beach culture and coastal environment. Strategies to achieve these goals include providing transportation alternatives to reduce automobile travel, supporting beach and ocean-friendly initiatives to protect Beach culture and local economy, reducing water consumption and improve water quality consistent with State goals, integrating energy efficiency and renewable energy measures into the built environment, and achieving higher rates of recycling and decrease the volume of landfilled waste. The Green Task Force worked closely with community members, building citywide support throughout the process.
Downtown Core Revitalization
Strategy
The Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy for Hermosa Beach is a comprehensive approach for increasing the vitality of the downtown including assessing the role of the key private sites and utilizing City assets to achieve City goals. The Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy and the Market and Economic Analysis were developed by Roma Design Group and Economic Planning Systems respectively, and reviewed by Council thereafter.
This Strategy is to utilize strategically located land resources to strengthen the economic vitality of the area and enhance the quality of life in the community as a whole. The Downtown Core will require both public and private initiatives including capital improvement projects, changes to parking and zoning, and parking requirements involving private development. Potential outcomes of the proposed Strategy are two catalyst hotel developments and improvements along Hermosa Avenue. Also, revising zoning will promote ground floor retail, reducing the parking requirements and providing consolidated publicly managed facilities at the civic center or community center. This will facilitate the much needed daytime occupancies and foot traffic by spurring additional second floor office and service uses.
Public Review Draft 391
PLAN HERMOSA | 215
Pacific Coast Highway Aviation
Boulevard Streetscape Improvements
Adopted in 2013, the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Streetscape
Master Plan is the City’s strategy to improve economic
development through revitalized Downtown and Entry Corridors
along the Pacific Coast Highway. This corridor is vehicular-
oriented, and lacks pedestrian safety, green open space,
medians, street trees, and an overall sense of identity. To
alleviate these challenges, Katherine Spitz Associates developed
concept plans that include innovative design elements. In
addition, design goals were created to revitalize the corridors.
These include increasing pedestrian safety and accessibility,
creating physical and visual connection across PCH, beautifying
the street with sustainable, cohesive landscaping, creating a
memorable identity for the area, designing walkable streets with
access to retail, dining and entertainment, and encouraging
pedestrian use through new lighting and crosswalks.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan fulfills the City’s obligation to provide guidance for the orderly development of parks, recreation, and open space facilities and programs. The plan includes baseline data and provides clear recommendations on how to meet the demands for future recreational, programming, and maintenance needs. The last comprehensive plan was completed in1990, therefore needing an update to reflect the new demographic and open space changes.
Aviation Boulevard Master Plan
The Aviation Boulevard Master Plan was created to transform Aviation Boulevard into a thriving corridor that will act as a gateway when entering the city of Hermosa Beach. The inconsistent zoning along Aviation Boulevard has contributed to the areas lack of activity. The plan will create a new identity for the area and includes individual toolkits to address the parking, traffic, pedestrians, maintenance, and land use and zoning issues in the area. Some solutions include planted medians, decreasing widths of traffic lanes, new sidewalk and landscape amenities, establishing a business improvement district and other incentives for new investment, new zoning or design guidelines, and implementing a street tree and beautification program.
Public Review Draft 392
216 | REFERENCED PLANS
Beach Cities Livability Plan
The Beach Cities Livability Plan was developed to Improve
livability and well being in Los Angeles County beach cities.
The plan strives to support active living by enhancing both
land use and transportation systems throughout the cities. In
order to achieve this goal, the plan highlights ways that will
encourage community members to become more active in
their communities. This includes a complete network of streets
and public spaces to support active living, Safe, natural and
enjoyable walking and biking conditions, and sustainable
transportation choices. Strategies to achieve this goal of
healthier, happier people in the City includes adopting a
Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets
policy language into all beach cities planning documents,
creating and adopting street design guidelines, developing a
regional pedestrian master plan, increasing enforcement for
pedestrian safety, and increasing enforcement for pedestrian
safety.
South Bay Cities Bicycle Master Plan
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the
development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle
network and set of programs and policies throughout the
cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next
20 years. As the firstever multi-jurisdictional bike plan, it has a
unique focus on crosscity consistency and connectivity that is
often lacking in singular city bike plans. Upon plan adoption,
each participating city will be eligible for grant funding sources
which they are not currently receiving. The Bicycle Master Plan
is the result of a unique partnership between long-standing
bicycle advocacy non-profit, Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalition (LACBC), and local LACBC chapter – the South Bay
Bicycle Coalition (SBBC). The two groups came together with
the common goal of improving the safety and convenience
of bicycling in Los Angeles County, and specifically in the
South Bay Region. Goals in this plan include creating a bicycle-
friendly South Bay and safer bicycling environment and
ensuring an enduring bicycling culture. Strategies to achieve
these goals include designing an expanded bikeway network,
supporting consistent design and engineering for bicycles,
increasing mobility through bicycle-transit integration, providing
convenient and consistent parking facilities, increasing bicycle
education, maintain roads for safe and consistent bikeability,
and expanding enforcement for improved cycling safety.
Public Review Draft 393
PLAN HERMOSA | 217
Living Streets Policy
Hermosa Beach’s Living Streets Policy reflects the City’s
commitment to creating streets that are safe, accessible, sustainable, and inviting. The policy was crafted in conjunction with the Blue Zoning Project and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in December, 207. The policy provides a checklist of issues to consider and procedures to evaluate street projects through a comprehensive ‘sustainability’ lens. It ensures that the various segments of the community are considered when determasining how to use and improve the public right-of-way. The policy includes policies on street network/connectivity, design, jurisdiction, exceptions, and context sensitivity.
LA Metro First Last Mile Strategic
Plan
The goal of the LA Metro First Last Mile Strategic Plan is to better coordinate infrastructure investments in station areas to extend the reach of transit, with the ultimate goal of increasing ridership. The plan includes guidelines that begin outlining specific infrastructure improvement strategies to facilitate easy, safe, and efficient access to the Metro system. In addition, they introduce a concept herein referred to as ‘the Path’, and provide direction on the layout of Path networks and components within Metro Rail and fixed route Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station areas. They serve as a resource for Metro and the many public and private organizations throughout the region working to update programs, land use plans, planning guidelines, business models, entitlement processes, and other tools that take advantage of LA County’s significant investment in the public transportation network. Strategies will need to be organized to contend with widely varying environments throughout the county; yet will aim to improve the user experience by supporting intuitive, safe and recognizable routes to and from transit stations.
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
The City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) fulfills Hermosa Beach’s obligation to prepare plans that
identify community hazards and risks and create appropriate mitigation actions and projects pursuant to the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA). With a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) certified mitigation plan in place, the City is eligible for federal and state hazard mitigation funds. Additional funds are available for jurisdictions whose hazard mitigation plans and general plan safety elements are integrated. Hazard mitigation plans must be updated every five years to remain eligible for funding.
The NHMP fulfills requirements of Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 United States Code (USC) 5165, as amended by the DMA. The NHMP is incorporated into the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element by reference and should be consulted when addressing known hazards to ensure the public’s general health, safety, and welfare within the planning area. The City’s Public Safety Element goals, policies, and actions support and are consistent with the NHMP.
Public Review Draft 394
218 | REFERENCED PLANS
Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Hermosa Beach Emergency Operations Plan
establishes a comprehensive, all hazards approach to natural,
man-made, and technological disasters. The plan provides an
overview of operational concepts, identifies components of the
City’s emergency management organization, and describes
the overall responsibilities of federal, state, county, and local
entities for protect life and property and ensure the overall
well-being of the population. The plan establishes a system for
coordinating the prevention, preparedness, response, recovery,
and mitigation phases of emergency management in Hermosa
Beach.
One function of the City of Hermosa Beach Emergency
Operations Plan is to identify emergency evacuation protocol..
The City also has a tsunami evacuation plan and has posted
permanent tsunami evacuation signage at appropriate
locations in the city. The City’s evacuation plan for all other
hazards stresses operational flexibility. The City does not have a
publicly accessible all-hazards evacuation plan, nor does it post
permanent evacuation route signs for any hazard other than
tsunami.
Community Dialogue
The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes the importance to include the community throughout the planning process. Community members and government officials worked together and voiced the following comments and visions for the City.
Hermosa Beach is a small-town friendly beach community. Hermosa is a health conscious city where people walk, jog, and bike to get from place to place, but also has a reputation for being a party town. The City government is accessible, with council meetings that are televised and open to the public, as well as City council members office hours for questions or suggestions. The crime rate in Hermosa is very low and the schools are in the top 10 percentile. The community participates in major fundraisers to offset state shortfalls in the education system. The City is a green city that is striving for a carbon neutral footprint. Some steps to achieve this goal include storm drain filtration systems, smoke-free zones, banned Styrofoam food containers, and the use of solar panels alternative energy source.
Hermosa wants to attempt to have colleges/universities invest in technology projects in the area, seek out movie/TV filming projects, encourage volunteerism for projects, and attract small businesses in order to maintain its unique character without any added costs. Hermosa Beach, with the help of its citizens, would like to continue its environmental friendly operation and promote an economically strong small business image over the next 20 years in order to live up to its slogan “the best little beach city.”
Public Review Draft 395
PLAN HERMOSA | 219
Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed
Management Program
A Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) has been prepared for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area, which covers the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel watersheds. The City of Hermosa Beach, along with the Cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, formed the Watershed Management Group and developed the plan. The plan summarizes watershed-specific water quality priorities; outlines a program plan consisting of specific strategies, control measures, and best management practices (BMPs) necessary to achieve water quality targets; and describes the quantitative analyses completed to support target achievement and permit compliance.
The EWMP also includes guidance for best management practices, specifically the development of policies related to low impact development and local green streets. Two structural BMPs have already been planned in Hermosa Beach, which will be used to meet the total Santa Monica Bay reduction goals for pollutant reductions. These projects include Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration and the Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench.
Hermosa Beach Carbon Neutral Scoping Plan
Hermosa Beach’s commitment to carbon neutrality is shown in
the City’s Carbon Neutral Scoping Plan. This plan sets carbon
neutrality as a primary goal in the City and includes a pathway
of achieving this goal. In addition to observing demographics,
culture, and political background of Hermosa Beach, the
plan includes a comprehensive model to determine emission
levels in respective sectors based on different implementation
measures. This model creates three potential outcomes to lead
the city towards its goal. While the shift to carbon neutrality will
not occur immediately, this plan includes recommendations
and suggestions to help the City streamline the process.
Public Review Draft 396
220 | GLOSSARY
glossary
Acceptable Risk
A hazard that is deemed to be a tolerable
exposure to danger given the expected benefits to be obtained. The level of loss, injury or destruction below which no specific action by local government is deemed necessary other than making the risk known. Different levels of acceptable risk may be assigned according to the potential danger and the criticalness of the threatened structure. The levels may range from “near zero” for nuclear plants and natural gas transmission lines to “moderate” for farm structures and low-intensity warehouse uses.
Acre-Foot (AF)
The volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. Equal to 43,560 cubic feet, 325,851 gallons or 1,233 cubic meters.
Acreage, Gross
The land area that exists prior to any dedications
for public use, health and safety purposes.
Acreage, Net
• The portion of a site that can actually be built upon, which is the land area remaining after dedication of ultimate rights-of-way for:
• Exterior boundary streets
• Flood ways
• Public parks and other open space developed to meet minimum standards required by City ordinance
• Utility Easements and rights-of-way may not be counted as net acreage
Action
An action is a program, implementation measure,
procedure or technique intended to help achieve
a specified objective. (See “Objective”)
Active Solar System
A system that uses a mechanical device, such as
electric pumps or fans, in addition to solar energy to transport air or water between a solar collector and the interior of a building for heating or cooling. (See “Passive Solar System”)
Adverse Impact
A negative consequence for the physical, social, or economic environment resulting from an action or project.
Archaeological Resource
Material evidence of past human activity found
below the surface of ground or water, portions of
which may be visible above the surface.
Arterials
Major thoroughfares that carry large volumes of traffic at relatively high speeds. Arterials are designed to facilitate two or more lanes of moving vehicles in each direction and rarely contain on-street parking.
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
The amount of wastewater that flows into a system
on an average day during the dry weather part of
the year.
Base Flood (100-year flood)
In any given year, a flood that has a 1 percent
likelihood of occurring, and is recognized as a standard for acceptable risk. (See “Floodplain”)
Below Normal Year Water Yield
A term used in planning for adequate water supplies, which represents the amount of water that can be expected to be available 90 percent of the time. (See also “normal year” and “dry year”)
Bicycle Lane (Class II facility)
A corridor expressly reserved for bicycles, existing
on a street or roadway in addition to lanes for use
by motorized vehicles.
Public Review Draft 397
PLAN HERMOSA | 221
Bicycle Path (Class I facility)
A paved route, not on a street or roadway, expressly reserved for bicycles traversing an otherwise unpaved area. Bicycle paths may parallel roads but are typically separated from them by landscaping.
Bicycle Route (Class III facility)
A roadway shared with motorists and identified
only by signs, a bicycle route has no pavement
markings or lane stripes.
Bikeways
A term that encompasses “bicycle lanes,” “bicycle paths” and “bicycle routes.”
Boulevard
A broad roadway that functions as an arterial and
where through-lanes are separated from local
lands by a median.
Buffer Zone
An area established between potentially conflicting land uses, or agricultural and non-agricultural uses, which depending on the impact may utilize landscaping or structural barriers such as setbacks or roads.
Building Height
The vertical distance from the average contact ground level of a building to the highest point of the coping, whether a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip, or gambrel roof. The exact definition varies by community. For example, in some communities building height is measured to the highest point of the roof, not including elevator and cooling towers.
Build-out
Development of land to its full potential, or
theoretical capacity, as permitted under current or
proposed planning or zoning designations.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Legislation and corresponding procedural
components established in 1970 by the State of
California to require environmental review for
projects anticipated to result in adverse impacts to
the environment.
Capital Improvements Program
A program administered by a City and reviewed by its Planning Commission that schedules permanent improvements, usually for a minimum of five years in the future, that fits the projected fiscal capability of the jurisdiction. The CIP generally is reviewed on an annual basis for conformance to and consistency with the General Plan.
Carrying Capacity
Used in determining the potential of an area to
absorb development: (1) The level of land use,
human activity or development for a specific area
that can be permanently accommodated without
an irreversible change in the quality of air, water,
land, or plant and animal habitats. (2) The upper
limits of development beyond which the quality of
human life, health, welfare, safety or community
character within an area will be impaired. (3) The
maximum level of development allowable under
current zoning. (See “Build-out”)
City
City with a capital “C” generally refers to the City government or administration. City with a lower case “c” may mean any city or may refer to the geographical area.
City limits
The legal boundaries of the geographical area
subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Hermosa
Beach government. For example, development
applications for properties located within the City
limits must be reviewed by the City.
Cluster Development
Development in which dwelling units are placed on smaller parcels of land, in closer proximity to each other than usual, or are attached, with the purpose of retaining the additional land, that would have been allocated to individual lots, for common shared open space areas.
Collectors
Collectors are roadways that connect local streets to “arterials,” usually provide two travel lanes for automobiles, and may also have bicycle lanes.
Commercial (C)
A land use designation that allows for a wide range
of land use types, including retail, entertainment
and professional offices, often serving
Public Review Draft 398
222 | GLOSSARY
neighborhoods with services and retail goods of
interest to residents.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7 PM to 10 PM) and nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours.
Community Park
A large park, generally 5 acres or more, that includes a mix of passive and active recreation areas that serve the entire city or a large portion of the city. A community park should include, but not be limited to, the facilities that are typically found at neighborhood and mini parks as well as specialized facilities such as amphitheaters and skate parks.
Conditional Use Permit
The discretionary and conditional review of an
activity or function or operation on a site or in a
building or facility.
Conservation
The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction or neglect.
Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
A multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design.
Cul-de-sac
A short street or alley with only a single means of ingress and egress at one end and with a turnaround at its other end.
Cultural Resources
Includes historic, archaeological and
paleontological resources, as well as human
remains.
Cumulative Impact
As used in CEQA, the total environmental impact resulting from the accumulated impacts of individual projects or programs over time.
Decibel (dB)
A unit used to express the relative intensity of a
sound as it is heard by the human ear. The lowest
volume a normal ear can detect under laboratory
conditions is 0 dB, the threshold of human hearing.
Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, 10 decibels
are ten times more intense and 20 decibels are a
hundred times more intense than 1 db.
dBA
The “A-weighted” scale for measuring sound in decibels, which weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness even though the noise is actually ten times more intense.
Dedication
The turning over by an owner or developer of private land for public use, and the acceptance of land for such use by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over the public function for which it will be used. Dedications for roads, parks, school sites or other public uses are often required by a city or county as conditions for approval of a development. (See “in-lieu fee”)
Density
The amount of development or people per unit of
area or property. (See also “Density, residential”
and “Floor Area Ratio”)
Density, Residential (du/acre)
The number of permanent residential dwelling units (d.u.) per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan are expressed in dwelling units per net acreage (du/acre), minus any land dedications, and not per gross acre. (See “Acres, Gross” and “Acres, Net”)
Density Transfer
The concentration of density on one part of a site
to another part of a site. This technique is used to
preserve historic, sensitive or hazardous areas and
to accommodate public facilities, such as schools,
parks or utility easements on an individual parcel or
within a specific project.
Development Review; Design Review
The comprehensive evaluation of a development and its impact on neighboring properties and the community as a whole, from the standpoint of site and landscape design, architecture, materials, colors, lighting and signs, in accordance with a set of adopted criteria and standards. “Design Control” requires that certain specific things be
Public Review Draft 399
PLAN HERMOSA | 223
done and that other things not be done. Design
Control language is most often found within a zoning ordinance. “Development Review” usually refers to a system established in the Municipal Code, whereby projects are reviewed against certain standards and criteria by a specially established design review board or other body such as the Planning Commission.
Development
The physical extension and/or construction of non-farm land uses. Development activities include: subdivision of land; construction or alteration of structures, roads, utilities and other facilities; installation of septic systems; grading; deposit of refuse, debris or fill materials; and clearing of natural vegetative cover (with the exception of agricultural activities). The construction of a single-family home on an existing lot, and routine repair and maintenance activities, are exempted.
Disabled
Persons determined to have a physical impairment
or mental disorder, which is expected to be of
long, continued or indefinite duration and is of
such a nature that the person’s ability to live
independently could be improved by more
suitable housing conditions.
Dry Year
A term used in planning for adequate water supplies. The dry year is the most infrequent drought year, when the minimum amount of water is available. Statistically, this level would occur only once in one-hundred years. This amount of water is less than or equal to what is available more than 99 percent of the time. (See also “Below Normal Year Water Yield” and “Normal Year”)
Duplex
A free-standing house divided into two separate
living units or residences, usually having separate
entrances.
Dwelling Unit (d.u.)
The place of customary abode of a person or
household, which is either considered to be real property under State law or cannot be easily moved.
Ecosystem
An interacting system formed by a biotic community and its physical environment.
Effluent
Liquid or partially solid waste such as is found in sewer systems or discharged from factories.
Emergency Management System (SEMS)
A structure for coordination between the
government and local emergency response
organizations providing the flow of emergency
information and resources within and between
the organizational levels of field response, local
government, operational areas, regions and state
management.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
A report required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (See “California Environmental Quality Act.”)
Elderly
Persons 65 years of age or older.
Endemic Species
Species native to, and restricted to, a particular geographical region.
Entryway
Entrance to an urban area, or to an important part of a city, along a major roadway. It can also be a point along a roadway at which a motorist or cyclist gains a sense of having left the environs and of having entered the city.
Electric Vehicle (EV)
An electric vehicle is an alternative fuel automobile
that uses electric motors and motor controllers for
propulsion, in place of more common propulsion
methods such as the internal combustion engine.
Fault
A fracture in the earth’s cruse that forms a boundary between rock masses that have shifted.
Flood, 100-year
The magnitude of a flood expected to occur on
the average every 100 years, based on historical
data. The 100-year flood has a 1/100, or one
percent, chance of occurring in any give year.
Public Review Draft 400
224 | GLOSSARY
Floodplain
The relatively level land area on either side of the banks of a stream regularly subject to flooding.
Floodway
The part of the floodplain capable of conveying the 100-year flood with no more than a one-foot rise in water. The floodway includes the river channel itself and adjacent land areas.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The size of a building in square feet (gross floor
area) divided by net land area, expressed as a decimal number. For example, a 60,000 square foot building on a 120,000 square-foot parcel would have a floor area ratio of 0.50. The FAR is used in calculating the building intensity of non-residential development.
General Plan
A compendium of City policies regarding its long-term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text. The General Plan is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of California Government Code Section 65301 and adopted by the City Council. In California, the General Plan has seven mandatory elements (Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space and Public Safety) and may include any number of optional elements the City deems important.
Goal
A description of the general desired results that
Hermosa Beach seeks to create through the
implementation of the General Plan. Goals are
included in each element and may include the
key physical or community characteristics that the
City and its residents wish to maintain or develop.
Gray water
The less contaminated portion of domestic wastewater, including wash water from clothes washers and laundry tubs.
Groundwater
Water that exists beneath the earth’s surface,
typically found between saturated soils and rock,
and is used to supply wells and springs.
Growth Management
The use by a community of a wide range of
techniques in combination to determine the
amount, type and rate of development desired by
the community and to channel that growth into
designated areas. Growth management policies
can be implemented through building permit caps,
public facilities/infrastructure ordinances, urban
limit lines, standards for levels of service, phasing,
and other programs.
Greenhouse Effect
A term used to describe the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere due to accumulated carbon dioxide and other gases in the upper atmosphere. These gases absorb energy radiated from the Earth’s surface, “trapping” it in the same manner as glass in a greenhouse traps heat.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the Earth’s surface.
Habitat
The physical location or type of environment in
which an organism or biological population lives or
occurs.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
Traffic lanes that are designated and reserved for vehicles with a minimum number of passengers during high-volume commute hours, in order to encourage carpooling through faster travel. They are enforced with fines and traffic tickets.
Household
All persons occupying a single dwelling unit.
Impact Fee
A fee charged to a developer by the City according to the proposed development project, typically by number of units, square footage or acreage. The fee is often used to offset costs incurred by the municipality for services and infrastructure such as schools, roads, police and fire services, and parks.
Impervious Surface
Surface through which water cannot penetrate,
such as a roof, road, sidewalk, and paved parking
lot. The amount of impervious surface increases
with development and establishes the need for
drainage facilities to carry the increased runoff.
Public Review Draft 401
PLAN HERMOSA | 225
Implementation
Actions, procedures, programs or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development
Development that occurs on vacant or
underutilized land within areas that area already
largely developed.
In-lieu fee
Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a dedication of land for public use, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in-lieu fees or in-lieu contributions. (See “dedication”)
Land Use
The occupation or utilization of an area of land for
any human activity or any purpose.
Land Use Designation
One particular category in a classification series of appropriate use of properties established by the General Plan Land Use Element.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
A voluntary, consensus-based national standard
for developing and rating high-performance,
sustainable “green” buildings. LEED provides
a complete framework for assessing building
performance and meeting sustainability goals,
such as water savings, energy efficiency, materials
selection and indoor environmental quality.
LEED standards are currently available or under
development for: new commercial construction
and major renovation projects, existing building
operations, commercial interiors projects, core and
shell projects, and homes.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard
A standard used by government agencies
to measure the quality or effectiveness of a
municipal service, such as police, fire or library, or
the performance of a facility, such as a street or
highway.
Level of Service (Traffic)
A scale that measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction and delay.
Level of Service A
A relatively free flow of traffic, with little or no limitation on vehicle movement or speed.
Level of Service B
Describes a steady flow of traffic, with only slight
delays in vehicle movement and speed. All
queues clear in a single signal cycle.
Level of Service C
Denotes a reasonably steady, high-volume flow of traffic, with some limitations on movement and speed, and occasional backups on critical approaches.
Level of Service D
Designates the level where traffic nears an
unstable flow. Intersections still function, but short
queues develop and cars may have to wait
through one signal cycle during short peaks.
Level of Service E
Represents traffic characterized by slow movement and frequent (although momentary) stoppages. This type of congestion is considered severe, but is not uncommon at peak traffic hours, with frequent stopping, long-standing queues and blocked intersections.
Level of Service F
Describes unsatisfactory stop-and-go traffic characterized by “traffic jams” and stoppages of long duration. Vehicles at signalized intersections usually have to wait through one or more signal changes, and “upstream” intersections may be blocked by the long queues.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
A five- or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCo is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals.
Local Street
Provides direct access to properties; generally they
carry the lowest traffic volumes.
Public Review Draft 402
226 | GLOSSARY
Mini-Park
Small sized park, less than 1 acre, that provide recreation activities for a specific neighborhood within a ½ mile radius.
Mitigation
Mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters.
Mixed Use
Any mixture of land uses on a single parcel,
including mixtures of residences with commercial, offices with retail, or visitor accommodation with offices and retail. As distinguished from a single use land use designation or zone, mixed use refers to an authorized variety of uses for buildings and structures in a particular area.
Mix of Uses
Any mixture of uses, such as retail, office, residential or general commercial in close proximity spread over a small area.
Mobile Home
A structure, transportable in one or more sections,
built on a permanent chassis and designed for use
as a single-family dwelling unit and which: (1) has
a minimum of 400 square feet of living space; (2)
has a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is
connected to all available permanent utilities; and
(4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on
a lot either owned or leased by the homeowner or
(b) is set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted,
in a mobile home park.
Mobile Home Park
A parcel of land under one ownership that has been planned and improved for the placement of two or more mobile homes for rental purposes for nontransient use.
National Incident Management System (NIMS)
The National Incident Management System
(NIMS) is a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together seamlessly and manage incidents involving all threats and hazards—regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity—in order to reduce loss of life, property and harm to the environment.
Natural Habitat Area
An area that sustains animal and vegetative biotic resources that has not been improved or disturbed. Natural Habitat Areas can also be areas that were previously “disturbed” and have been reclaimed or rehabilitated.
Neighborhood Park
Medium sized park, usually 5 to 15 acres, that provide basic recreational activities for one or more neighborhoods within a ½ to ¾ mile radius.
Noise Contour
A line connecting points of equal noise level as
measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater
than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in dBA) require
noise attenuation in residential development.
Non-Conforming Use
A use that was valid when brought into existence, but no longer permitted by later regulation. “Non-conforming use” is a generic term and includes: (1) non-conforming structures (because their size, type of construction, location on land, or proximity to other structures is no longer permitted); (2) non-conforming use of a conforming building; (3) non-conforming use of a non-conforming building; and (4) non- conforming use of land. Any use lawfully existing on any piece of property that is inconsistent with a new or amended General Plan, and that in turn is a violation of a zoning ordinance amendment subsequently adopted in conformance with the General Plan, will be a non-conforming use. Typically, non-conforming uses are permitted to continue for a designated period of time, subject to certain restrictions.
Normal Year
A term used in planning for adequate water
supplies. Refers to those years when the City can
expect to receive all of the water it has contracted
to receive (entitlement). This is because supply
conditions (e.g., the amount of rain and snow
collected in reservoirs, groundwater availability)
are normal. Based on historical experience, normal
years occur 63 percent of the time. (See also
“below normal year” and “dry year”)
Objective
A specific statement of desired future condition toward which the City will expend effort in the context of striving to achieve a broader goal. An objective should be achievable and, where
Public Review Draft 403
PLAN HERMOSA | 227
possible, should be measurable and time-
specific. The State Government Code (Section 65302) requires that general plans spell out the “objectives,” principles, standards and proposals of the general plan. “The addition of 100 units of affordable housing by 1995” is an example of an objective. Housing Law requires objectives contained in the Housing Element to be quantified.
Overlay
A land use designation on the Land Use Map, or a zoning designation on a zoning map, that modifies the basic underlying designation or designations in
some specific manner.
Parcel
A lot, or contiguous group of lots, in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of development.
Passive Solar System
A system that uses direct heat transfer from the
thermal mass instead of mechanical power to
distribute collected heat. Passive systems rely on
building design and materials to collect and store
heat and to create natural ventilation for cooling.
Pedestrian-Oriented Design
An approach to site and neighborhood design
intended to facilitate movement on foot in an area, as opposed to design that primarily serves and encourages automobile movement. Examples of pedestrian-oriented design include pathways following the most direct route from sidewalk to front door, continuous building streetwalls with shop windows, outdoor cafes, street trees and benches.
Per Capita
A measure for each person; in relation to people taken individually.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
A description of a proposed unified development,
consisting at a minimum of a map and adopted
ordinance setting forth the governing regulations,
and the location and phasing of all proposed
uses and improvements to be included in the
development.
Planning Area
The Planning Area is the area inside or outside of the City Limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning and policy direction. The Planning Area
does not lead to regulatory powers outside of the City limits. Instead, it signals to the County and to other nearby local and regional authorities that City residents recognize that development within this area has an impact on the future of their community, and vice versa. (See also Sphere of Influence)
Policy
A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an implementing action or program. (See “Action”)
Recreational Corridor
Typically linear pathways, bikeways or open space
areas that weave in and around urban uses to
provide recreational and transportation amenities
to city residents.
Resilience
Resilient communities ensure that all residents are prepared and ready to withstand social or environmental challenges.
Semi-Public Space
An interior or exterior area that is owned and
managed by a private entity but which is used by
the public.
Sensitive Receptors
Uses sensitive to noise such as residential areas,
hospitals, convalescent homes and facilities, and schools.
Specific Plan
Under Article 8 of the Government Code (Section 65450 et seq), a legal tool for detailed design and implementation of a defined portion of the area covered by a General Plan. A specific plan may include all detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and/or proposed legislation which may be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of any General Plan element(s). (See also “Planned Unit Development”)
Sphere of Influence (SOI)
The probably physical boundaries and service area
of the city, as determined by the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county
Public Review Draft 404
228 | GLOSSARY
Steep Slope
An area with a greater than 5 percent slope.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance
A numerical target for a specific pollutant in a
specific body of water.
Townhouse/Townhome
A series of residences, often two to three stories in height, that are connected side by side in a row with each having a separate street-level entrance.
Traffic Calming
Measures designed to reduce motor vehicle
speeds and to encourage pedestrian use,
including:narrow streets, tight turning radii,
sidewalk bulbouts, parking bays, textured paving
at intersections, parkways between sidewalks and
streets.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Programs implemented by municipalities to preserve open space and direct development to urban centers. In order to develop in the City, a developer must purchase development rights from rural lands outside of the city for use within the urbanized area. Targeted preservation and conservation lands are established as “sending areas” from which land owners sell the development rights of their property to private developers for use in designated “receiving areas” (infill areas designated for development or density increases). Property owners retain the title to the land but the land cannot be built at urban intensities. If the land is sold, the deed restrictions transfer with the sale.
Triplex
A free-standing house divided into three separate
living units or residences, usually having separate
entrances.
Urban Center
A land use designation that allows for an intensive mix of retail, office, high-density residential, cultural and public-serving uses (such as post offices, libraries, places of worship, museums, art centers, parks, plazas or common space for gatherings, day care facilities, medical buildings, fire departments and police sub-stations) arranged in a manner that results in a strong sense of place for the city’s residents, workers and visitors. Urban Centers generally range in size from 20 to 50 acres.
Use
The purpose for which a lot or structure is or may be leased, occupied, maintained, arranged, designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved, altered and/or enlarged in accordance with the City zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designations.
Use, Non-conforming
(See “Non-conforming Use”)
Utility Corridor
Rights-of-way or easements for utility lines on either
publicly or privately owned property.
Wastewater
Water that has already been used for washing, flushing, or in a manufacturing process, and therefore contains waste products such as sewage or chemical by-products.
Wastewater Irrigation
The process by which wastewater, that has
undergone appropriate treatment, is used to
irrigate land.
Wetland
An area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation.
Zoning
The division of a city by ordinance or other
legislative regulation into districts or zones, which
specify allowable uses for real property and size
restrictions for buildings constructed in these areas;
a program that implements the land use policies of
the General Plan.
Zoning District
A designated area of the City for which prescribed
land use requirements and building and development standards are or will be established.
Public Review Draft 405
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
1
Comments and Questions provided during the EIR Review Period related to PLAN Hermosa
The Planning Commission should consider and provide direction to staff regarding any additional changes to PLAN Hermosa
recommended based on the comments provided below.
Caltrans Caltrans provided comments on the Draft EIR suggesting the City add the following policies to PLAN Hermosa:
The City will involve Caltrans in the update of the existing Transportation Impact Fee program that would
include the State transportation systems and facilities (if any).
The City will work with Caltrans to identify cumulative impact locations on State facilities and traffic
improvements to alleviate traffic congestion within the Specific Plan area.
The City will work with neighboring Cities to address cumulative significant traffic impacts on I-405 and SR-01.
The City will work with Caltrans to evaluate access management needs and strategies to better manage
traffic operations on arterial streets located within close proximity of freeway on/off-ramps in an effort to
reduce traffic backups and frictions at Caltrans transportation systems.
NAHC and
Gabrieleño
Band of
Mission
Indians
In response to comments on the Draft EIR by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians, staff recommended amending Implementation Action LAND USE-23 as follows:
All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed
land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA
regulations to determine is sensitive for cultural resources. Additionally, as the Lead Agency for future discretionary
projects, the City is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult
with those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological
investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk
for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be
required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to
complete a training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or
requiring a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance
activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as
determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide
mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures)
prior to further disturbance.
Steve
Adler
Steve Adler submitted a series of questions related to proposed Carbon Neutrality goals that are helpful for
consideration.
1. Do we receive tax benefits for implementing this plan? – A: The City would not be entitled to tax benefits, however
community members may be eligible for State or Federal tax benefits (and other incentives) by purchasing
certain equipment. For example photovoltaic solar and electric vehicle purchases have been offered tax credits.
2. Do the savings offset the expense of implementing this plan? If so, how many years will it take? – A: an analysis was
406
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
2
completed for both the 2030 and 2040 proposed scenarios to understand the relative scale of investment needed
and return on such investment. The return on investment would vary depending on the scenario. This analysis was
presented during the November 21, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session and is available online here:
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4312&meta_id=295839
3. If there are no financial benefits to going carbon neutral why purchase carbon offsets? – A: The purchase of
carbon offsets has been presented as an option to achieve a goal of carbon neutrality where there may be
some activities or sources of emissions that cannot be eliminated wholly. Offsets present an option that may be
more financially feasible than eliminating other emissions at a greater cost while still achieving the goal of carbon
neutrality.
4. If we have the money for carbon offsets wouldn’t that money be more beneficial to the environment if we
promoted worthy environmental causes? – A: See answer to question 3. It is anticipated that any feasible local
actions that can be taken to reduce emissions are done prior to considering the purchase of offsets.
David
Grethen
David Grethen submitted a series of questions related to proposed Carbon Neutrality goals that are helpful for
consideration.
1. Why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy to meet state goals? – A: While the State of
California has taken on many regulatory and incentive based programs to reduce emissions throughout the
State, they have recognized that local solutions and partnerships are necessary in order to reach the long-term
state goals - which are based on the scientific consensus that an 80% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels is
needed globally by 2050 to limit average temperature increases to two degrees Celsius and avoid the most
catastrophic impacts.
2. Why is state legislation insufficient to meet state goals? – A: See answer to question 1. State programs are
sufficient for cities like Hermosa Beach to meet shorter-term goals (i.e.15% below 2005 levels by 2020) but it is not
known at this time what state programs or legislation may be put in place to reach longer-term goals.
3. Is there something specific about Hermosa Beach that results in state legislation not being sufficient to meet state
goals? – A: This challenge is not specific to Hermosa Beach, in fact more than 200 jurisdictions in California have
adopted or are in the process of adopting Climate Action Plans or Greenhouse Gas reduction plans to identify
local policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See the summary from the California Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2016_California_Jurisdictions_Addressing_Climate_Change_Summary.pdf
Ken Sarno Ken Sarno provided comments on the draft EIR recommending additional policies related to air quality as follows:
- City-owned and observed air monitoring equipment
- Enhanced city relationship with AQMD and other regulatory agencies
- Involvement by the City in efforts to mitigate or remove refinery risks by both community groups and other
neighbor city governments.
407
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
3
Comments on PLAN Hermosa provided by the City’s Commissions or Staff
Based on the report provided on the City’s website to track the comments from the Planning Commission, Public Works Commission,
Parks and Recreation Commission, Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission, and staff (when new information was provided):
http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7994
Introduction
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
4 Update acknowledgements Staff Update
17 Delete “is” – sixth paragraph, second sentence Staff Correct typo
Governance Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
33 Define the term “work unit” Planning
Commission
Footnote to be added as follows:
The work unit refers to the employees and
resources needed to provide services to the
community.
38 Make less specific regarding mutual aid
agreements
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
To provide responsive emergency services
and expand the availability of emergency
response services to the City of Hermosa
Beach has long-standing agreements with
adjacent cities and Los Angeles County to
provide additional resources and greater
expertise in unique incidents or conditions.
40 Expand this to include other activities Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Attracting businesses sought after by the
public, seeking projects and activities such as
filming, photography, or arts/events, and
renting out City facilities for events are other
creative ways the City will generate extra
revenue.
41 Policy 1.1 text changes Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
1.1 Open Meetings. Maintain the
408
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
4
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
community’s trust by holding meetings, in
which decisions are being made, that are
open and available for all community
members to attend, participate, or view
remotely.
41 Policy 1.5 text changes Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
1.5 Leadership training. Encourage City staff
and Boards and Commission members to
participate in leadership and governance
training programs.
41 Policy 1.8 text changes Planning and
Public Works
Commissions
Suggested changes as follows:
1.8 Nonresident representation. Ensure non-
residents with an interest in the City are
offered a reasonable opportunity to
participate in working groups and
committees.
41 New Policy - Add a policy about requiring Brown
Act training for all commissioners and council
members
Public Works
Commission
Staff suggests that this is covered with policy
1.1 Open meetings, and Policy 1.5 Leadership
training. However if a new policy is desired
staff suggested it is worded as follows:
1.10 Brown Act training. Require City Council
members and commissioners to participate in
trainings pertaining to open meetings and
compliance with the Brown Act.
46 Delete policy 6.4 pertaining to jobs-housing
balance
Planning
Commission
Delete
46 Policy 6.8 text changes to all scales to " reflective of
character of Hermosa Beach with small and
medium scale retail development"
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
6.8 Retail base. Encourage economic
development reflective of the character of
Hermosa Beach with small and medium scale
retail development within Hermosa Beach in
order to create a stronger tax base and
increase the City’s tax revenue.
47 Policy 7.3 text changes to remove jargon and add
periodic review
Planning and
Public Works
Commissions
Suggested changes as follows:
7.3. Health in all policies. Integrate health,
livability, and sustainability principles when
409
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
5
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
adopting new policies and periodically
review and evaluate adopted policies for
their impact or opportunity to improve
health, livability, and sustainability
47 Policy 7.4 text changes to remove equity from title
and policy language
Planning
Commission
Staff suggests that these changes make this
policy similar to and overlapping with Policy
7.3 and if the changes are recommended,
then the policy should be deleted.
47 Policy 7.6 text changes to remove examples Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
7.6 Health-promoting uses. Prioritize health-
promoting uses in new development.
47 Policy 7.9 text changes to remove throughout the
city.
Suggested changes as follows:
7.9 Advertising health. Discourage the
branding or advertisement of unhealthy
behaviors at City facilities or City-sponsored
events.
47 New Policy - add an additional policy to
encourage commercial establishments to provide
or offer healthy products and advertising
Public Works
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
7.10 Healthy commercial products.
Encourage commercial establishments to
provide or offer healthy products and
advertising.
48 Delete policy 8.2 pertaining to preparing an annual
progress report
Planning
Commission
Delete
Land Use + Design Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
51 Legend on Figure 2.1 is too small Public Works
Commission
Will enlarge legend
55 Delete paragraph on short-term rentals Planning
Commission
Delete
55 Discuss what are the rules for wind facilities? Do
they address height, setback, noise issues? Would
large ones be permitted on City property? Are the
rules/codes similar to solar?
Planning
Commission
Discussion:
The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code includes
development and permitting standards for
small-scale solar (17.46.220) and wind energy
410
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
6
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
systems (17.40.200) that articulate the height,
setback, and noise requirements for small
systems (typically defined as less than 1 MW).
Given the space and size constraints of
buildings in Hermosa Beach, it is unlikely that
the City would receive any applications for
systems greater than 1MW.
Suggest no changes are needed to policy
based on the information presented.
57 Discuss whether additional manufacturing zones
are being created.
Planning
Commission
No new manufacturing zones are being
created. The Cypress Area is proposed as the
creative light industrial land use designation,
and a portion of PCH between 5th and 8th
Streets has been proposed as a Service
Commercial land use designation.
Suggest no changes are needed to policy
based on the information presented.
62 Discuss who can be in which designations Planning
Commission
This comment was made prior to planning
commission discussion.
Suggest no changes are needed to policy
based on the comment.
63 Do not add anymore Neighborhood Commercial
to residential areas, in particular Prospect
Planning
Commission
No new Neighborhood Commercial
designations are proposed along Prospect
Avenue.
63 Rethink current green zones parking policy citywide
to allow parking after the business is closed.
Planning
Commission
This comment does not have any bearing on
the policies included in PLAN Hermosa, but
could be reviewed and evaluated as part of
the implementation program.
65 Need to add gym to existing uses, and office uses
or enforce existing code violations to the Creative
Light Industrial designation
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Flexible use spaces, gymnasiums/fitness
center, co-working offices, and creative or
“maker” industry incubator spaces are also
permitted.
Note that the description identifies when
office and retail uses may be permitted.
411
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
7
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
69 Address verb tense and tone for all descriptions Planning
Commission
The character area descriptions will be
revised to describe the future intended
character.
69 Delete “ Buildings are 1-2 stories up to 25 feet in
height”
Planning
Commission
Delete
69 Clarify or edit “Each lot accommodates a single
residential unit, with a maximum of two allowed
under certain conditions.”
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Single-family residences, duplexes, and
townhouses are the preferred residential
types.
69 “Front and side setbacks may be fairly narrow, with
many building frontages within 10 feet of the
sidewalk.” - Check if consistent with existing zoning
Planning
Commission
Setback requirements range from 5-10 feet in
this area which is consistent with the
statement presented.
69 “View corridors toward the beach are treasured
and protected” - Edit to focus on public view
corridors
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Public views toward the beach are treasured.
69 “Residential parking is mostly accessed off alleys,
which supports frontages that are pedestrian-
oriented and active.” - Preference is for alley
parking, but there should be an exception built in
Planning
Commission
No change recommended. Exceptions
would be detailed in zoning code, and
statement indicates “mostly” accessed off
alleys.
70 Delete - Houses on lots greater than 5,000 square
feet may be set back at considerable distance
from the street in a more typical “suburban”
pattern.
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Houses on lots greater than 5,000 square feet
may be allowed to have setbacks at
considerable distance from the street in a
more typical “suburban” pattern.
70 “Most homes along Longfellow Avenue are served
by alleyways at the back of the property, providing
garage access and leaving sidewalks along
Longfellow Avenue uninterrupted by driveway
aprons and curb cuts.” - Question regarding
whether this should be code vs policy.
Planning
Commission
Recommend this remain as policy that is
applied to certain areas with code
articulating specific exceptions (i.e. no
alleyway present).
70 The PW engineer has to establish what the width of
the street(s) and sidewalks will be for all current and
future construction
Planning
Commission
This has been identified as one of the
proposed implementation actions.
71 Discuss including 30th and 31st Street in Walk Street
Neighborhood
Planning
Commission
Recommend the North End Neighborhood
(pg 69) Future Vision Description identifies 30th
and 31st Street as Walk Streets.
412
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
8
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
71 Modify first bullet under Building Design and
Orientation
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
This beach front area provides a variety of
building formats and architectural styles.
72 Delete first bullet under Building Design and
Orientation
Planning
Commission
Delete
72 Modify second bullet under Building Design and
Orientation
Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
Flat, box-like front façades are discouraged
in favor of greater articulation.
72 Delete fourth bullet and replace with new bullet Planning
Commission
Suggested changes as follows:
This area includes prevailing setback
requirements for front, side, and rear
setbacks that vary from block to block, but
provide consistency within each block.
73 Delete first bullet under Building Design and
Orientation
Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
Ranch style houses and other similar lower-
profile architectural styles are common in this
area due to larger lot sizes and the flat
topography.
73 Modify third bullet under Building Design and
Orientation
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. The use of should
indicates that this is encouraging without
requiring.
74 Discuss second bullet under public realm design
regarding fences
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is.
75 Consider whether it makes sense to create a north
and south greenbelt neighborhood area
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. The characteristics
of the two areas are similar and the policies
to address such character would also be
similar.
75 Delete number of stories description from first bullet
under building design and orientation.
Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
Most lots in this neighborhood range from
2,500 to 5,000 square feet.
75 Discuss third bullet under building design and
orientation.
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is.
75 Modify third bullet under public realm design Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
The design and orientation of buildings in this
neighborhood vary due to the sloped nature
of the lots.
413
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
9
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
76 Discuss first bullet under building design and
orientation related to garage design
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. The use of should
indicates that this is encouraging without
requiring.
77 Delete second sentence under intended
distribution of land uses
Planning
Commission
Recommend deleting sentence and
replacing with the following:
Parkettes and public facilities such as
Hermosa View School and the original
Prospect Avenue School Building are found in
this neighborhood.
77 Delete NC designation under intended distribution
of land uses
Planning
Commission
Delete
77 Discuss second bullet under building design and
orientation related to garage design
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. The use of should
indicates that this is encouraging without
requiring.
77 Modify fourth bullet under building design and
orientation for consistency with other sections
Planning
Commission
Recommend deleting this bullet.
77 Modify third bullet under public realm design to
note view of pacific ocean.
Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
Most properties in this area have a gentle
downslope, allowing for many homes to have
views of the Pacific Ocean or Los Angeles
Basin.
78 Modify introduction first sentence Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
The Downtown District is the primary social
and commercial activity center in Hermosa
Beach
79 Modify third bullet under public realm design Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
Café and recessed outdoor seating
opportunities are encouraged.
79 Discuss fifth bullet under public realm design Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is.
79 Modify sixth bullet under public realm design Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
Once Downtown, walking and bicycling are
the primary means for traveling around, while
vehicles are accommodated through
consolidated parking lots and metered street
parking.
414
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
10
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
80 Delete second sentence under intended
distribution of land uses.
Planning
Commission
Delete
80 Delete third bullet under building design and
orientation
Planning
Commission
Delete
82 Discuss future vision for Cypress District and
possibility of re-purposing city yard.
Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
The City Yard has been renovated or re-
designed with space for an innovation
center, with incubator space, job training
programs, and related services to enhance
the local economy.
82 add in uses from creative light industrial use Planning
Commission
These are covered under the Intended
Distribution of Land Uses section on the same
page.
82 Delete description of number of stories in first bullet
under building design and orientation
Planning
Commission
Recommend modifying as follows:
This area should be comprised of industrial
buildings or lofts with entries that are visible
from the street.
84 Delete second paragraph under intended
distribution of land uses regarding transfer of
development right program/
Planning
Commission
Delete
85 Not to code mural - delete second photo Planning
Commission
See attached image.
86 Question on whether the General Plan will rectify
some zoning irregularities
Planning
Commission
Yes. Updates to the Zoning Code and Zoning
Map is a critical implementation action
following adoption of the General Plan to
being consistency between the two.
86 Modify land use map for PCH corridor to include
residential uses between 18th and 20th streets
Planning
Commission
Modify Land Use Map on Page 60
88 Delete “in an urban environment” under goal 1 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Providing a balance of housing,
employment, retail and services, recreation,
culture and arts, education, and
entertainment for the City’s residents and
businesses helps to promote sustainability,
safety, prosperity, and well-being of the
community and improves the quality of life
415
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
11
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
for residents.
88 Delete “or transformation” from policy 1.1 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.1 Diverse and distributed land use pattern.
Strive to maintain the fundamental pattern of
existing land uses, preserving residential
neighborhoods, while providing for
enhancement of corridors and districts in
order to improve community activity and
identity
88 Delete “one-half mile” from policy 1.3 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create
sustainable development patterns such that
the majority of residents are within walking
distance to a variety of neighborhood goods
and services, such as supermarkets,
restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners,
laundromats, farmers markets, banks,
personal services, pharmacies and similar
uses.
88 Modify policy 1.9 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.9 Retain commercial land area. Discourage
the conversion of commercial land to
residential uses.
89 Modify policy 2.1 to say encourage rather than
strive
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.1 Complete neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods are complete and well-
structured by encouraging, where
appropriate, the following characteristics:
89 Modify policy 2.3 to delete “accommodate diverse
ages and incomes”
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a
diverse range of housing unit types and sizes,
within the allowed densities.
89 Modify policy 2.9 to focus on existing neighborhood
retail.
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.9 Neighborhood-serving retail. Support the
retention of existing neighborhood-serving
retail and services in key locations throughout
416
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
12
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
the city.
90 Modify policy 2.12 bullet 1 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
• Encouraging homes to engage the street
and integrate with the neighborhood
through the design of new carports/garages
to be subordinate in scale to the primary
dwelling, to minimize views from the street,
and to not occupy the majority of the street
frontage of buildings
90 Modify policy 2.12 bullet 4 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Encouraging property owners to maintain
their yards and the front facades of homes
and discourage the excessive paving of front
yards.
91 Define activity centers in policy 3.3 Planning
Commission
Modify label of policy to read as follows:
3.3 Diverse retail and office centers.
91 Define urban office formats in policy 3.5 Planning
Commission
Recommend adding Urban Office Building
definition to Glossary as follows:
Urban office buildings typically occupy sites
ranging from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet
that can be serviced from alleys, when
present, and where parking is typically
provided underground, off the alley, or off-
site (American Planning Association 2006).
91 Define compact buildings in policy 3.5 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.5 Urban office formats. New employment
uses should be designed in a compact,
urban format with minimal front setbacks
from the street, typical lease spans of 40 feet
or less, and where feasible, combined with
other commercial uses.
92 Modify Goal 4 text to use another term than mixed-
use
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Goal 4. Corridors with a variety of uses
throughout the city that provide opportunities
for shopping, recreation, commerce,
employment and circulation.
417
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
13
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
92 Question on Policy 4.1 about potentially exceeding
the density limits
Planning
Commission
Suggest leaving as-is. The policy is applicable
to commercial corridors only.
92 Modify Policy 4.3 text to use another term than
mixed-use
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.3 Diverse range of uses. Allow a wide
variety of uses to locate in Gateway
Commercial nodes along corridors, including
destination retail centers, lifestyle centers,
hotels, and office employment, among other
uses.
93 Modify Policy 5.6 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
5.6 Preservation and adaptive reuse. Provide
incentives for the preservation or adaptive
reuse of historic structures and iconic
landmarks.
93 Modify Policy 5.7 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
5.7 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to
maintain and enhance neighborhood
character through eclectic and diverse
architectural styles.
94 Modify Policy 6.1 to be specific to multifamily or
commercial
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.1 Outdoor amenities. Require all new multi-
family and commercial development to be
designed and constructed with pedestrian
friendly features such as sidewalks, tree-
shaded streets, buildings that define the
public realm, and, in the case of non-
residential uses, have transparent ground
floor building facades that activate the
street.
95 Modify Policy 6.3 and define green infrastructure Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.3 Green open space network. Establish an
interconnected green open space network
throughout Hermosa Beach that serves as a
network for active transportation, recreation
and scenic beauty and connects all areas of
the city. In particular, connections should be
418
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
14
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
made between the beach, parks, the
Downtown, neighborhoods, and other
destinations within the city. Consider the
following components when designing and
implementing the green/open space
network: • Preserved open space areas such
as the beach and the Greenbelt, • Living
streets with significant landscaping and
pedestrian and bicycle amenities, •
Community and neighborhood parks, and
schools.
95 Discuss minimizing number of curb cuts in policy 6.8 Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. This is current
practice when reviewing new development.
95 Discuss whether shared driveways is a new policy? Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is. Shared driveways
are currently allowed and encouraged in
both commercial and residential
development in Hermosa
95 Discuss - would design standards be a restriction of
property rights?
Planning
Commission
This policy is designed to minimize safety
hazards from vehicles entering and exiting
major corridors in a manner that still allows for
the development and use of a property.
Modify to read as follows:
6.10 Residential garages on major corridors.
Create design standards for the residential
garages fronting on major corridors. Garages
should not dominate the front facades, and
when possible, should be located to the side
or rear of the lot.
96 Modify Policy 7.3 to remove growing capacity Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
7.3 School modernization upgrades. Support
HBCSD plans to renovate and modernize
school facilities to meet evolving educational
needs in a manner that minimizes burdens to
adjacent neighborhoods.
96 Modify Policy 7.6 to remove growing capacity Planning Modify to read as follows:
419
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
15
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
Commission 7.6 School impact fees. Coordinate with the
school district(s) to assess and establish
school impact fees paid by new
development projects.
97 Discuss Policy 8.4 Planning
Commission
Recommend leave as-is. Referring to existing
inventory of low and mid cost overnight
accommodations, and important coastal act
compliance issue
97 Delete Policy 8.6 on short-term rentals Planning
Commission
Delete or modify to read as follows:
8.6 Short-term rentals. Provide for, regulate,
and collect fees related to short-term rentals
located in commercial zones, in a manner
that minimizes potential nuisances associated
with short-term use.
97 Clarify Policy 8.9 so that this is specific to visitor
serving accommodations
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
8.8 Fractional ownership. Prohibit new
fractional ownership of overnight
accommodations in commercially zoned
portions of the Coastal Zone.
98 Bring back for more discussion to clarify which are
derived from the Coastal Act.
Planning
Commission
Note that all of the policies under Goal 9 are
derived from the Coastal Act.
98 Modify Policy 9.1 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
9.1 Ocean-based energy resources.
Encourage and support research and
responsible development of renewable
ocean-based energy sources. Renewable
energy sources appropriate to Hermosa
Beach could include wave, tidal, solar, and
wind sources that meet the region’s and
state’s need for affordable sources of
renewable energy.
99 Comment: Would like all issues to be voluntary only,
initiated only by the property owner. No mandates
by any agency, staff, private party or group. It
would require a change in current policy.
Conversely, once a property owner initiates the
Planning
Commission
With the exception of Policy 10.5 (demolition)
all policies under goal 10 are voluntary.
420
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
16
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
process, they are afforded the benefits of historical
designation
99 Discuss - should language be added to Policy 10.1
designate owner approval of designations?
Planning
Commission
Recommend leave as-is. The City’s adopted
historic preservation ordinance details who is
eligible to request designation (property
owner or City Council)
99 Modify Policy 10.2 and move to after policy 10.5 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
10.2 Public and institutional facilities. Consider
the designation of potentially historic public
or institutional resources under threat of
demolition or deterioration.
99 Discuss - Can City mandate these property rights? Planning
Commission
Recommend leave as-is. This policy uses the
language of discourage.
99 Discuss - Are we already requiring evaluations prior
to demolition?
Planning
Commission
Recommend leave as-is. This policy would
apply to all potentially historic resources,
where the current practice only applies to
discretionary projects (ones that come
before the planning commission).
99 Modify Policy 10.11 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
10.11 Incentives and technical assistance.
Provide expert technical assistance to owners
of potentially eligible and designated historic
properties with tools and incentives to
maintain historic resources.
99 Modify Policy 10.12 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
10.12 Salvage architectural features or
materials. Encourage the preservation or
reuse of historic architectural features on site
or within the community.
100 Modify Policy 11.1 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
11.1 Locally appropriate art. Prioritize public
art that reinforces the identity of Hermosa
Beach, incorporating the culture, people,
neighborhoods and ideas.
101 Modify Policy 12.5 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
12.5 Creative art centers. Encourage the use
421
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
17
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
of the Aviation Blvd Corridor and Cypress
District as regional centers for the creation,
study, and presentation of art.
102 Modify Policy 13.5 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
13.5 Improved livability. Encourage the
provision of neighborhood and community
amenities and design features, to meet the
community desire for a very high quality,
amenity-rich, livable community.
Modify Policy 13.6 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
13.6 Connecting health and land use. Seek
to incorporate health considerations into
land use planning decisions in a manner that
improves health and well-being.
Mobility Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
109 Incorporate additional discussion of pedestrian
access into second paragraph
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
The City’s 22 walk streets and The Strand
provide safe and plentiful pedestrian
connections between Downtown, residential
neighborhoods, and the beach, while
walking paths on the Hermosa Valley
Greenbelt and continuous sidewalks along
Prospect Avenue provide north-south
connections away from the beach.
111 Grammar note on graphic Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Complete streets are streets that:
Are safe for everyone
Support livable communities
Support a vibrant economy
Encourage health active lifestyles
111 Grammar note on graphic Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
People-oriented streets serve multiple
422
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
18
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
community functions that promote healthy,
active lifestyles and create a public realm
that provides vibrant and welcoming
gathering spaces.
114 Double Check Maps in Figure 3.6 Staff Note Maps are correct.
118 Change title of Figure 3.7 Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Figure 3.7 Intended Street Classifications
118 Add Aviation Blvd as Major Arterial Public Works
Commission
Will modify map to reflect major arterial
119 Incorporate Safe Routes to School Map Planning
Commission
Staff is working with the School District to
update the Safe Routes to School Map which
will be inserted as Figure 3.10
119 Change title of Figure 3.8 Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Figure 3.8 Intended Pedestrian Facilities
120 Change title of Figure 3.9 Staff (consistency
with commission
comments
above)
Modify to read as follows:
Figure 3.9 Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use
Facilities
120 Clarify that prospect would not result in a loss of
parking
Planning
Commission
Recommend leaving as-is and adding a new
policy under Goal 3 as follows:
Policy 3.11. Site specific conditions. Evaluate
and incorporate any site specific conditions
or restrictions on public property or right-of-
ways during the design and engineering
phases for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
120 Consider separated bike path along the strand -
particularly with the addition of separated lanes in
manhattan and redondo
Public Works
Commission
See comment above on adding Policy 3.11
120 look at deed restriction on greenbelt for facilities -
specific about bike path
Public Works
Commission
See comment above on adding Policy 3.11
121 Change title of Figure 3.10 Staff (consistency
with commission
comments
above)
Modify to read as follows:
Figure 3.10 Intended Transportation Amenities
123 Modify policy 1.2 to simplify text Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.2 Street Classification design standards.
423
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
19
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
Create context-sensitive street classification
design standards that will provide the City
and adjacent land uses with consistent
designs that accommodate multiple modes
of travel.
123 Modify policy 1.5 (note conflicting comments from
Planning Commission and Public Works)
Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Modify to read as follows:
1.5 Require improvements. Require new
development to provide or pay its fair share
of transportation and infrastructure
improvements which may include sidewalk
improvements, landscaping, bicycle
infrastructure, traffic calming, and public
realm improvements.
124 Modify Policy 2.5 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.5 Require sustainable practices.
Incorporate environmental sustainability
practices into designs and strategic
management of road space and public
right-of-ways, prioritizing practices that can
serve multiple infrastructure purposes.
125 Modify Policy 3.1 Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Modify to read as follows:
3.1 Repurpose public right-of-ways. Where
right-of-way clearance allows, repurpose
public right-of-ways to enhance connectivity
for pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled persons,
and public transit stops.
125 Change title for Policy 3.2 Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.2 Complete pedestrian network.
125 Modify Policy 3.3 to limit to on-site, adjacent, and
exclude smaller residential
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.3 Active transportation. Require
development or redevelopment projects to
accommodate active transportation by
providing on-site amenities, necessary
connections to adjacent existing or planned
pedestrian and bicycle networks, and
incorporate people-oriented design
424
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
20
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
practices.
125 Modify Policy 3.5 to remove low-speed Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.5 Incentivize other modes. Incentivize local
shuttle/trolley services, rideshare and car
share programs, and developing
infrastructure that support low carbon (e.g.
electric) vehicles.
126 Modify Policy 4.3 to add employee parking Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.3 Reduce impacts. Reduce spillover parking
impacts due to employee parking, and
seasonal and event-based demands
126 Modify Policy 4.4 to make explicit to preferential
parking program
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.4 Preferential parking program. Ensure the
provision of subsidized on-street residential
parking through the preferential parking
program is limited to residences which
cannot provide adequate parking on-site.
126 Modify Policy 4.7 to address new technology for
parking management
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.7 Parking availability. Optimize parking
availability through dynamically adjusted
pricing and new technology to manage
available spaces for short-term parking use to
encourage rates of turnover that are
responsive to fluctuating demands.
126 Modify Policy 4.10 to clarify title Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Modify to read as follows:
4.10 Visitor parking information. Manage
information about passes and accessing
public parking lots to facilitate use by longer-
distance visitors with limited transportation
choices.
127 Modify Policy 5.5 to define smart growth and
remove term mixed developments
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
5.5 Multimodal development features.
Encourage land use features in development
projects to create compact, connected,
and multimodal development that supports
reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and
425
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
21
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
greater ability to utilize alternative modes of
travel.
128 Modify Policy 6.2 for clarity Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.2 Regional travel patterns. Consider
regional travel patterns when collaborating
on regional transit and transportation projects
to ensure investments facilitate greater
mobility and access for residents, businesses,
and visitors to and from Hermosa Beach.
128 Split Policy 6.3 into policy for mobility sharing
options and city equipment sharing
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.3 Transportation sharing programs.
Facilitate greater local and regional mobility
through programs for shared equipment or
transportation options such as car sharing
and bike sharing.
And suggestion of a new policy under
Sustainability + Conservation Element Goal 1:
Equipment sharing. Explore opportunities to
share, lease, or jointly utilize equipment for
City operations.
129 Modify Policy 7.3 to align with street classifications Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
7.3 Provide street lighting. Provide pedestrian-
oriented specific street lighting for enhanced
pedestrian and bicycling safety on all minor
and major arterial streets.
129 Modify Policy 7.5 to clarify desire for consistency
across sidewalk widths
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
7.5 Appropriate sidewalk widths. Encourage
design and construction plans to incorporate
sidewalks that are consistent in width to
safely accommodate high levels of
pedestrian activity.
129 Split Policy 7.6 (note that the installations portion of
the policy is covered by policy 7.2)
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
7.6 Pro-active traffic enforcement. Conduct
pro-active traffic enforcement along streets
where high collision rates, high speeds, and
other unsafe behaviors are reported.
426
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
22
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
129 Add a policy about education programs for
bicyclists, skateboards to facilitate user safety
Planning
Commission
Add new Policy as follows:
7.8 Active transportation education and
safety. Promote the participation in
pedestrian, bicycle, and skateboard safety
and education programs to facilitate safe
and confident use of alternative modes of
transportation.
130 Add term sustainability to the glossary Planning
Commission
Add term to glossary as follows (from US EPA):
The pursuit of sustainability is to create and
maintain the conditions under which humans
and nature can exist in productive harmony
to support present and future generations.
130 Re-examine designated truck routes Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
8.1 Minimize truck impacts. Maintain and
regularly re-evaluate the designation of truck
routes to minimize the negative impacts of
trucking through the city.
130 Modify Policy 8.3 to incorporate on-site commercial
loading zones where possible
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
8.3 Reduce traffic conditions. Encourage
businesses to provide commercial loading
zones on-site where possible, or in the
adjacent public right-of-way in a manner
that balances the needs of businesses with
the impact on traffic conditions.
130 Modify Policy 8.6 to provide an example of mobile
advertising and consider noise.
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
8.6 Prohibit mobile advertising. Consider
prohibiting mobile advertising, such as
moving billboards, to avoid unnecessary
traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution.
130 Add a policy about taxi loops and drop-offs Planning
Commission
Add new Policy as follows:
8.7 Transportation network company zones.
Work with the City’s transportation network
company service providers (e.g. taxis, Uber,
Lyft) to establish safe and convenient pick
up/drop off zones.
427
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
23
Sustainability + Conservation Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
136 Update last sentence under Air Quality if/when City
Council takes action.
Planning and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
In 2012, the City of Hermosa Beach launched
the Healthy Air Hermosa initiative creating a
smoke-free environment at public outdoor
gathering spaces such as Pier Plaza. In 2016,
the Healthy Air Hermosa initiative was further
expanded to limit smoking from all public
spaces throughout Hermosa Beach including
the beach, parks, and city sidewalks.
136 Add some form of description under the water
conservation section about where we get our
water from
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Water service is provided by California Water
Service’s Hermosa-Redondo District using
groundwater, imported surface water, and
recycled supplies. Groundwater satisfies
between 10% and 15% of the water demand
in any given year, while recycled water
generally makes up approximately 1 percent
of the total water served. The remainder of
the water supply provided to Hermosa Beach
is purchased from West Basin Municipal
Water District which utilizes imported water
from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the
California State Water Project, as well as
groundwater supplies in Southern California.
138 Note Public Works Commission agrees with
Planning Commission comments on the policies
Public Works
Commission
No change needed.
138 Correct grammatical error Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.3 Align reductions with sources. Pursue a
diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction
strategies across the range of municipal
activities that generate greenhouse gas
emissions.
138 Modify Policy 1.4 (note PC recommendation to
remove discussion of offsets, and PW
Planning
Commission and
Modify to read as follows:
1.4 Local offset projects. When necessary,
428
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
24
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
recommendation to keep but specify local) Public Works
Commission
Implement local community projects to offset
emissions that cannot be eliminated within
municipal operations.
138 Modify Policy 1.7 Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
Highlight the City’s carbon neutrality efforts
as a means to attract and encourage
additional investment and new green and
clean tech business enterprises.
138 Add a policy regarding ongoing evaluation and
reporting on progress and a policy similar to 2.6
(specific to grants only)
Public Works
Commission
Add new Policies as follows:
1.8 Evaluation and progress reports. Regularly
evaluate and provide reports on progress
toward greenhouse gas reduction goals and
project results.
1.9 Seek grant funding. Support
implementation of greenhouse gas reduction
projects through the use of grant funding,
rebates, and other incentive opportunities.
139 Modify policy 2.2 to define term or use alternative
term
Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.2 Health and economic benefits. Prioritize
the implementation of greenhouse gas
reduction projects that simultaneously
provide the greatest economic and health
benefits to the community.
139 For 2.5 match with language in Policy 1.4 Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.4 Local offset projects. When necessary,
Implement local community projects to offset
emissions that cannot be eliminated within
municipal operations.
139 Modify Policy 2.6 Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
2.6 Grants and incentives. Seek additional
source of funding to support implementation
of greenhouse gas reduction projects for the
City, as well as residents and businesses.
139 Combine policies 2.7 and 2.8 and separate or
highlight differences between commercial and
residential
Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Modify to read as follows:
2.7 Greenhouse gas emissions thresholds.
Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds
429
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
25
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
Commission for use in evaluating discretionary projects
consistent with the California Environmental
Quality Act and require projects above that
threshold to substantially mitigate all feasible
greenhouse gas emissions, and offset the
remainder of greenhouse gas emissions
produced to meet thresholds.
140 Modify to remove reference to vehicle miles
traveled from policy 3.2
Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.2 Mobile source reductions. Support land
use and transportation strategies to reduce
emissions, including pollution from
commercial and passenger vehicles.
140 Modify policy 3.4 to use more common terminology Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.4 Landscape equipment. Discourage the
use of landscape equipment with two-stroke
engines and publicize the benefits and
importance of alternative technologies.
140 Be explicit within policy 3.6 that the aim is to reduce
cigarette smoke
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
3.6 Healthy Air Hermosa. Maintain high
quality outdoor and public spaces in
Hermosa Beach through the Healthy Air
Hermosa program, which aims to reduce
cigarette smoke.
141 Modify policy 4.1 Planning
Commission and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.1 Renewable energy generation. Require,
promote, or facilitate the installation of
renewable energy projects on homes and
businesses.
141 Remove Policy 4.2 (already required by state law) Public Works
Commission
Delete
141 Modify Policy 4.3 to mention incentives Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
4.3 Retrofit program. Provide an energy
retrofit program and incentives to assist home
and building owners to make efficiency
improvements.
141 Modify Policy 4.4 to clarify terminology Modify to read as follows:
430
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
26
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
4.4 Rental efficiency. Adopt a financing
program to incentivize rental efficiency
retrofits that benefit both the owner and
tenant.
142 Modify Policy 5.1 to include term purple pipes and
improve clarity
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
5.1 Recycled water facilities. Increase the
availability of recycled water supply (i.e.
purple pipes) and facilitate the installation of
distribution facilities throughout the city to
conserve potable water use.
142 Delete greywater from policy (already covered in
policy 5.5)
Planning and
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
5.2 Rainwater collection. Encourage
innovative water recycling techniques such
as rainwater capture and use of cisterns for
outdoor watering purposes.
143 Modify policy 6.2 to specify desire to keep materials
from the landfill
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.2 Food waste collection. Ensure food waste
collection is available and convenient for all
residents, businesses, and organizations to
divert materials from landfills.
143 Modify policy 6.3 to specify future opportunity for
single-stream recycling
Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
6.3 Multi-family and commercial recycling.
Require the provision of convenient recycling
options in multi-family residential and
commercial uses, until single-stream services
make it unnecessary to separate recycling
from other materials.
143 Add a policy under goal 6 to periodically evaluate
and consider new opportunities to achieve greater
diversion rates.
Public Works
Commission
Add new Policy as follows:
6.10. Evaluate recycling and waste diversion
opportunities. Periodically evaluate and
consider new opportunities to achieve
greater waste diversion rates.
144 Add a new policy under goal 7 to address loss of
soil on private development projects during
construction
Planning
Commission
Modify Policy 7.2 as follows:
7.2 Soil erosion. Utilize best management
practices in grading and construction to
minimize the amount of sediment running
431
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
27
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
onto the street, drainage facilities, or
adjacent properties.
Parks + Open Space Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
145 Add the importance of parks on health and quality
of life
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify fourth sentence as follows:
Parks and open space play a key role in
sustainability and contribute to the health
and quality of life for the community.
146 Note that parking and mobility is central to Coastal
Access
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Noted and covered in mobility Element.
146 Describe how these fees match up with our
spending on parks.
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
For FY 16/17, the Capital Improvement
Program has identified $758,779 for Park
Improvement Projects. In comparison, the
Park and Recreation In Lieu Fee was
expected to collect $222,570 in FY 15/16.
148 Some of the parkettes are missing from Table 5.1 Public Works
Commission
Sandhill Parkette (Manhattan and Loma Dr)
to be added to Table and Figure 5.1
149 Delete blue square at water service property Planning
Commission
Delete
149 Highlight skate park Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify Label 20 as follows:
Community center + skate park
149 Delete portion of community center label that is
owned by Alano club.
Planning
Commission
Label is accurate in depicting community
center boundaries.
149 Add Prospect school building to legend Planning
Commission
Add new Label 24 as follows:
Prospect Avenue School Building
150 Modify last sentence of first paragraph regarding
activities at South Park.
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
South Park, located at 425 Valley Drive,
provides lawn areas, a new play area, a
community garden, and is also used for
organized sports.
151 Has this area between Valley and Loma drive been
identified as a natural resources or open space?
Parks and
Recreation
This slope is owned by the properties located
on the valley side of the slope (Marineland
432
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
28
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
Who owns this space? There was a group doing
native plantings within that area as well.
Commission Mobile Home Park, School District, properties
along Power Drive). The biological resources
section of the Environmental Impact Report
identifies this area as non-native/ornamental
vegetation, but there are currently no
restrictions or requirements associated with
this area.
151 Provide a reference in this section back to the
mobility element where safe routes to school will be
highlighted.
Public Works
Commission
Add a sentence to the end of paragraph
two as follows:
Initiatives to create a complete and
connected safe routes to school network
(see Figure 3.10 in the Mobility Element)also
serve to better connect parks and public
facilities throughout the city.
151 Indicate community size park, but that we have
increased access to parks for residents by providing
parkettes and small open spaces, and school
facilities are being utilized as outdoor play areas
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify paragraph one as follows:
Even in neighborhoods with existing parks,
many residents are located farther from a
community-sized park than the commonly
accepted standard of access of one quarter
mile walk distance, although parkettes,
school facilities and small open spaces help
to increase access to open space.
152 Add that the City does not have a viewshed
ordinance.
Planning
Commission
Modify paragraph one as follows:
While the City has not previously enacted a
viewshed ordinance, views of the Pacific
Ocean are plentiful, and on a clear day,
there are several locations that provide views
of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the south,
the Santa Monica Bay and Santa Monica
Mountains to the north, and the Los Angeles
Basin and San Gabriel Mountains to the east
and inland.
152 A new map has been developed from the EIR that
is recommended for inclusion to depict the
prominent public viewpoints in Hermosa Beach
Staff Note Insert a new figure as follows:
Figure 5.3 Prominent Public View Points
And insert reference to new Figure 5.3 in
433
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
29
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
paragraph one on page 152.
153 make sure access to the beach includes all
aspects of parking, mobility, walking, biking - we
don't need more walk street access
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Coastal Access in relation to parking,
mobility, walking, biking is covered in the
Mobility Element.
153 Consider an expansion or a future divide of the
strand similar to Manhattan Beach - or looking to
relieving congestion along the strand during high
activity periods
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
This concept is addressed in the Mobility
Element with the proposed addition of Policy
3.11.
154 Coastal Zone Boundary is not consistent with other
maps
Planning
Commission
Recommend Figure 5.3 be updated and
replaced with map that is consistent with
other figures in the document and to add
parking facilities.
154 Add public parking facilities and restricted parking
to this map
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
See note above.
154 Double check the number of vertical access points Planning
Commission
See note above.
155 Change to swingsets Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify paragraph two as follows:
The beach area offers numerous public
amenities distributed through and includes 4
sets of restrooms, 14 lifeguard towers, 76
volleyball courts, 4 sets of swing sets, and 6
beach tennis courts
155 Define other amenities Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Recommend add a footnote to Figure 5.4 as
follows:
Other amenities include items such as
swingsets, water fountains, bike parking, or
the beach tennis courts.
155 Identify seasonal swim zone Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Recommend Figure 5.4 be updated to reflect
seasonal swim zone and surf zone.
155 Identify surf zone Parks and
Recreation
Commission
See note above.
156 Draw a distinction between events at the beach vs
events at parks.
Parks and
Recreation
Recommend modifying paragraph one as
follows:
434
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
30
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
Commission The City of Hermosa Beach receives
applications for nearly 100 special events
each year to be held at the City’s parks and
beach. Events range in size from dozens of
people participating in volleyball
tournaments to thousands of people
attending concerts, fiestas, parades, and
beach events.
159 Switch order of Goals 1 and 2 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Recommend re-ordering
159 Modify Policy 1.1 (note Planning Commission
direction to simplify and Parks and Rec direction to
add pet owners to list).
Planning
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.1 Diverse programs and facilities. Offer
diverse recreational programs and facilities
to meet the needs of all residents.
159 Modify Policy 1.4 Public Works
Commission
Modify to read as follows:
1.4 Park expansion opportunities. Consider
the purchase or re-use of city-owned surplus
property to create additional parks and
open space as opportunities arise to expand
existing parks or create new parks.
159 Add a policy that speaks to prioritizing investment
and maintenance of existing facilities prior to
development and expansion of new facilities
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Add new policy as follows:
1.6 Investment and maintenance. Prioritize in
the investment and maintenance of existing
facilities prior to development and expansion
of new facilities.
160 Add a policy to regularly review maintenance and
review of existing park facilities - community needs
and facility safety assessments
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Add new policy as follows:
2.5 Evaluate community needs. Conduct a
periodic review of community park needs
and interests to inform maintenance and
investment priorities.
160 Call out the greenbelt and speak to improvements
for lighting and emergency access ( note from
Planning Commission that it should be in
accordance with ballot initiative restrictions)
Parks and
Recreation and
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.3 CPTED principles. Utilize “Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design” (CPTED)
Principles in the design and renovation of
new and existing parks and open space
435
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
31
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
facilities, including the greenbelt.
161 Switch policies 3.1 and 3.1, change to community-
friendly
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Switch policies 3.1 and 3.2 and modify as
follows:
Community-friendly events. Encourage,
permit, and support community group,
nonprofit, or business organized events on
City property that support physical activity,
beach culture, and family-friendly social
interactions.
161 Modify policy 3.3 to state regulate and enforce Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
3.3 Commercial use of facilities. Regulate
and enforce commercial use of City parks
and open spaces to ensure activities do not
impact general use and enjoyment.
161 Modify policy 3.5 to change terminology Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
3.5 Health and physical activity. Increase the
variety of space and activities that promote
community health and physical activity such
as community gardens, fitness
stations/equipment, and fields/courts.
161 Delete policy 3.6 (already covered in 3.5) Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Delete
162 Accessibility of wheelchairs and bikes on local
circulator
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Add a sentence to the end of paragraph
below Goal 4 as follows:
Additionally, the creation of a local trolley or
circulator that can accommodate bicycles,
strollers, and wheelchairs with stops at local
parks would enhance access and
connections to open space.
162 Modify policy 4.2 to focus on access across major
thoroughfares – problem not adjacent to parks
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
4.2 Enhanced access points. Increase and
enhance access to parks and open space,
particularly across major thoroughfares and
access points that promote physical activity
such as pedestrian- and bike-oriented access
436
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
32
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
points.
162 Rewrite policy 4.4 Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
4.4 ADA accessibility. Install ADA amenities
and equipment so that all parks, beach, and
trail networks are accessible to all persons.
162 Rewrite policy 4.5 to prioritize parking spaces for
users that need to drive
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
4.5 Accessible parking. Consider prioritizing
parking areas adjacent to parks for those
that need to drive (handicap, elderly, etc),
and as access to parks for alternative modes
is enhanced.
163 Modify Goal 5 to remove protected. Planning
Commission
Modify goal as follows:
Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and
resources are enhanced.
163 Modify Policy 5.1 to evaluate rather than protect
and specify to be coastal views.
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.1 Identify public coastal views. Identify the
public view points, view corridors, and
viewsheds from which coastal scenic vistas
can be observed.
163 Modify Policy 5.2 to be consistent with rather than
preserve views
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.2 Visual character. Accommodate
economic growth and new buildings in a
way that is consistent with and reflects the
visual character of the community.
163 Delete Policy 5.3 Planning
Commission
Recommend modification rather than
deletion as follows:
5.3 Building sites and designs. Massing, height,
and orientation of new development
adjacent to the prominent public viewpoints
identified in Figure 5.3 should be sited and
designed to protect public coastal views to
and along the ocean and scenic areas.
163 Clarify Policy 5.4 in regards to protection of public
views and landscape design
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.4 Landscape design. Consider public
access to public views and vistas and
encourage both public and private
437
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
33
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
landscape design that protects or enhances
those views.
163 Policy 5.5 – Planning Commission recommends
deletion, Parks and Recreation Commission
recommends modifying
Planning
Commission, Parks
and Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.5 PCH scenic corridor. Enhance Pacific
Coast Highway as a potentially scenic
highway and important view corridor.
163 Delete Policy 5.8 Planning
Commission, Parks
and Recreation
Commission
Delete
164 Modify Policy 6.2 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.2 Coastal sign program. Coordinate the
design of signs and graphics in the Coastal
Zone to clearly mark coastal views and
access points in a manner that is consistent
with City signage.
164 Modify Policy 6.5 Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.5 Wayfinding and coastal access. Maximize
bicycle and pedestrian access and safety
getting to and around the Coastal Zone
through infrastructure and wayfinding
improvements.
164 Modify Policy 6.9 to enhance rather than create
additional
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.9 Maximize open space. Maximize the use
of and enhance parkettes, open space, and
pedestrian amenities along The Strand.
164 Modify Policy 6.10 to remove “strive to” Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.10 Paid parking. Provide parking payment
systems that respond to demand and
improve ease of use.
164 Modify Policy 6.12 to be less specific Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.12 Comprehensive bike and pedestrian
network. Prioritize completion of proposed
improvements in the Coastal Zone that
connect to other bike routes and paths
throughout the city and to the surrounding
438
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
34
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
region.
165 Modify Policy 7.5 Planning
Commission and
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
7.5 Designated recreational uses. Continually
evaluate and explore devoting certain
portions of the beach to different preferred
recreational uses while providing access for
all users and meeting the recreation needs of
visitors and residents.
165 Modify Policy 7.6 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
7.6 Children’s recreational equipment. Ensure
that children’s recreational equipment like
slides, swings, and climbing apparatus are of
a non-obstructive design. Locate near major
or primary entrances to the beach, at least
100 feet from the Strand wall.
166 Specify within the goal that this is focused on
beach events.
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify goal as follows:
Goal 8. Special events at the beach are
balanced to support community recreation
and economic development without
restricting coastal access or impacting the
community.
166 Modify Policy 8.4 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.4 Family-focused events. Prioritize events
that appeal to a wide segment of
community members.
166 Modify Policy 8.5 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.5 Volleyball courts. Ensure volleyball courts
are available for public use.
166 Modify Policy 8.9 to clarify large events Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.9 Special event review process. Employ a
multi-departmental special event review for
events with more than 500 people.
167 Modify Policy 9.1 to use different terminology Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
9.1 Protect critical habitats. Preserve, protect,
and improve remaining open space areas to
the greatest extent possible to improve on
439
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
35
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
existing limited habitats and prevent further
elimination of species.
167 Modify Policy 9.3 to capitalize title Public Works
Commission
9.3 Beach habitat.
168 Change all policies to non-invasive and drought
tolerant, and focus these just on public spaces
Planning
Commission
Rather than specifying for public property
(10.5 and 10.6), suggest changing language
to encourage Modify policy as follows:
10.2 Non-invasive landscapes. Encourage the
planting of native, non-invasive, and
drought-tolerant landscaping and trees, and
encourage the planting of edible landscapes
and fruit trees.
168 Modify Policy 10.4 Planning
Commission and
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
10.4 Scenic features. Ensure landscaping,
trees, and green spaces on public property
are designed to conserve scenic and natural
features of Hermosa Beach.
Public Safety Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
169 Add consideration of visitors into the public safety
section
EPAC Addressed throughout the policies
170 Differentiate between public safety (police/fire)
and public health and safety (natural and other
hazards)
EPAC State law requires the General Plan to
address natural hazards, but does not require
addressing police/fire services, it was
however added in to address a topic that is
locally important.
170 Separate noise into own element from public safety
section
EPAC Can be separated, note implications of
adding additional content to introduction
chapter and other sections.
175 Move climate change impacts and adaptation to
another element (should not be in public safety)
EPAC Suggest topic remains. Climate Change
impacts most directly correlate with
addressing natural hazards, which are
required in the safety element.
175 Note updated sea level rise maps Staff Note Updated maps with more detail on various
440
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
36
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
sea level rise scenarios are recommended for
inclusion.
177 Update titles of Emergency Manager and EPAC
under preparedness events and drills
Staff Note Modify text as follows:
In Hermosa Beach, the responsibility for
reducing risk and exposure engages many
departments, including Community
Development, Public Works, and the Fire
Department, in particular the City’s
Emergency Manager. Additional support for
emergency preparedness policy and
education in Hermosa Beach is provided by
the City’s Emergency Preparedness Advisory
Commission. Educational programs, events,
and drills like the Annual Fire Inspection
Program, the Tsunami Walk, and the Great
California Shakeout ensure the community
and City staff are prepared and ready to
respond quickly to reduce injury and
damage in the event of a disaster.
178 Modify Fire Protection paragraph to note HBFD
responsibilities.
EPAC Modify text as follows:
The Hermosa Beach Fire Department (HBFD)
provides fire protection, emergency medical
services, and disaster preparedness and
response. The mission of the HBFD is to
protect life and property from fire and other
emergencies through incident response,
public education, and code enforcement.
HBFD operates one fire station located at 540
Pier Avenue, and maintains the City’s
emergency operations center, and
emergency notification systems and social
media platforms.
In the event that HBFD responsibilities are
contracted to another agency, this
paragraph can be modified at a later time.
179 Add in section on manmade hazards (cbrne) EPAC Add sentence to the end of section as
441
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
37
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
follows:
Additionally, in the event of a chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive
(CBRNE) release within or near Hermosa
Beach, the City would work with the LA
County Operational Area on through mutual
aid agreements to respond.
179 Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) is the formal
name of the program (under Automatic External
Defibrillators)
Staff Note Change first sentence to read as follows:
The purpose of the Hermosa Beach Public
Access Defibrillation Program
179 Change locations where AEDs are placed Staff Note Change last sentence to read as follows:
The goal of Hermosa Beach AED program is
to deliver defibrillation to a cardiac arrest
victim within three to five minutes after
collapse by placing AED’s throughout City
facilities.
180 Consider whether this information will still be
relevant in long-term document
Planning
Commission
Recommend changing title as follows:
Police + Fire Community Programs and Events
180 CERT Team and Police Volunteers – would like to
see a commitment to volunteers
EPAC Covered in Policy 4.2
181 Compare crime rates to other local cities –
Redondo, Manhattan, El Segundo
EPAC Recommend against including statistics from
other communities in HB document.
181 Replace Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) with Crime Prevention through
Smart Technology
EPAC Modify text as follows:
In addition to police protections, and the
increased use of surveillance technologies,
the City can reduce crime through smart
environmental design. The concepts of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) offer non-invasive measures to
prevent crime in the city. The central tenets
of CPTED include clearly demarcating
property boundaries, designing buildings and
spaces to face streets for natural surveillance
purposes, controlling access to sites and
buildings through pathways and bollards,
supporting legitimate street level recreational
442
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
38
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
activities, and maintaining public spaces.
CPTED concepts enable developers and
designers to incorporate crime prevention
measures into building design and City staff
to incorporate crime prevention intentions
into maintenance and recreation program
schedules.
182 Add community police academy description EPAC Add text as follows:
Hermosa Beach Community Police Academy
The Hermosa Beach Community Police
Academy (CPA) is designed to inform
residents and local citizens on the various
aspects of law enforcement. The free course
is designed for Hermosa Beach residents and
business owners who are interested in
learning more about how the Hermosa
Beach Police Department functions and
operates.
182 Check name of program Staff Note Program name is accurate
183 Consider intermittent noise levels as well from
louder motor vehicles
EPAC Other intermittent noise levels are addressed
on pages 187-188
191 Modify Policy 1.1 to add a temporal component,
modify text to include other applicable regulations
EPAC and
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
1.1 Evaluate risks. Buildings and infrastructure
will be periodically evaluated for seismic, fire,
flood, and coastal storm hazard risks and
identified risks will be minimized by complying
with California Building Code standards and
other applicable regulations.
191 Modify Policy 1.3 to be more general EPAC and
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
1.3 Tsunami Playbook. Work with Los Angeles
County and utilize resources such as the
Tsunami Playbook in the evaluation and
response of tsunami risk.
191 hazards and our streets (evacuation
routes/congestion) should be addressed within the
public safety section with policy to provide
EPAC Add new policy 1.12 as follows:
1.12 Evacuation routes. Identify and regularly
evaluate or update evacuation and
443
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
39
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
crossover between mobility and safety response procedures through the Emergency
Operations Plan.
192 Move policies under goal 2 to another section out
of public safety
EPAC Suggest topic remains. Climate Change
impacts and sea level rise most directly
correlate with addressing natural hazards,
which are required in the safety element.
192 Modify Policy 2.1 to specify applicability within the
Coastal Zone
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.1 Integrate resilience. Integrate resilience to
anticipated sea level rise impacts into project
designs when repairing and replacing aging
infrastructure within the coastal zone.
192 Modify Policy 2.2 to use different terminology Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.2 Sea level rise impacts. Require new
development and redevelopment projects
to consider and address relevant sea level
rise impacts.
192 Modify Policy 2.5 Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.5 Maintain beach widths. Maintain or
expand current beach widths under
changing sea level conditions.
192 Clarify terminology on Policy 2.6 Staff Note Modify policy as follows:
2.6 Consider combined effects of hazards.
Consider the combined effects of sea level
rise when evaluating potential tsunami and
storm surge impacts.
192 Add a new policy about using the sand excavated
from construction projects to be used for beach
nourishment or replenishment
Public Works
Commission
Add policy as follows:
2.9 Beach nourishment and replenishment.
Consider allowing construction projects with
sand excavation to add sand for beach
replenishment or nourishment purposes.
193 Add a new policy to address hazardous waste
disposal from construction
Planning
Commission
Add a policy as follows:
3.6 Hazardous waste disposal. Revise,
update, and maintain hazardous waste and
construction materials standards for the
proper disposal of hazardous waste.
194 Modify policy 4.2 to add in volunteer programs EPAC Modify policy as follows:
444
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
40
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
4.2 Promote community-based and volunteer
programs. Promote community-based
programs in fire safety and emergency
preparedness, including neighborhood-level
programs and community volunteer groups
such as CERT, Neighborhood Watch,
Volunteers in Policing and the Amateur Radio
Association.
194 Modify policy 4.5 to be specific to neighborhood
watch
EPAC Modify policy as follows:
4.5 Responsive neighborhood groups.
Encourage neighborhood groups, including
Neighborhood Watch, to identify, consider,
and prepare for the needs of neighbors with
access and functional needs to adequately
respond to disasters.
194 Modify policy 4.6 EPAC, PW,
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
4.6 Vulnerable populations. Incorporate
procedures into emergency and hazard
mitigation plans to take care of vulnerable
populations during hazardous events.
194 Add policy to reiterate communication portals and
use advertising programs during events.
EPAC Modify policy as follows:
4.4 City media and communication
resources. Establish communication protocols
and utilize City media resources, emergency
alert notification systems, and program
advertising to provide information and
communicate with the community prior to,
during, or after events posing risk to
community health safety, and welfare.
194 Add policy to communicate new risks as they are
identified and evaluated
EPAC Add Policy as follows:
4.7 Communicate risks. Regularly evaluate,
identify, and communicate new hazard risks
and incorporate into planning and programs.
195 Add staffing to policy 5.1 EPAC Modify policy as follows:
5.1 High level of response. Achieve optimal
utilization of allocated public safety resources
445
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
41
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
and provide desired levels of response,
staffing, and protection within the
community.
195 Modify policy 5.2 to add smart or surveillance
technology
EPAC Modify policy as follows:
5.2 Use of technology. Provide and use smart
surveillance technology and communication
systems to improve crime prevention and
inform the community regarding actions to
take in case of emergency.
195 Modify/split policy 5.3 into two policies. EPAC and
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.3 Physical design standards. Reduce
opportunities for criminal activity through
physical design standards and Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design
principles.
5.4 Crime prevention outreach programs.
Offer youth programs, recreation
opportunities, educational programs, and
other services to encourage crime
prevention behavior.
Modify policy 5.6 to address day to day nuisance
control
EPAC and
Planning
Commission
Note that day-to day nuisance abatement is
a concern of funding and has been
supported by hiring of additional code
enforcement officers in 2016.
Modify policy as follows:
5.6 Nuisance abatement. Encourage Police
Department review of uses which may be
characterized historically by high levels of
nuisance providing for conditions of control
of use to prevent adverse impacts on
adjacent residences, schools, religious
facilities, and similar “sensitive” uses.
195 Add policy on commitment to adequate police
and fire staffing levels
EPAC This comment addressed in changes to
policy 5.1
195 Add a policy seeking all available options relating
to grants for enforcement of DUI and to minimize
EPAC Add new policy as follows:
5.7 Police and Fire enforcement grants.
446
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
42
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
and abate nuisances Pursue grant funding and other outreach
programs to minimize and abate nuisances.
196 Modify policy 6.1 EPAC Modify policy as follows:
6.1 Regularly update plans. Regularly update
disaster preparedness and emergency
response plans, in a manner that is compliant
with state and federal standards.
196 Modify policy 6.3 EPAC Modify policy as follows:
6.3 Invest in critical facilities. Dedicate funds
to upgrade and maintain essential facilities
(including EOC, Police/Fire Facilities, and City
Hall) to make them more resilient to the
potential impacts of natural disasters.
196 Modify policy 6.4 to broaden to say essential
facilities
EPAC Modify policy as follows:
6.4 Post-disaster evaluation. The City’s
essential facilities shall be the top priority in
conducting post-disaster building
evaluations.
196 Modify policy 6.5 to include economic and
community benefits
EPAC Modify policy as follows
6.5 Optimize community benefits. Ensure that
post-disaster recovery decisions optimize
long-term community and economic
benefits.
197 Modify policy 7.3 to include “or equivalent city
policy or code”
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
7.3 Noise analysis and mitigation. Require all
proposed development projects and
modifications to existing developments to be
compatible with the existing and future noise
levels by using the Land Use/Noise
Compatibility matrix shown in Table 6.4, or
equivalent city policy or code. Where
proposed projects are not located in an area
that is “clearly compatible”, the City will
require that an acoustical study be prepared
as a condition of building permit approval
demonstrating compliance with the noise
447
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
43
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
standards shown in Table 6.3.
197 Modify policy 7.5 to include “or equivalent to” Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
7.5 Noise ordinance. Establish a quantitative
noise ordinance based on or equivalent to
Chapter 12.08 of the Los Angeles County
Code.
198 Change policy numbers Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.1 Transportation facility compatibility.
(change numbers on subsequent policy)
198 Modify policy 8.1 (as written) to clarify terminology Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.1 Alternative modes of transportation.
Reduce noise impacts by encouraging the
use of walking, biking, carpooling, use of
public transit, and expanding alternative
modes of transportation.
198 Modify policy 8.2 to remove table reference Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.2 Traffic calming. Where roadway noise
levels exceed the “normally compatible”
range shown in the Land Use/Noise
Compatibility Matrix, consider the
implementation of traffic calming measures
such as reduced speed limits or roadway
design features to reduce noise levels
through reduced vehicle speeds and/or
diversion of vehicular traffic.
198 Modify policy 8.3 EPAC Modify policy as follows:
8.3 Enforcement. Increase the enforcement
of the posted speed limit and the noise
standards included in the State’s Motor
Vehicle Code to reduce noise impacts from
vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
198 Modify policy 8.5 to be more general Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
8.4 Public transit. Work with transit agencies
to establish bus routes that meet public
transportation needs and minimize noise
impacts in residential areas.
448
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
44
Infrastructure Element
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
203 Delete second paragraph – note Public Works
recommendation to update paragraph
Public Works and
Planning
Commission
Delete
204 Add coordination with utilities/agencies during
roadway repair projects to policy 1.3
Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
1.3 Right-of-way coordination. Ensure
infrastructure maintenance and repair
projects within the public right-of-way are
coordinated with utilities and agencies to
minimize additional roadway repaving or
accelerated deterioration.
204 Modify/leave policy 1.4 (note PW and PC
difference in recommendation) on timing of
requirements
Public Works and
Planning
Commission
Leave as-is
204 Retitle policy 1.9 Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
1.9 Preventative street maintenance projects.
Include street slurry projects and other
preventive projects in the CIP each year, with
sufficient funding.
204 Add new policy add a policy to use permeable
pavement for low travel streets and minimize the
use of concrete on streets, medians, etc.
Public Works
Commission
Add new policy as follows:
1.10 Permeable pavement. Where feasible,
use permeable pavement for low travel
streets and minimize the use of concrete on
streets and medians.
205 Add a new policy that Existing standards and right
of ways will be updated and evaluated to ensure
consistency in street or public realm design
throughout a street segment
Planning
Commission
This comment has been addressed in the
mobility element and implementation
actions.
205 Modify policy 2.5 to include widening sidewalks
where possible and add ADA accessibility
Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.5 Active transportation dedications.
Require new development and
redevelopment projects to provide land or
infrastructure necessary to accommodate
449
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
45
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
active transportation, such as widened
sidewalks, bike racks, and bus stops, in
compliance with ADA accessibility standards.
205 Modify policy 2.7 to include private construction
projects
Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
2.7 Restore to City standards. Require utility,
other service providers, and private
construction projects working in the public
right-of-way to restore or improve trench
areas to return the site to conditions that
comply with City standards and prevent
roadway and sidewalk deterioration.
206 Modify policy 3.3 to re-write policy Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
3.3 Recycled water infrastructure. Encourage
the use and integration of dual plumbing
system hookups to accommodate recycled
water into new development.
206 Modify policy 3.6 Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
3.6 Water infrastructure. Support the
development of water storage, recycling,
greywater treatment, and necessary
transmission facilities to meet necessary
water demand.
208 Modify policy 5.3 to include goal of capturing
stormwater and prevent runoff
Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.3 Natural features. Integrate natural
features, such as topography, drainage, and
trees, into the design of streets and rights-of-
way to capture stormwater and prevent
runoff.
208 Modify policy 5.4 Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.4 Conservation behavior. Encourage
community behavior changes to reduce
urban runoff pollution by incentivizing the
capture of rainwater to prevent runoff and
meet onsite water demand.
208 Spell out NPDES in Policy 5.7 Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.7 Stormwater permits. Strictly implement,
450
PLAN Hermosa Commission Comments and Suggested Changes
46
Page # Comments or Questions Provided Source Staff Change/Response
enforce, and monitor MS4 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit
requirements through stormwater ordinances.
208 Modify policy 5.8 Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
5.8 Low impact development. Require new
development and redevelopment projects
to incorporate low impact development (LID)
techniques in project designs, including but
not limited to on-site drainage improvements
using native vegetation to capture and
clean stormwater runoff and minimize
concrete.
208 Add a policy to Evaluate existing systems and
retrofit to meet current standards and infiltration
best practices.
Planning
Commission
Add policy as follows:
5.9 Evaluate and retrofit. Evaluate existing
systems and retrofit to meet current
standards and infiltration best practices.
209 Modify policy 6.2 to encourage the phase out
rather than phase out
Public Works
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.2 Below ground utilities. Encourage the
phase out and replace overhead electric
lines with subsurface lines to reduce visual
obstructions and the need for utility poles
which can impede sidewalk accessibility.
209 Modify policy 6.6 to make more broad Planning
Commission
Modify policy as follows:
6.6 Renewable energy procurement.
Collaborate with nearby local and regional
agencies to provide greater renewable
energy choices to the community.
209 Add a new policy 6.7 on improved reliability of
electric transmission
Public Works
Commission
Add policy as follows:
6.7 Electric transmission and distribution
system reliability. Improve reliability of the
electric transmission and distribution system
through advocacy and collaboration with
nearby cities.
210 Delete policy 7.4 on revenues from
telecommunications
Planning
Commission
Delete
451
PLAN Hermosa - Draft Implementation Actions
October 26, 2016
1
Governance
GOVERNANCE-1. Periodically review and consider whether new commissions, working
groups, or task forces are needed to accomplish City goals.
GOVERNANCE-2. Develop and regularly refine the City’s policy and best practices for
community engagement, communications, and use of technology to engage a diverse
and broad spectrum of the community it the decision-making process.
GOVERNANCE-3. Identify and implement opportunities to utilize technology and digital
resources to improve delivery of services to the community.
GOVERNANCE-4. Continue to participate and partner with neighboring cities and
regional organizations to implement projects and achieve goals that enhance the
livability of Hermosa Beach.
GOVERNANCE-5. Incorporate guidance related to Native American consultation and
treatment of prehistoric and Native American resources into local CEQA guidelines for
Hermosa Beach.
GOVERNANCE-6. Establish and maintain a business support toolkit to assist in the
attraction and retention of local businesses that serve the needs of the community.
GOVERNANCE-7. Partner with the Beach Cities Health District and local health institutions
to develop and implement a Health in All Policies framework and implementation
checklist.
GOVERNANCE-8. Prepare General Plan annual progress reports, including an assessment
of community indicators and status of implementation programs to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Land Use + Design
LAND USE-1. Amend the Zoning Map to bring consistency between PLAN Hermosa Land
Use Designations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Districts.
LAND USE-2. Establish development standards to correspond with any new land use
designations with consideration of neighborhood character areas.
LAND USE-3. Develop building design guidelines to illustrate and articulate the
appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area. The
Design Guidelines shall be tailored to:
Identify and safeguard the prominent visual characteristics of each character
area in accordance with those key features and characteristics to ensure that the
overall visual character of the neighborhoods, centers, and districts is preserved.
452
Draft Implementation Actions
2
Include provisions that ensure avoidance of significant shadow impacts from new
structures onto public recreational areas, parks or other public gathering places
during the hours of 10 AM to 2 PM.
LAND USE-4. Develop and periodically update standards and procedures to conduct
design review, and incorporate the design review process into the Zoning Code.
LAND USE-5. Integrate the intensity standards/ Floor Area Ratios established for non-
residential land uses into the Zoning Code.
LAND USE-5. Establish a design review process to confirm development projects have a
form, scale, and massing that is compatible with the character of each area, as defined
in PLAN Hermosa, and consistent with the applicable density/intensity standards.
LAND USE-6. Develop an inventory of underutilized or surplus property that may be
appropriate for City or School District use or purchase to serve community education and
recreational needs in the future.
LAND USE-7. Establish within the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan a method to
define and classify existing facilities and proposed projects providing overnight
accommodations in the Coastal Zone as low, mid-range, or high cost, and apply this
method to the Coastal Development Permit review process. The method should
compare hotel room rates to the California statewide and regional averages, and should
be updated as the City's fee schedule is updated.
LAND USE-8. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan and Zoning Map to
better accommodate coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, as follows:
Establish definitions for coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses consistent
with the California Coastal Act. For each, identify a list of priority uses that meets
the definition.
Contract the C-2 (Downtown Commercial) zone district to match the Recreational
Commercial land use designation.
Modify the permitted use tables to allow specific coastal-dependent commercial
uses in the C-1, C-2, and SPA 11 zone districts.
Modify the permitted use tables to allow coastal-dependent and coastal-related
industrial uses in the M-1 zone district.
LAND USE-9. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan to require any proposal
for visitor-serving accommodations providing a majority of units at mid-range or high-cost
levels to include public amenities such as plazas and spaces, restaurants, retail units,
garden viewing areas, or other day-use features that may be used by the general public
at no or relatively low cost. The quality and quantity of required amenities will be
determined in the Coastal Development Permit review process. This requirement does not
prohibit the proposed project from charging a user fee or resort fee for active amenities
such as pool and spa access, recreation activities and equipment, or organized group
activities on the property.
453
PLAN Hermosa
3
LAND USE-10. Establish a visitor-serving accommodations fee program for new high-cost
overnight accommodations. Fee revenues may provide funding to support specific
projects that preserve (first priority) or establish (second priority) low- or mid-cost overnight
visitor accommodations that improve access to the coast by providing visitors with an
affordable place to stay overnight. Collaborating with the Coastal Commission, the City
shall prepare and maintain a list of specific projects that fee revenues may be used to
support.
LAND USE-11. Require new visitor-serving accommodations within the Coastal Zone to
maintain or improve public access to the coast by establishing and applying the
following development review requirements in the Zoning Code/Local Implementation
Plan:
Where a new hotel or motel development project would consist entirely of high-
cost overnight accommodations, the development shall be required to provide
mitigation as a condition of approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Such
mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a mitigation payment consistent with
the City’s visitor-serving accommodations fee program.
If a hotel or motel project proposes a certain number or percentage of on-site low
or mid-range cost units, such units shall remain available as low or mid-range cost
units for the life of the project.
LAND USE-12. Protect existing visitor-serving accommodations within the Coastal Zone by
establishing and applying the following development review requirements in the Zoning
Code/Local Implementation Plan:
Any development project that directly displaces existing low and mid-range cost
accommodations in the Coastal Zone shall provide an equivalent number of
rooms or accommodations at an equivalent nightly rate in the Coastal Zone, or
elsewhere within the City of Hermosa Beach.
Replacement units must be subject to deed restrictions recorded against the title
of the property so that they mitigate the displacement of lower- and mid-range
cost accommodations for the life of the project.
LAND USE-13. Create a checklist and resource guide comprising local, state, and federal
requirements for the development of offshore renewable energy facilities to streamline
permitting requirements and improve public awareness.
LAND USE-14. Amend the CEQA documentation and initial study process to ensure
cultural and historical resources are studied in accordance with CEQA and any local
historic preservation programs.
LAND USE-15. Develop eligibility criteria to use in the designation of local historic sites or
historic districts.
LAND USE-16. Develop emergency preparedness and disaster response plans for cultural
resources, including a recovery action plan that addresses long-range decisions likely to
be faced by the City following a major disaster, including economic recovery, protocols
454
Draft Implementation Actions
4
for demolition or restoration of damaged historic structures, and fee deferral for repair
permits.
LAND USE-17. Create a program to provide for the voluntary installation of plaques
and/or public art related to historic buildings and sites in the city.
LAND USE-18. Establish design review procedures and establish effective means to
protect architectural features that have historical significance. Use the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards to evaluate impacts of alterations or new development on historical
resources.
LAND USE-19. Prepare design guidelines that illustrate and highlight important historic
design features of buildings.
LAND USE-20. Research and develop innovative policies for preserving historic properties.
LAND USE-21. Work with community organizations to develop brochures, guides, walking
tours, and other marketing materials to highlight existing public art in Hermosa Beach.
LAND USE-22. Develop historic preservation expertise among staff and decision makers on
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, preservation ordinances, the
State Historical Building Code, environmental review for historical resources, and tax
credits and incentives.
LAND USE -23. The City shall require archaeological investigations for all applicable
discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for areas not previously
surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural resources. The City shall require
the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined
based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible
or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery,
or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.
LAND USE-24. Modify zoning and development standards to ensure the production of art,
artist studios, and art galleries are defined, allowed, and encouraged in commercial and
light industrial zones.
LAND USE-25. Conduct and maintain an inventory of spaces suitable for both temporary
and permanent public art installations.
455
PLAN Hermosa
5
Mobility
MOBILITY-1. Conduct an inventory and assessment of the City’s sidewalk network to
identify gaps, assess ADA accessibility, and prioritize improvements within the Capital
Improvement Program.
MOBILITY-2. Evaluate City right-of-ways and establish or update width and design
standards for the construction or maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and parkways.
MOBILITY-3. Add definitions to the Municipal Code for street classifications, pedestrian
facilities, bicycle and multi-use facilities, and transportation amenities.
MOBILITY-4. Install new signage and instructions for accessing transit locations, local and
regional bicycle routes, and parking meters/machines in the Coastal Zone where existing
meters and machines have been shown to cause confusion for visitors.
MOBILITY-5. Evaluate operations in local neighborhood streets with considerations to
speed management strategies and traffic calming measures to increase safety for all
people using the street.
MOBILITY-6. Install traffic calming devices in areas appropriate to mitigate an identified
and documented traffic concern, as determined by the City Public Works Director or
designee. Potential traffic calming applications include clearly marked and/or protected
bike and pedestrian zones, bike boulevards, bulb outs, median islands, speed humps,
traffic circles, speed tables, raised crosswalks, signalized crosswalks, chicanes, chokers,
raised intersections, realigned intersections, and textured pavements, among other
effective enhancements.
MOBILITY-7. Work with commercial property owners to conduct an assessment for
utilization of private parking supplies to supplement private and public parking needs
and evaluate the potential for shared use agreements or MOUs.
MOBILITY-8. Implement a contingency-based overflow parking plan to address seasonal
and even- based parking demands.
MOBILITY-9. Periodically conduct a city-wide parking study to analyze existing parking
infrastructure in order to effectively address and manage current and future parking
needs.
MOBILITY-10. Set utilization and turnover rate goals and implement dynamically adjusted
(demand-based) pricing strategies for public parking supplies.
MOBILITY-11. Develop a smart technology street parking system in the Coastal Zone that
includes but is not limited to the following features:
Variable-cost parking linked to demand;
Smart phone application identifying available metered spaces; and
Parking pay-by-card and pay-by-phone programs.
456
Draft Implementation Actions
6
MOBILITY-12. Maintain and periodically update the Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Ordinance with activities that will reduce auto trips associated with new
development.
MOBILITY-13. Install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and
electric vehicle charging stations so that they are available at each commercial district
or corridor, park, and public facility.
MOBILITY-14. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone.
MOBILITY-15. Install additional bicycle parking facilities and wayfinding signage near the
beach, the Pier, and The Strand.
MOBILITY-16. Identify access improvements including, but not limited to, additional bus
stop pullouts, bus parking locations, a seasonal shuttle system, and drop off/pick up
areas, and prioritize these improvements in the five-year Capital Improvement Program.
MOBILITY-17. In conjunction with the Hermosa Beach City School District, the City will
identify school access points, a proposed network, education and enforcement
programs to provide a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program.
MOBILITY-18. Develop congestion management performance measures and significant
impact thresholds that are in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and Senate Bill 743 (S.B. 743) requirements for roadway segments and
intersections.
Sustainability + Conservation
SUSTAINABILITY-1. Establish a local greenhouse gas impact fee for projects to offset their
fair share of greenhouse gas emissions generated, by providing funding for
implementation of local GHG reduction projects.
SUSTAINABILITY-2. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance and
standardize potential mitigation measures for both discretionary and ministerial actions.
SUSTAINABILITY-3. Develop marketing materials and participate in conferences and
events to highlight the City’s leadership efforts and sustainable beach city brand.
SUSTAINABILITY-4. Identify, prioritize, and implement greenhouse gas reduction projects
utilizing the City’s carbon reduction planning tools for community and municipal
operations.
SUSTAINABILITY-5. Regularly monitor and evaluate the City’s greenhouse gas emissions
inventory and report on progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals.
SUSTAINABILITY-6. Implement the City’s clean fleet policy through the purchase or lease of
vehicles and equipment that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
457
PLAN Hermosa
7
SUSTAINABILITY-7. Concurrent with new State Building Code adoptions, periodically
update or amend Green Building Standards and conduct cost effectiveness studies to
incorporate additional energy-efficient features.
SUSTAINABILITY-8. Develop and market a program to offer incentives such as rebates, fee
waivers, or permit streamlining to facilitate the installation of renewable energy, energy
efficient, or water conservation equipment.
SUSTAINABILITY-9. Maintain and periodically update the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance and Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan sections of the
Municipal Code to facilitate the use of new technologies or practices to conserve water.
SUSTAINABILITY-10-. Create and adopt a Zero Waste Action Plan to reach 100% waste
diversion from landfills.
SUSTAINABILITY-11. Amend the Municipal Code to require that all commercial facilities
make full-service recycling available for both customer use and business use, placing
attractive and convenient bins in clear locations.
SUSTAINABILITY-12. Require that all multi-family residential uses provide an adequate
number of attractive and convenient recycling bins to serve the number of units in the
complex.
SUSTAINABILITY-13. Require that all restaurants use compostable single-use items like
takeout boxes.
SUSTAINABILITY-14. Create and update a standard requirement for the use of recycled
materials in new development and redevelopment projects.
SUSTAINABILITY-15. In City-sponsored renovation or remodeling projects, contract with
companies that offer salvage services and maximize the use of such services.
SUSTAINABILITY-16. Revise the Municipal Code as necessary to ensure it reflects up-to-
date practices to reduce potential for soil erosion and ways to minimize or eliminate the
effects of grading on the loss of topsoil.
SUSTAINABILITY-17. Develop a citywide expansive and corrosive soils screening tool to
reduce the need for site-specific soil reports.
SUSTAINABILITY-18. Where feasible, new development or redevelopment shall be sited
and designed to minimize alteration of natural landforms by conforming to the local
topography; preventing substantial grading or reconfiguration of the project site;
requiring that man-made contours mimic natural contours; ensuring that graded slopes
blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding areas; and clustering structures
to minimize site disturbance and to minimize development area.
458
Draft Implementation Actions
8
Parks + Open Space
PARKS-1. Conduct needs assessments and evaluate recreational program offerings to
ensure community needs and priorities are being met. Conduct regular updates to the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
PARKS-2. Conduct periodic assessments of public facilities and maintain a list of priority
replacement or new facilities projects.
PARKS-3. Establish parks level of service and level of access standards to prioritize the
development, upgrade, and renovation of parks and open space facilities.
PARKS-4. Update City standards and fees related to the provision of parks and open
space and sustainable funding source for providing high quality and well maintained
facilities.
PARKS-5. Construct parkettes, open space, and pedestrian amenities at street ends as
they intersect with The Strand.
PARKS-6. Continue, renew, and expand as needed, joint use agreements with the School
District to allow community use of school fields and facilities.
PARKS-7. Partner with the School District, community groups, and neighboring
communities to identify and apply for grant opportunities to maintain, enhance, and
expand park and recreational opportunities.
PARKS-8. Identify and evaluate the ADA compliance of parks, public facilities, and
coastal public access points.
PARKS-9. Install accessible walkways at parks and onto the beach while minimizing or
avoiding negative effects on the aesthetics and ecology of the beach environment.
PARKS-10. Develop and apply design standards and evaluation procedures for
development projects that have the potential to degrade regionally important views or
interfere with prominent public viewpoints, as identified in PLAN Hermosa.
PARKS-11. Protect public views of the Pacific Ocean by establishing and applying the
following development review requirements:
Locate new and relocated utilities underground when possible. Place and screen
all other utilities to minimize public visibility.
Replace automobile-scale streetlights with shorter, pedestrian-scale streetlights
where safe and appropriate.
Fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block views of scenic areas from
designated viewpoints, scenic roads, parks, beaches, and other public viewing
areas.
PARKS-12. Protect visual and aesthetic resources through design review and by
establishing and applying the following development review requirements:
459
PLAN Hermosa
9
New development in areas visible from prominent public viewpoints shall
incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding
landscape.
Public works projects adjacent to prominent public viewpoints that include
hardscape elements such as retaining walls, cut-off walls, abutments, bridges, and
culverts shall incorporate veneers, texturing, and colors that blend with the
surrounding earth materials or landscape.
Landscaping material shall be used to screen uses that detract from the scenic
quality of the coast from prominent public viewpoints.
PARKS-13. Minimize nighttime light pollution by establishing and applying the following
development review requirements:
Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety
lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity fixtures, shielded (full cutoff),
and downcast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture)
concealed to the maximum feasible extent so that no light source is directly visible
from public viewing areas, there is no glare or spill beyond the property lines and
the lamp bulb is not directly visible from within any residential unit.
PARKS-14. Minimize the negative aesthetic impacts of signs by establishing or revising and
applying the following design requirements:
Enforce appropriate limits on height, size, design, and materials of signs.
Prohibit signs other than traffic or public safety signs that would obstruct views to
the ocean, beach, parks, or other scenic areas.
Enforce sign maintenance controls.
Continue restrictions on the use of lights and moving parts in signs, billboards, and
rooftop signs.
PARKS-15. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan to prohibit use of the
public beach for private commercial purposes without a Coastal Development Permit.
PARKS-16. Develop and implement a uniform coastal access sign program to assist the
public to locate and use coastal access points. Consider adding signs to walk streets that
intersect with Hermosa Avenue.
PARKS-17. Identify and remove any unauthorized/unpermitted structures, including signs
and fences that inhibit visibility of public coastal access points.
PARKS-18. Protect public access to the coast by establishing and applying the following
development review requirements:
Require a direct dedication of an easement for access in all new development
projects that cause or contribute to adverse public access impacts. Access ways
shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian passage and
landscape buffer.
460
Draft Implementation Actions
10
Implement building design and siting regulations to protect public access through
setbacks and other property development regulations that control building
placement.
New development and redevelopment projects shall protect public accessibility
to walk streets and street ends that provide access to the shoreline, the beach,
and The Strand.
New or improved beach access facilities shall accommodate persons with
physical disabilities.
PARKS-19. Provide detailed transit information to visitor centers and to local tourist
commercial businesses, and encourage them to share these materials with visitors and
patrons.
PARKS-20. Amend the Municipal Code to update administrative procedures for special
events occurring in the Coastal Zone. New administrative procedures include, but are not
limited to, the following:
The City will continue to utilize the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources
Advisory Commission for event oversight.
The Recreation and Community Resources Department will continue to administer
the special event process, and in coordination with the Community Development
Department, will determine whether a proposed special event requires a Coastal
Development Permit.
If required, a Coastal Development Permit application will be processed by the
Community Resources Department. The Parks, Recreation, and Community
Advisory Commission will consider the application and make a recommendation
of the Coastal Development Permit to the City Council.
The City Council will consider Coastal Development Permit applications following
review by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission
and may grant the permit following a public hearing. City Council actions related
to Coastal Development Permits may be appealed to the Coastal Commission.
PARKS-21. Amend the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code requirements to
implement the following provisions for special events:
Coastal Development Permits are not required for events that:
a) are within the adopted days used by event standard,
b) require fewer than 10 reserved parking spaces in the Coastal Zone on any
setup or event day, and
c) require payment of an admission fee for no more than 25% of scheduled event
activities.
Special Events not requiring a Coastal Development Permit are subject to
prescriptive traffic, parking, resource, access, and cleanup mitigation strategies
identified in the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code. The City will list each
event and identify the number of event days used and dedicated parking spaces
required on the annual Master Events Calendar.
461
PLAN Hermosa
11
A Coastal Development Permit is required for events that:
a) exceed the adopted Days Used by Event (DUE) standard,
b) require 10 or more reserved parking spaces in the Coastal Zone on any setup or
event day, or
c) require payment of an admission fee for 25% or more of scheduled event
activities.
Such events requiring a Coastal Development Permit shall incorporate event-
specific mitigation strategies to be specified in the Coastal Development Permit.
The Coastal Development Permit may be recommended by the Parks, Recreation,
and Community Advisory Commission to the City Council for approval and may
be appealed to the Coastal Commission.
PARKS-22. Amend the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code to require applicants for
summer events occurring on weekends or holidays between Memorial Day and Labor
Day with greater than 1,000 participants to provide and advertise predetermined shuttle
services and bicycle corrals.
PARKS-23. Participate in regional and inter-jurisdictional environmental management and
mitigation plans and programs such as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan.
PARKS-24. Partner with local nonprofits such as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Commission or the University of California, Los Angeles, to conduct education
demonstration projects or presentations on coastal and marine habitat conservation.
PARKS-25. Evaluate existing beach conditions and identify areas that may be
appropriate to restore vegetated dune habitat. Pursue grant funding.
PARKS-26. Review and revise as needed, the City’s tree ordinance to ensure protection of
existing parkway trees, and update the master tree list.
PARKS-27. Complete and maintain a citywide public tree inventory, including quantity,
species type, diameter, condition, trimming strategies and geo-codes and
recommendations.
PARKS-28. Maintain a list of approved plantings for trees and landscaping within City
parkways.
PARKS-29. Amend the municipal code to incorporate tree removal and replacement
requirements. If preservation of existing mature trees is not feasible, removed trees shall
be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio either on-site, or elsewhere as prescribed by the City.
462
Draft Implementation Actions
12
Public Safety
SAFETY-1. Continue to adopt and enforce the most up-to-date California Building
Standards Code and California Fire Code, with appropriate local amendments.
SAFETY-2. Continue to inventory unreinforced brick masonry, soft-story, and other
seismically vulnerable private buildings. Identify potential funding sources to assist with
seismic retrofits.
SAFETY-3. Enforce seismic design provisions of the current California Building Standards
Code related to geologic, seismic, and slope hazards, with appropriate local
amendments.
SAFETY-4. For properties identified as possibly containing acidic, expansive, or collapsible
soils, require site-specific soil condition reports and appropriate mitigation as a condition
of new development.
SAFETY-5. Evaluate tsunami preparation, evacuation, and response policies/practices to
reflect current inundation maps and design standards. Include updated information in
the periodically updated hazard mitigation plan.
SAFETY-6. Evaluate the landslide potential of a project site and require implementation of
landslide mitigation measures when, during the course of a geotechnical investigation,
areas prone to landslide are found. Potential landslide mitigation measures include, but
are not limited to the following:
Avoidance: Developments should be built sufficiently far away from the threat
that they will not be affected even if a landslide does occur.
Reduction: Reduction of landslide hazards should be achieved by increasing the
factor of safety of the landslide area to an acceptable level, based on current
engineering standards and practices. This can be accommodated by eliminating
slopes with active/inactive landslides, removing the unstable soil and rock
materials, or applying one or more appropriate slope stabilization methods (such
as buttress fills, subdrains, soil nailing, crib walls, etc.)
SAFETY-7. Require projects located within the Liquefaction Areas identified in PLAN
Hermosa to evaluate the liquefaction potential and require implementation of mitigation
measures when, during the course of a geotechnical investigation, shallow groundwater
(60 feet or less) and potentially liquefiable soils are found. Potential liquefaction mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to, soil densification or compaction, displacement
or compaction grouting, and use of post-tensioned slab foundations, piles, or caissons.
SAFETY-8. Support community safety and fire protection standards by establishing and
applying the following development review requirements to be reviewed by HBFD and
HBPD as appropriate:
New development and significant redevelopment projects shall coordinate with
HBFD and Cal Water to provide and maintain adequate peak flow rates for
firefighting.
463
PLAN Hermosa
13
New development, significant redevelopment, and public improvement projects
shall ensure that building designs provide for adequate emergency access and
that changes to the right-of-way do not impede access for emergency
responder’s apparatus or personnel.
SAFETY-9. Continue working with regional partners to develop a local sea level rise model
that evaluates erosion potential, provides detailed inundation maps, and provides
combined sea level rise and tsunami maps.
SAFETY-10. When the mean high water level exceeds 1 foot above the baseline level,
partner with FEMA as a cooperating technical partner to conduct a Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Study, and facilitate necessary revisions to applicable Flood Insurance Rate
Maps.
SAFETY-11. Prepare for changing shoreline conditions by establishing and applying the
following development review requirements:
Require new development or redevelopment project proposals within the
designated area subject to flooding, inundation, or erosion due to sea level rise to
describe and illustrate in site plans how the proposed project considers and
mitigates potential flood hazards during the economic lifespan of the structure.
Potential flood mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, flood proofing;
increased ground floor elevation (a minimum of 1-foot freeboard); ground-floor,
flood-resistant exterior materials; and restricting fencing or yard enclosures that
cause water to pond.
Require new development or redevelopment projects to assure stability and
structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion,
geologic instability, or destruction of the project site or surrounding area.
As local flood, erosion, and tsunami data becomes more precise, amend the
General Plan and Zoning Code to establish more specific development standards
and conditions.
SAFETY-12. Amend the Municipal Code to establish a definition of “economic lifespan” for
structural development as between 75 to 100 years, unless otherwise specified, and
provide restrictions for specific development proposals.
SAFETY-13. Amend the Municipal Code to require flood risk disclosure and active
acknowledgment of expanded flood risk when properties subject to inundation or
flooding are developed or redeveloped.
SAFETY-14. Continue to participate in regional sediment management planning.
SAFETY-15. Develop a long-term adaptive shoreline management program with a strong
preference for beach replenishment over shoreline protective structures.
SAFETY-16. Include updated hazardous materials considerations in regular Emergency
Operation Plan updates and work with the County of Los Angeles to update local
Hazardous Materials Area Plans on a regular basis.
464
Draft Implementation Actions
14
SAFETY-17. Provide information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for the
proper disposal of toxic materials to avoid environmental degradation to the air, soil, and
water resources from toxic materials contamination.
SAFETY-18. Designate an emergency response team to monitor and respond to regional
disasters such as oil spills and other shoreline disasters. Such a team must maintain an
emergency response plan that includes coordination with other agencies and
jurisdictions in the region on initial response, aid, and recovery.
SAFETY-19. Regularly evaluate crime trends and police services, facilities, personnel, and
response times relative to community needs and established state and federal standards.
SAFETY-20. Establish and meet EMS and Fire response time standard of 7 minutes or less for
90% of incidents.
SAFETY-21. Enhance and maintain Police Department staffing and facilities to meet
established proactive time targets and clearance rates that exceed national averages.
SAFETY-22. Continue to support existing mutual and automatic aid agreements providing
additional fire and police resources needed during an emergency, as feasible.
SAFETY-23. Continue investing in “Reverse 911” call services and other technologies to
inform the community about immediate hazards and public safety concerns.
SAFETY-24. Periodically update the emergency operations plan.
SAFETY-25. Periodically update the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan and concurrently
amend the Public Safety Element to maintain eligibility for maximum grant funding.
SAFETY-26. Develop a recovery action plan that addresses long-range decisions likely to
be faced by the City following a major disaster, including economic recovery, protocols
for demolition or restoration of damaged historic structures, and fee deferral for repair
permits.
SAFETY-27. Inventory critical facilities, key pieces of infrastructure, and other public
buildings that are exposed to seismic shaking or are at an elevated risk of liquefaction
and conduct retrofits or improve emergency power backup to reduce vulnerability.
SAFETY-28. Review critical facilities proposed for development or expansion to ensure that
hazardous conditions are mitigated or hazard reduction features are incorporated to the
satisfaction of the responsible agencies.
SAFETY-29. Identify hazard-specific evacuation routes and share with the public,
businesses, and other government agencies.
465
PLAN Hermosa
15
Noise
NOISE-1. – Incorporate or request the inclusion of soundwalls, earthen berms, or other
acoustical barriers as part of any roadway improvement project adjacent to a residential
area, school, or other sensitive land use, where necessary to mitigate identified adverse
significant noise impacts.
NOISE-2. – Enforce and periodically evaluate truck and bus movements and routes to
reduce impacts on sensitive areas, and promote coordination between the Police
Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the State Motor Vehicle noise
standards, to minimize or reduce noise impacts on residential and other sensitive land
uses.
NOISE-3. – Apply the Noise Element standards of compatibility described in PLAN
Hermosa to new development proposals. Require the mitigation of anticipated impacts
through design features such as building orientation and acoustical barriers, to ensure
compatibility.
NOISE-4. – Require new multi-family development, single-family development, and
condominium conversion projects to meet the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title
24 of the California Administrative Code) for interior and exterior noise levels.
NOISE-5. – Acoustical analysis reports prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant shall
be required for new sensitive land uses within noise impact areas (i.e., those areas where
the existing or future CNEL exceeds 60 dB).
NOISE-6. –Adopt and enforce a quantitative Noise and Vibration Ordinance to reduce
excessive noise and vibration from site-specific sources such as construction activity,
mechanical equipment, landscaping maintenance, loud music, truck traffic, loading and
unloading activities, and other sources.
NOISE-7. –Periodically review adopted noise standards, policies and regulations affecting
noise in order to conform to changes in legislation and/or technologies.
NOISE-8. –Comply with all state and federal OSHA noise standards, and all new
equipment purchases shall comply with state and federal noise standards.
466
Draft Implementation Actions
16
Infrastructure
INFRASTRUCTURE-1. Create a comprehensive, long-range (20-year) infrastructure plan
integrating roadway, water, wastewater, stormwater, waste disposal, and utility
infrastructure systems.
Consider the best available science describing potential climate change
impacts as a basis for preparing the infrastructure plan.
Use the infrastructure plan as a resource when preparing five-year Capital
Improvement Plans (CIPs) and setting and enforcing discretionary
development requirements.
Incrementally update the infrastructure plan following the preparation of each
CIP to ensure it remains consistent with changes in growth, traffic, funding
sources, climate change impacts, and state and regional regulation.
INFRASTRUCTURE-2. Coordinate planning and approval processes for proposed projects
to enable the siting and installation of all necessary facilities and infrastructure before or
during construction or renovation activities.
INFRASTRUCTURE-3. Review and, if needed, revise the Municipal Code to require utility
and service providers to restore or improve streets, sidewalks, and other public areas
following maintenance or repairs.
INFRASTRUCTURE-4. Amend the Zoning Code to define essential utilities to include
electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, water, sewer, and waste collection services,
and require installation of all essential utilities prior to occupation of proposed
development and redevelopment projects.
INFRASTRUCTURE-5. Require, as a part of development review, new development and
redevelopment projects to designate areas where public infrastructure must be
accommodated and to require either a land dedication or provision of the needed
infrastructure by the project applicant.
INFRASTRUCTURE-6. Aggressively seek regional, state, and federal funds to leverage local
money earmarked for projects listed in the CIP.
INFRASTRUCTURE-7. Periodically review, and if needed revise, the development fee
schedule and impact fee process to ensure they are adequate and reflective of
proposed projects’ impacts and required services.
INFRASTRUCTURE-8. Improve the environmental compatibility of utility and infrastructure
facilities by establishing and applying the following standards to new development and
redevelopment projects involving utility installation or relocation:
New utilities must be located away from, or constructed in a manner compatible
with, critical habitat areas, resources, and the shoreline. Physical and service
constraints may not allow relocation away from or full compatibility with such
areas and resources.
467
PLAN Hermosa
17
INFRASTRUCTURE-9. Consult with Cal Water to estimate and evaluate water supplies,
provide public information and incentives for water conservation best practices.
INFRASTRUCTURE-10. Install greywater systems and rainwater collection cisterns in parks
and community facilities.
INFRASTRUCTURE-11. Support efforts by Cal Water to construct necessary pump and
storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper water system balance.
INFRASTRUCTURE-12. Amend the Municipal Code to require the installation of dual water
plumbing hookups for landscaping irrigation, grading, and other non-contact uses in new
development and redevelopment projects where recycled water is available or
expected to be available.
INFRASTRUCTURE-13. Continue to implement the Water Conservation and Drought
Management Plan and any implementing ordinances, including imposition of fines and
other appropriate enforcement tools, for violations of water conservation rules.
INFRASTRUCTURE-14. Ensure adequate and resilient sewer system capacity by establishing
and applying the following development review requirements:
New development or redevelopment projects involving construction of 8-inch
diameter or larger sewers that connect directly or indirectly to the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts' sewer system must prepare a sewer plan identifying
that the existing sewer collection and treatment systems have available capacity
to support such an increase, or provide for necessary system upgrades as part of
the proposed project.
INFRASTRUCTURE-15. Hold quarterly meetings between Public Works, Community
Development, and other City departments to coordinate Sewer System Management
Plan implementation measures and operations.
INFRASTRUCTURE-16. Implement a financing plan, including use of the adopted sewer fee
and loans, to ensure that resources are available for investment in annual rehabilitation
projects to improve sanitary sewer pipes.
INFRASTRUCTURE-17. Prepare an annual report for City Council documenting sewer
system operations, actions to minimize overflows, incidents of overflows, and their impacts
on receiving waters and public health and safety.
INFRASTRUCTURE-18. Continue to implement and incorporate revisions to the Clean Bay
Restaurant Program and Grease Control Ordinance.
INFRASTRUCTURE-19. Update program requirements to integrate the latest available Best
Management Practices into the City Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance, and Green Streets Policy and
regularly monitor results.
468
Draft Implementation Actions
18
INFRASTRUCTURE-20. Complete municipal demonstration projects showing residential and
business property best practices in urban runoff, green streets, and LID.
INFRASTRUCTURE-21. Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects
to incorporate green street BMPs that address stormwater runoff from the project area
using the Green Street BMP Selection Guidelines identified in Attachment A of the City’s
Green Street Policy.
INFRASTRUCTURE-22. Continue to install educational signs or symbols on major public
storm drains.
INFRASTRUCTURE-23. Develop a process for identifying sites deemed appropriate for
alternative renewable energy power generation facilities, and provide such information
to utility providers and potential developers.
INFRASTRUCTURE-24. Continue to implement energy-efficient lighting throughout City
facilities.
INFRASTRUCTURE-25. Survey all streetlights periodically for functionality and create a
response protocol to respond to reports of streetlight outages within a 24-hour time
period.
INFRASTRUCTURE-26. Develop criteria and procedures to facilitate the installation of
telecommunications infrastructure in a manner that meets service needs and minimizes
visual, noise, or other impacts to the community.
469
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 21, 2016
To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission
From: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Subject: PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Discussion of
Carbon Neutrality
Recommendation:
The focus of this special meeting is to:
Introduce and provide an overview of the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for PLAN Hermosa;
Provide an opportunity for the public to deliver formal comments and input on the Draft
EIR; and
Provide the Commission and the community with an opportunity to discuss potential
carbon neutrality goals.
This meeting is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear and discuss the Environmental
Impact Report and the topic of carbon neutrality, however the Commission will not make any final
decisions or recommendations at this meeting regarding PLAN Hermosa and the Draft EIR.
Background
In July 2013, the City of Hermosa Beach initiated the process of updating and integrating the
City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program, collectively referred to as PLAN Hermosa. The
City has received two grants for this effort, from the Strategic Growth Council for a
‘Comprehensive Blueprint for Sustainability and a Low Carbon Future’ and from the Coastal
Commission for Local Coastal Program Assistance.
The work products prepared for PLAN Hermosa thus far, including background reports, issue
papers, and community engagement results are available on the City’s webpage at
http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767. Previous activities as well as plans already
adopted by the City and other background resources may also be reviewed at this webpage.
In October 2016, the PLAN Hermosa process reached an important milestone with the release of
the Draft EIR and beginning of a 70 day public comment period. The Draft EIR is available for
review on the City’s website (http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=885) and hard copies
may also be viewed at the Hermosa Beach Community Development Department, Police
Department, Library, and Community Center.
470
2
Contents of the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR for PLAN Hermosa (State Clearinghouse # 2015081009) evaluates environmental
impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, mineral resources, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, and
transportation. The Draft EIR also details and evaluates the environmental effects of three potential
alternatives to the proposed project.
Carbon Neutrality Discussion
In April 2016, the City Council directed staff and consultants to prepare an alternative within the
EIR and consider the costs/benefits of a goal that accelerates the proposed PLAN Hermosa goal of
carbon neutrality by the year 2040 to a timeline of 2030 and for the Planning Commission to
discuss and consider the topic of carbon neutrality. This meeting is the first opportunity for the
Planning Commission to discuss this topic.
The Draft EIR contains an assessment of the greenhouse gas reduction potential and environmental
impact of the goals and policies contained within PLAN Hermosa in Section 4.6 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. The Alternatives Section (6.0) identifies the potential policy changes that would be
needed to achieve a 2030 carbon neutral goal and evaluates the relative environmental impacts that
this alternative would have compared to PLAN Hermosa.
Since the format of the EIR separates the evaluation of the 2040 and 2030 goals into different
sections, and does not include any discussion of financial implications of these two goals, a
summary memo (Attachment 2) has been prepared to highlight the evaluation of these two
scenarios.
Attachments:
1. Carbon Neutrality in PLAN Hermosa Assessment Memo
471
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
1
Carbon Neutrality in PLAN Hermosa
Background
The proposed Draft PLAN Hermosa includes a goal for the City to achieve community carbon
neutrality no later than 2040, aligning with the time horizon of implementing PLAN Hermosa.
However, some of the City’s earlier studies evaluated the necessary emissions reductions
needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. These previous studies stopped short of identifying
the specific policies and actions necessary to achieve that goal, therefore the purpose of this
memo is to evaluate and demonstrate the additional degree of policy change needed beyond
the policies and actions proposed in the Draft PLAN Hermosa to achieve a 2030 goal of carbon
neutrality. Additionally, in April 2016, the City Council directed staff to prepare, and the Planning
Commission to consider, the policy and cost implications of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030
without relying on the purchase of carbon offsets.
PLAN Hermosa articulates the City’s long-term vision and incorporates goals and policies that
influence the increase or reduction in activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions, and is
one of the key opportunities the City has to consider and evaluate a range of goals for reducing
emissions at an accelerated rate.
Defining Carbon Neutrality
While the terms carbon neutral, zero carbon, and carbon negative (regenerative) are all terms
that are commonly associated with reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and are often
used interchangeably, each carry slightly different meanings and interpretations. We define
each term below, and note that each includes a set of three common steps: Calculate, Reduce,
and Offset/Generate.
Carbon Neutral
•Calculate emissions inventory from defined boundary/sources
•Reduce overall emissions as much as possible
•Offset remaining emissions with renewable energy, sequestration, credits, or projects outside of boundary
Zero Carbon
•Calculate emissions inventory from defined boundary/sources
•Reduce emissions from each source to zero
•No offsets needed
Carbon Negative
•Calculate emissions inventory from defined boundary/sources
•Reduce overall emissions as much as possible
•Offset remaining emissions with renewable energy, sequestration, credits, or projects outside of boundary
•Generate excess sources of renewable energy or sequestration
472
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
2
As illustrated in Figure 1, each term follows the same steps, but takes different approaches to
reducing and offsetting emissions. Generally, achieving Carbon Neutrality is more flexible than a
Zero Carbon approach, because the ability to use offsets is present. However, working toward
Carbon Neutrality would not preclude Hermosa Beach from achieving a Zero Carbon or Carbon
Negative scenario in the future.
Figure 1 – Carbon Terminology + Planning Steps
Hermosa Beach GHG Emissions Profile
To better understand how to achieve carbon neutrality, it is helpful to review and understand
the types of activities that generate emissions in Hermosa Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach,
through the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, has calculated and prepared an
inventory and forecasts of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by community activities in
Hermosa Beach using industry protocols and calculation methods.
Emissions Inventory
Community-wide carbon emissions have steadily declined since the 2005 baseline value of
137,160 metric tons of CO2e. Emissions inventories have been prepared for the calendar years of
2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012. Table 1 illustrates Hermosa Beach’s GHG inventory for the years 2005,
2007, 2010 and 2012.
Emissions from transportation are the largest contributor to the community's GHG inventory over
the seven-year period, contributing 54% of total emissions. Residential energy use has increased
slightly (3%) from 2005 to 2012 as the other emissions sectors show slight decreases. These
inventories highlight the importance or addressing transportation emissions to significantly
reduce the community's overall emissions.
100
30
-30
100
0 0
100
30
-50 -60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Calculate Reduce Offset/GenerateMTCO2e Carbon Neutral
Zero Carbon
Carbon Negative
473
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
3
TABLE 1 - Hermosa Beach Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Baseline Year
Sector 2005
(MTCO2e)
% of
Total
2007
(MTCO2e)
% of
Total
2010
(MTCO2e)
% of
Total
2012
(MTCO2e)
% of
Total
On-road Transportation 73,567 54% 71,863 54% 70,277 55% 68,235 54%
Residential Energy 32,293 24% 31,964 24% 32,700 26% 33,808 27%
Commercial Energy 20,280 15% 19,792 15% 18,372 14% 17,830 14%
Solid Waste 6,015 4% 4,584 3% 3,510 3% 3,334 3%
Water 4,065 3% 3,942 3% 2,552 2% 2,600 2%
Off-road Sources 888 1% 588 <1% 419 <1% 745 <1%
Wastewater 52 <1% 35 <1% 59 <1% 59 <1%
Total 137,160 132,768 127,889 126,611
Change from 2005 -3.2% -6.8% -7.7%
Source: Hermosa Beach 2015b
Transportation sector emissions are the result of gasoline and diesel combustion in vehicles
traveling to, from, or within Hermosa Beach, but excludes emissions associated with vehicles that
pass through Hermosa Beach without stopping (City of Hermosa Beach 2015). Residential and
commercial energy use contributes emissions from electricity generation and natural gas
consumption by residences and commercial businesses within Hermosa Beach, while solid waste
emissions are based on the amount of waste disposed in landfills, where it decomposes and
generates methane. Finally, water and wastewater emissions are calculated by determining the
energy needed to extract, transport, treat, and dispose of the water resources consumed by the
community.
Emissions Forecast
It is also important to consider how emissions in Hermosa Beach might change over time, with
small increases in the number of residents, employees, and housing units based on the capacity
of vacant or underutilized land within the city. Table 2 indicates the projected levels of emissions
in the years 2030 and 2040, the impact that State legislation and programs will have on reducing
emissions, and the remaining gap to achieve a carbon neutral goal by 2030 or 2040.
TABLE 2 – Hermosa Beach 2030 and 2040 Projected Emissions Levels
Timeframe/Target
2030 Projected
Emissions Levels
(MTCO2e)
2040 Projected
Emissions Levels
(MTCO2e)
Baseline Emissions (2005) 137,160 137,160
Business As Usual (BAU) Forecasted Emissions 128,290 133,430
Emissions Reductions from State Programs -33,750 -38,010
Local Reductions Needed to Achieve Carbon Neutral
Target (Remaining Emissions)
94,540 95,420
Source: City of Hermosa Beach, 2015.
474
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
4
Achieving a 2030 Goal
There are two primary differences between the proposed carbon reduction goals included in
the draft of PLAN Hermosa and the direction provided by City Council for further study, which
can be summarized as follows:
(1) expediting achievement of a carbon neutral goal by ten years from 2040 to 2030; and
(2) bypassing the use of carbon credits to offset carbon emissions that could not be
eliminated.
Changing these parameters would have a number of effects to the proposed PLAN Hermosa
policies, relative costs/benefits, and potential environmental effects that are outlined in this
memo. While the total level of local reductions needed to achieve a carbon neutral goal by
2030 or 2040 are relatively unchanged, as shown in Table 3, the number of years to achieve the
goal would be reduced from 24 years to just 14. A 2030 goal would necessitate the
implementation of new policies and programs each year to reduce emissions at a rate of 6,750
MTCO2e/yr, compared to annual reductions of 3,975 MTCO2e/yr for a 2040 goal.
TABLE 3 – Hermosa Beach Local Reductions and Years of Implementation
Timeframe/Target
2030 Projected
Emissions Levels
(MTCO2e)
2040 Projected
Emissions Levels
(MTCO2e)
Local Reductions Needed to Achieve Carbon Neutral Target 94,540 95,420
Years for Implementation 14 24
Annual Reductions Needed From New Programs Each Year 6,750 3,975
Estimating Potential Emissions Reductions
Carbon Planning Tool
The Carbon Planning Tool, developed by the Brendle Group for the City of Hermosa Beach in
2015, provides a series of strategies that the community can employ to reduce GHG emissions.
The tool is tailored to the emissions profile and physical conditions in Hermosa Beach, and is
designed to estimate the effectiveness and relative costs/benefits of the various strategies
based on assumptions related to level of participation or implementation over a certain time
period. The range of strategies available is identified in Figure 2.
475
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
5
Figure 2 – Carbon Planning Tool Strategies
The effectiveness of each strategy is determined based on the rate(s) of implementation
identified in Table 4. The tool allows custom rates of implementation to be identified, and
provides context by including default assumptions. Descriptions of the assumptions and some of
the terms are identified in the Carbon Planning Tool User Guide.
Table 4 – Carbon Planning Tool Strategy Assumption Questions
1. Building Efficiency
For existing homes…
What percent could undergo a deep energy renovation?
What percent of homes' annual energy use would be reduced?
What is the cost (per square foot) of deep energy renovations?
What percent could undergo a standard energy renovation?
What percent of the homes' annual energy use would be reduced?
What is the cost (per square foot) of standard energy renovations for homes?
For new homes…
What percent could be constructed beyond code?
What percent of the homes' annual energy use would be reduced?
What is the cost (per square foot) of green building for residential new construction?
For existing commercial and industrial buildings…
What percent of buildings could undergo a deep energy renovation?
What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced?
What is the cost (per square foot) of deep energy renovations for commercial and industrial
buildings?
What percent of buildings could undergo a standard energy renovation?
What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced?
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar
Community Solar
Community Choice Aggregation
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate)
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives
Additional Transportation Strategies
Electric Vehicles
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling
Water + Wastewater
Construction Equipment
Purchase Offsets
476
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
6
What is the cost (per square foot) of standard energy renovations for commercial and
industrial buildings?
For new commercial and industrial buildings…
What percent of buildings could be constructed beyond code?
What percent of the buildings' annual energy use would be reduced?
What is the cost (per square foot) of green building for commercial and industrial new
construction?
2. Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar
What percent of homes could install rooftop solar (by 2040)?
What is the average size of a solar array (in kilowatts, kW)?
What percent of businesses could install rooftop solar (by 2040)?
What is the average size of a commercial solar array (in W/ft2)?
What is the current cost (per kilowatt) of rooftop solar?
What is the annual cost reduction (as a percentage) for rooftop solar installation?
For community solar…
How large of a solar garden could the community support (in kilowatts)?
How much would a solar garden cost (in dollars per kilowatt)?
Utility Based Renewables
What should your utility-based renewables strategy be?
Either Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)…
What year should the CCA begin?
What percent of customers will voluntarily opt to pay a rate premium to ensure 100% of their
electric supply mix is comprised of renewable energy (beginning in 2017)?
Would you like to change the percentage of renewable energy for this rate? If so what should
be the percentage?
What will be the initial utility rate for this level of participation?
What percent of customers will opt to pay for a rate with 100% renewable energy from a CCA
(beginning in 2017)?
What will be the initial utility rate for this level of participation?
Or a Green rate…
Should electricity be purchased from the electric utility (Southern California Edison, or SCE) at a
green rate instead? If so what percentage of electricity should be purchased at this higher rate?
What will be the premium for a SCE Green Rate?
3. Transportation + Land Use
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Strategies
Please select your preferred Land Use and Transportation Scenario (from the General Plan
update process) from the drop box on the right.
What level of policies and programs should be added to the general plan to further reduce VMT?
What will be the implementation cost (in dollars per vehicle mile traveled) of this strategy?
477
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
7
Electric Vehicle (EV)
What percentage of new car purchases in 2040 will be EVs?
What percentage of EV charging stations, both residential and around town, will rely on solar
power?
What will be the incremental cost of EVs be in…
2015?
2030?
What will be the cost of charging stations for…
Residential?
Community?
Other Sectors + Offsets
What percentage of remaining emissions should be reduced through the purchase of carbon
offsets?
What percentage of waste should be diverted from landfills?
What level of water conservation might be achieved?
The PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report appendices include a detailed summary
of the assumptions utilized in each scenario for each of the categories listed above.
Similar Assumptions in 2030 and 2040
Using the same assumptions/rates of implementation in the 2030 scenario would yield similar,
though slightly less reduction compared to the proposed 2040 goal included in PLAN Hermosa.
Table 4 shows the summary of emissions reductions that could be achieved, using the same
assumptions in 2030 as in 2040. However, assuming that the same rate of implementation (for
example, assuming that 30% of existing households could undergo deep energy renovations in
2030 or 2040) could occur as a 2040 goal is unlikely achievable unless additional incentives are
offered or regulatory measures are developed to achieve the same rate of implementation over
a shorter time period.
TABLE 4 - Emissions Reductions Using Similar Assumptions in 2030 and 2040
2030 Scenario 2040 Scenario
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
Baseline 2005 Emissions 137,160 137,160
2012 Emissions -7.7% 126,610 -7.7% 126,610
BAU Emissions +1.2% 128,290 +5.0% 133,430
State Programs -24.6% 33,750 -27.7% 38,010
Local Remaining Emissions to be Reduced 94,540 95,420
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency -0.8% 1,090 -1.3% 1,810
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 -4.4% 6,100
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency -1.2% 1,690 -2.0% 2,810
478
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
8
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 -2.0% 2,770
Sub Total -8.5% 11,650 -9.8% 13,490
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar -5.8% 8,020 -5.9% 8,100
Community Solar -0.4% 550 -0.4% 550
Community Choice Aggregation -6.8% 9,270 -7.3% 10,010
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 -0.0% 0
Sub Total -13.0% 17,840 -13.6% 18,660
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -3.9% 5,340 -3.7% 5,110
Additional Transportation Strategies -1.9% 2,670 -1.9% 2,560
Electric Vehicles -6.8% 9,300 -7.4% 10,200
Sub Total -12.6% 17,310 -13.0% 17,870
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,430 -2.5% 3,480
Water + Wastewater -0.2% 340 -0.2% 330
Purchase Offsets -32.1% 43,980 -30.3% 41,590
Sub Total -34.8% 47,750 -33.1% 45,400
TOTAL -100.0% 94,540 -100.0% 95,420
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool, 2015.
Finally, if the City were to forgo the use or purchase of carbon credits to offset emissions that
cannot be eliminated, a policy proposed within the 2040 carbon neutral goal of the Draft PLAN
Hermosa, the City would have to take more aggressive measures to ensure that all emissions are
eliminated locally. Under the 2030 scenario using similar assumptions to the 2040 goal, the
emissions remaining before the use of offsets is 43,980 MTCO2e. If offsets are not used to achieve
the carbon neutral goal, then additional policies and programs will need to be implemented to
cover the equivalent emissions, approximately 32.1% of total emissions. Thus, many of the carbon
reduction policies presented in the Draft PLAN Hermosa would have to be supplemented with
additional measures or modified to achieve greater reductions and within a shorter timeframe.
Amended Assumptions to Achieve 2030 Carbon Neutral Goal
To reduce carbon emissions without the use of offsets and within ten less years, the following
steps would be taken to modify the draft PLAN Hermosa to increase/accelerate the rate
of carbon emissions reductions from the energy, waste and transportation sectors:
Require onsite renewable energy generation and Zero Net Energy as part of all new
construction and major building renovations.
Mandate retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency at time of sale, through
rental inspections, and prior to issuance of building permits.
Eliminate the use of natural gas within the city through the installation of biogas technologies
and electrification of heating and cooking appliances and fixtures within the building stock.
479
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
9
Participate in a Community Choice Aggregation program or other similar program and
procure or generate renewable energy to account for 100% of the local energy portfolio by
increasing the rate of installation for local renewable energy generation sources or procuring
long-term renewable energy contracts for sources outside of the city.
Modify Land Use Designations to facilitate mixed-use development and increase
commercial and residential densities within the Community Commercial and Gateway
Commercial designations to facilitate fewer and shorter trips.
Mandate public and private clean fuel and electric vehicle infrastructure to facilitate
deployment of electric vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles and/or clean fuel vehicles.
Modify parking standards and programs to disincentivize conventionally fueled automobile
use, and incentivize alternative modes of transportation and zero-emission vehicle use
through programs that include, but are not limited to: increases in the cost of public-parking,
elimination of parking minimums and establishment of maximums for new development,
elimination of practices to assign parking spaces to particular uses, and changes to the
preferential parking permit program.
Pursue regional transportation projects and infrastructure to facilitate carbon-free regional
travel options.
Mandate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for institutions and
businesses.
Accelerate the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle network investments, electric
vehicle and alternative fuel infrastructure, programs to achieve zero waste, and net zero
energy requirements.
This Carbon Neutral by 2030 Alternative with the added or modified policies would result in
greater levels of emissions reductions compared to the policies and programs proposed in PLAN
Hermosa, as noted in Table 5.
TABLE 5 – Comparison of Emission Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs 2040
2030 Scenario 2040 Scenario
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
Baseline 2005 Emissions 137,160
137,160
2012 Emissions -7.7% 126,610 -7.7% 126,610
BAU Emissions (2040) +1.2% 128,290 +5.0% 133,430
State Programs (2040) -24.6% 33,750 -27.7% 38,010
Local Remaining Emissions to be Reduced 94,540 95,420
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency -0.8% 1,090 -1.3% 1,810
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 -4.4% 6,100
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency -1.2% 1,690 -2.0% 2,810
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 -2.0% 2,770
Sub Total -8.5% 11,650 -9.8% 13,490
480
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
10
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar -5.8% 8,020 -5.9% 8,100
Community Solar -27.0% 36,990 -0.4% 550
Community Choice Aggregation -7.5% 10,290 -7.3% 10,010
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 -0.0% 0
Sub Total -40.3% 55,300 -13.6% 18,660
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -8.1% 11,130 -4.0% 5,500
Additional Transportation Strategies -3.2% 4,450 -1.9% 2,560
Electric Vehicles -5.7% 7,750 -7.4% 10,100
Sub Total -17.0% 23,330 -13.0% 18,160
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,430 -2.5% 3,480
Water + Wastewater -0.6% 840 -0.2% 330
Purchase Offsets -0.0% 0 -30.1% 41,310
Sub Total -3.1% 4,270 -32.9% 45,120
TOTAL -100.0% 94,540 -100.0% 95,420
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool 2015.
Environmental Effects
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for PLAN Hermosa is required to evaluate a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and evaluate whether each alternative has the
ability to achieve the project objectives. The EIR evaluated three alternatives, including the
alternative to achieve a carbon neutral goal by 2030 and eliminate the use of offsets. Below is a
summary of the potential environmental effects and benefits relative to a goal to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2030 compared to the goal in the Draft of PLAN Hermosa to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2040.
A goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, compared to 2040, could pose greater impacts to
aesthetics and biological resources due to increased use of renewable energy systems such as
solar, wind, or ocean-based renewable energy sources, and greater impacts to cultural
resources due to greater alteration or demolition of designated or potentially eligible historic
resources to construct high energy performance buildings. While the impacts to aesthetics,
biological resources, and cultural resources may be greater than the proposed project, it is
unknown whether they would rise to the level of being considered a significant impact, because
the specific design and location of additional renewable energy projects cannot be
determined at this time.
This alternative would also have far reaching environmental benefits for Hermosa Beach by
decreasing impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and
481
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
11
transportation. Air pollutants associated with the burning of fuel for building energy and
transportation uses would be reduced. Reduced automobile use and an increase in electric
vehicles, which are quieter than gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, would reduce noise
levels. Transportation impacts would also likely be decreased, as this alternative would result in a
reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
Cost Benefits + Considerations
The Carbon Planning Tool not only analyzes the rate of greenhouse gas reductions that may be
achieved by 2030 or 2040, but also provides estimates of the relative costs and savings
associated with implementation of the various strategies.
It is important to note that these figures are planning level cost estimates to demonstrate the
magnitude of potential costs (generally using averages such as cost per square foot or savings
per mile of travel reduced, grounded in research and best practices), rather than a project
detail financial analysis. As the City and community pursue implementation of various strategies
and projects, the costs and potential savings will vary based on the project conditions, timing of
implementation, available grants, incentives, or financing mechanisms, among other
considerations.
The following tables provide a summary of the total and annual average costs to implement the
various measures, as well as the potential savings – both total and average annual savings in
2040. The timeframe used in calculating average annual investment cost varies between the
two scenarios because the 2030 scenario would have 10 less years to implement projects.
However, the average annual savings are both based on a 2040 horizon, because the savings
would continue to accumulate beyond 2030 in the earlier scenario and an even comparison of
the savings timeframe is needed.
As indicated in Table 6, the 2030 Scenario, primarily because it does not include the opportunity
to purchase offsets, would collectively, through public and private investments, cost nearly $600
million to implement. This would occur over an approximately 14-year time period (an average
annual investment of approximately $42 million), and would generate an estimated annual
savings of nearly $64 million. In comparison, the 2040 scenario – depicted in Table 7 – would cost
an estimated $244 million to implement over a 24-year time period (an annual average
investment cost of $10 million) generating approximately $16 million in annual savings by 2040.
Next Steps
This report is intended to serve as a resource for discussion with the Planning Commission and
City Council on setting community-wide greenhouse gas reduction goals for Hermosa Beach
that are in line with State requirements and make sense for the community. Discussions
regarding greenhouse gas reductions and carbon neutrality and direction from the Planning
Commission and City Council will inform whether changes to the Draft PLAN Hermosa are made
before the document is ultimately adopted.
482
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
12
483
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
13
TABLE 6 - 2030 Scenario Cost and Savings Summary
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual Carbon
Reduction (MTCO2e)
Total Community
Investment
Costs ($)
Average Annual
Investment
Cost ($)
Total Community
Cost Savings ($)
in 2040
Average Annual Cost
Savings in
2040
Cost Effectiveness
($ Saved vs $
Invested)
Existing Reductions + State Measures -31.1% 42,640
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency -0.8% 1,090 $3,500,000 $250,000 $19,000,000 $790,000 $3
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 $28,000,000 $2,000,000 $87,000,000 $3,630,000 $2
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency -1.2% 1,690 $1,900,000 $140,000 $27,000,000 $1,130,000 $8
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 $8,100,000 $580,000 $55,000,000 $2,290,000 $4
Sub-Total -8.5% 11,650 $41,500,000 $2,970,000 $188,000,000 $7,840,000 $3
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar -5.8% 8,020 $140,000,000 $10,000,000 $220,000,000 $9,170,000 $1
Community Solar -27.0% 36,990 $340,000,000 $24,290,000 $1,000,000,000 $41,670,000 $2
Community Choice Aggregation -7.5% 10,290 $1,200,000 $90,000 $4,300,000 $180,000 $2
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sub-Total -40.3% 55,300 $481,200,000 $34,380,000 $1,224,300,000 $51,020,000 $1
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -8.1% 11,130 $24,000,000 $1,710,000 $61,000,000 $2,540,000 $1
Additional Transportation Strategies -3.2% 4,450 $9,600,000 $690,000 $25,000,000 $1,040,000 $2
Electric Vehicles -5.7% 7,750 $28,000,000 $2,000,000 $15,000,000 $630,000 $0
Sub-Total -17.0% 23,330 $61,600,000 $4,400,000 $101,000,000 $4,210,000 $1
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Water + Wastewater -0.6% 840 $6,400,000 $460,000 $21,000,000 $880,000 $2
Purchase Offsets -0.0% 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sub-Total -3.1% 4,270 $6,400,000 $460,000 $21,000,000 $880,000 $2
TOTAL -100.0% 94,540 $590,700,000 $42,210,000 $1,534,300,000 $63,950,000 $2
484
PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Evaluation
14
TABLE 7 - 2040 Scenario Cost and Savings Summary
Share of
Carbon
Reductions (%)
Annual Carbon
Reduction (MTCO2e)
Total Community
Investment
Costs ($)
Average Annual
Investment
Cost ($)
Total Community
Cost Savings ($)
in 2040
Average Annual Cost
Savings in
2040
Cost Effectiveness
($ Saved vs $
Invested)
Existing Reductions + State Measures -30.5% 41,740
Building Efficiency
New Construction Residential Efficiency -1.3% 1,810 $5,800,000 $240,000 $19,000,000 $790,000 $3
Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 $28,000,000 $1,170,000 $66,000,000 $2,750,000 $2
New Construction Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,810 $3,200,000 $130,000 $27,000,000 $1,130,000 $9
Existing Buildings Non-Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 $8,100,000 $340,000 $42,000,000 $1,750,000 $5
Sub-Total -9.8% 13,490 $45,100,000 $1,880,000 $154,000,000 $6,420,000 $3
Renewable Energy Generation
Rooftop Solar -5.9% 8,100 $150,000,000 $6,250,000 $160,000,000 $6,670,000 $1
Community Solar -0.4% 550 $4,500,000 $190,000 $11,000,000 $460,000 $2
Community Choice Aggregation -7.3% 10,010 $2,900,000 $120,000 $5,200,000 $220,000 $2
Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sub-Total -13.6% 18,660 $157,400,000 $6,560,000 $176,200,000 $7,350,000 $1
Transportation + Land Use
Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -4.0% 5,500 $13,000,000 $540,000 $23,000,000 $960,000 $2
Additional Transportation Strategies -1.9% 2,560 $5,900,000 $250,000 $11,000,000 $460,000 $2
Electric Vehicles -7.4% 10,100 $18,000,000 $750,000 $14,000,000 $580,000 $1
Sub-Total -13.2% 18,160 $36,900,000 $1,540,000 $48,000,000 $2,000,000 $1
Other Sectors + Offsets
Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,480 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Water + Wastewater -0.2% 330 $3,800,000 $160,000 $5,400,000 $230,000 $1
Purchase Offsets -30.1% 41,310 $620,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0
Sub-Total -32.9% 45,120 $4,420,000 $190,000 $5,400,000 $230,000 $1
TOTAL -100.0% 95,420 $243,820,000 $10,170,000 $383,600,000 $16,000,000 $2
485
From: Michael Clemens
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:05 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality
My name is Michael Clemens. I am a retired Fire Captain and have been a Hermosa Beach resident and homeowner here
since 1986. I have seen many planning commissions and issues come and go over that time period and have seen many
important decisions impact this city, both positive and negative
The current issue which concerns me most is the general consensus to approve Carbon Neutrality for our city as part of
the General Plan. Although this sounds noble and attractive to be the first city to get on board with this, it is a recipe for
financial disaster with our city cannot afford. As I am sure you are all aware, we have real time issues in our city that
should be addressed with our limited funds (street, sewers, lighting, fire department, aging structures, etc.). We have
limited funds to address these issues with. Our 1 square mile city, it it even became carbon neutral, would have virtually
no effect on this world issue. And the real fact is to even try to achieve this goal it cannot be done without the purchase
of Carbon Offsets, which is nothing but a shell game to appease. But it would affect the afore mentioned items and the
residents here would be saddled with trying to fund not only the city issues required for compliance, but try to afford all
the myriad of increased city fees and additional personal fees enacted on them as they try to build, replace or remodel
their homes or buy/repair the vehicles.
We live in the most progressive state in the union that has has already addressed carbon reduction in its general plan to
reduce 2005 levels by 66% by 2040. We don't have to try and set the limit to an unreachable and unachievable goal for
the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Let the state recommendation stand proudly and support it.
Aren't you all there to do what is best for the majority of the residents? Please don't listen to the very, very small group
of political activists that have their agenda. Look at the research (not just the studies and recommendations in the
positive) and listen to the people.
Respectfully,
Michael H. Clemens
From: Bette Mower
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:29 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN
Carbon neutrality is too extreme
From: Nancy
Attachment 4
486
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:53 PM
To: citycouncil@hermosabch.or; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality and Historic Designation
Dear City Counsel Members and Planning Commission members,
As a Hermosa Beach resident for over 45 years, and a property owner of two properties on 29th Street, my husband
and I want to strongly voice our total objection to the carbon neutrality goal in the proposed General Plan. It is way
too extreme!! Hermosa Beach should NOT EXCEED any federal or state carbon goal without a total vote of all the
citizens of the city!
Furthermore, the city should NOT DESIGNATE any private property as "historical " WITHOUT the property owner's
written consent!
PLAN Hermosa is a catastrophe and multiple lawsuits in the making. Please stop this plan now and make the
necessary revisions. A vote of all residents should then be in order.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wolf
Phil Caliva
Hermosa Beach
Sent from my iPhone
From: Donna Jay
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Historical Home Designation
Planning Official,
I was recently made aware that my home is being considered for historical status as part of
PLAN Hermosa.
May I please have the following information:
-Criteria under which my home is being considered for historical status?
-What is the review process? Any financial costs required of me as part of the review process?
-When does the official designation take effect?
-What is required of me as the owner of a historically designated home? (Maintenance,
upkeep, etc)
-What recourse do I have if I disagree with the historical designation? Is there a "challenge
process" in place?
Considering the February 22 Planning Commission is just around the corner, I would appreciate
the information as soon as possible.
Attachment 4
487
Thank you,
Donna M. Jay
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
From: Malinowski, Joseph
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:59 AM
To: 'PlanningCommission-Group@HermosaBch.org'; 'CityCouncil@HermosaBch.org'
Subject: Plan Hermosa
I have been a homeowner in Hermosa Beach for about 15 years. I want to register my objection to the
proposal that is currently being considered to make Hermosa Beach carbon neutral if it will require
homeowners to comply with any measures that push us beyond what the State requires. The State has
imposed standards that all residents of the State must comply with by 2040. They obviously studied the
issue with far more capable and experienced people and have expended far more resources available to
them to consider the matter. Why does our city council think it knows better and why do they feel
compelled to push the edge?
If you are wondering why I’m raising my objection at such a “late” date, it is because I only recently
became aware of the city council’s intention to impose the type of standards on homeowners and
businesses that they are currently considering. Within the last week or so, I’ve had a number of email
exchanges with a couple of members of the council, and I know their response in defense will be that
they have had numerous meeting, workshops and mailings, so the residents knew or should have known
that this was going on. Frankly, I think that is disingenuous of the council members to assert that. As to
mailings to the public, I vaguely recall seeing one mailing more than a year ago that said there would be
a meeting to “study climate change”. That is not meaningful or in any way accurately descriptive. I’ve
spoken with a number of people in Hermosa about this, and ALL of them expressed total surprise that
this could be happening and NONE of them believed I could possibly be correct. Surely you can
appreciate that but for a few liberally active people, the residents don’t pay attention to what is on the
agenda of the city council. And, to my knowledge, there have been no reports or fliers to the people of
the types of issues being considered in any meaningful respect. It was only when I saw a link to a
YouTube video where the Planning Commissioner was expressing his negative views about the carbon
neutral plan, that I became concerned. It almost floored me that the council was actually discussing the
matters that the Planning Commissioner described in the video.
What I object to most is that, instead of attending to the various needs of the city such as roads, sewers,
commotion on the Pier and the Strand by drunks and troublemakers, etc., the city council took it upon
themselves to spend many thousands of taxpayer dollars and thousands of staff and consultant hours to
consider imposing draconian rules that will punish its residents beyond the standards that even the
State thought was prudent for its residents as a whole. Our taxpayer dollars need to be used more
wisely, and our residents and businesses need to be allowed to spend their money on things they think
is best for their families and within their means. On spending taxpayer dollars more prudently, I recently
had an issue that resulted in having to call the Hermosa Code Enforcement Department. They
responded that while they sympathized with me on the matter, they simply don’t have the staff to
address the issues – not only my issue but the many issues that fall under their control. If I understood
correctly they only have a total three people in their group. Why pass ordinances and rules if the city
council won’t see fit to hiring the staff necessary to enforce them.
Attachment 4
488
We are a small city. What possible positive impact will this plan have on the country’s climate? Not
even an infinitesimal one; not even on the State’s climate. But what impact will this plan have on the
residents of Hermosa – massive disruption of their everyday life and finances. Will residents and
businesses need to forego doing the remodel or addition that they wanted to do (or be forced to do it
on the sly)? Certainly not a very good omen for contractors, builders, etc. in our community. Will
homes simply fall into disrepair because many families could barely get a loan for the remodel, without
even considering the impact of these additional costly items? Will people who want to buy a home in
Hermosa elect to move to Redondo, Manhattan or elsewhere in Southern California where they don’t
have to contend with an activist city council that believes they know what is good for the people they
rule? Not a good omen for realtors in Hermosa.
Why should the rules on carbon neutrality be tightened on the residents of Hermosa when, for example,
there is no way to prevent visitors from around Southern California and elsewhere from coming to
Hermosa to enjoy its beach and nightlife and emit carbon from their cars, etc. It’s like the Hermosa ban
on plastic bags. Only residents of Hermosa contributed to the effort, and all the thousands of visitors
from Redondo, Torrance, etc. continued to visit and litter our beaches with the plastic bags they were
given at their local stores before coming to our beach. It took State action, not the action of a tiny city,
to effect a change.
It is incumbent on the city council to see that the carbon neutral plan is removed from Plan Hermosa
and added to the November ballot to allow the residents to vote on the carbon neutral aspect of Plan
Hermosa. They should be given the chance to decide for themselves if they want to be saddled with the
impact of this proposal. If the voters are not given the opportunity to vote on the plan, I’m confident
they will take the opportunity at the November election to vote the current council members out of
office and allow the plan to be revised by their successors to create a more sensible, workable plan.
Joseph M. Malinowski
From: Irina Gaal
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 1:50 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality Plan
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am writing to let you know that I am appalled at the plans for making our city “Carbon Neutral by
2040” and am VERY MUCH AGAINST IT. It is ridiculous to spend our tax money buying ‘carbon credits’
and some of the other things mentioned in ‘The Plan’. We have many other priorities that we should be
spending our city’s funds on. I do not subscribe to the far-fetched reasoning that taking this course will
make any difference in the ‘overall scheme of things’, but am quite sure it will disproportionally cause
unneeded financial consequences. When I speak with other friends of mine, both in Hermosa and other
cities, I get the unanimous feedback that this is felt to be ‘a pet project’ of a few people in
power. Please know that this does NOT represent SO MANY OF US. Having said this, please know that I
consider myself a responsible party who has WILLINGLY placed solar panels on my roof, at a personal
cost of over $30,000. The key word here is ‘willingly’. I was very upset to see the word "require" in the
Plan document at all, let alone so many times. I did a word search on this and noticed the word
"require" is in it 169 times! Please do not think that a few ‘do-gooders’ in City Council (and maybe other
Attachment 4
489
branches of our small city government) should have the power to put us on this costly and very
subjective course of action.
Irina Gaal
From: getchel wilson
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 4:33 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Please post for Jan22 council meeting: Dissent to Carbon Nautrality component of General Plan
Update
Dear Commission and Council,
My name is Geoff Garland. I am a former resident and property owner in the City of Hermosa Beach (133
34th Street). I also work in commercial real estate, as a service provider, investor and developer of
properties across the West Coast.
After review of the proposed General Plan update, I thought it was necessary to specifically address and
express my dissent regarding the Carbon Neutrality component in the plan. I believe this is an overreach
and intrusion into property ownership in the City.
While I am a proponent of environmental protection and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
understanding the impact that they have on the globe and the people and animals whose home it is, I
don't believe that this initiative should be included in the General Plan code for the City. This will have far
reaching implications to property ownership within the City, many of which will be unintended
consequences.
Title 24 has already had significant impacts to commercial property development, and once fully
implemented, will have devastating impact to property owners across the state.
I would urge you NOT to include this provision in the General Plan. State regulations are far reaching
enough.
Thanks,
Geoff
Geoffrey C. Garland Los Angeles, California 90071
From: Joe Montana
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 1:46 PM
Attachment 4
490
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN Hermosa input
Dear Hermosa Council members and Commission members,
I would like to thank all of you for the energy and effort you put into our great city.
I am writing to ask you all to take a fresh look at the PLAN Hermosa direction as currently
written. I am fully aware that most of you are in your position due to the great enthusiasm and
support of those who fought against Measure O and kudos to you for your victory on this effort
and your subsequent election to your position (if applicable - I realize this is not true of every
single one of you).
I want to relate a quick story from the Super Bowl Party we attended last Sunday, with a very
large number of Hermosans cutting across the complete political spectrum. Hard to believe, but
there are still people who do not hate each other for their political beliefs and still have a great
time socializing together - like the Hermosa Beach of old!
I brought up the current effort to make our city carbon neutral and the response was one of a
universal scoff and eye-roll, regardless of political persuasion. What you see and hear in your
positions are primarily the "true believers" to all things environmental. This is a very, very
important thing to them and their time and commitment is shown in accordance with the
importance they place in it. Who you do not hear from are those of us who just want our city to
let us live our lives and to stay out of our lives. We are working, coaching, playing, raising kids.
We are not worrying about what our city might be putting into effect that forces us to pay for
things the majority of us don't want, and punishing us for not believing as deeply as the true
believers. Listen, I love the city and state and the environment - I have been in the solar industry
for eight years - please, buy solar panels for city buildings and do other green initiatives that are
not so drastic, but you really need to take a chill pill on the Carbon Neutrality and Carbon Offset
stuff. The negative "unforeseen consequences" that so often happen with well-intentioned
government policies are truly not that unforeseen in this case.
Elections and "movements" are often won by the most enthusiastic supporters, even when those
supporters are actually a surprisingly small percentage of the population. For Measure O, one
could reasonably be see both sides of this argument, but Carbon neutrality and purchasing carbon
offsets with OUR tax dollars would be taking on WAY more than our laid-back little beach town
really wants you all to do. Please, I beg you, please listen to us quiet guys and gals just trying to
get along. We really don't want you to do this.
Thank you,
Joe
From: Margaret Curtis
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:37 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: No to Carbon Neutral!
Attachment 4
491
I’m all for doing good things for the environment, but having the city go carbon neutral is too much! Carbon reduction
is a better option.
Thanks for your attention!
Maggie Curtis
Date: February 17, 2017
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and interested parties
From: Matt Abbott, Resident
Subject: Input Regarding PLAN Hermosa
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the future of Hermosa Beach. I have been a Hermosa
Beach resident since 2004 and a homeowner since 2007. My wife and I have three daughters who
attend the Hermosa Beach schools. We thoroughly enjoy living in Hermosa and have a vested interest in
making PLAN Hermosa the best it can be.
I am extremely passionate about the opportunities in front of us to improve the ways we live, learn and
work through the adoption of clean technologies such as renewable energy, electric vehicles, smart
water systems, etc. I applaud the city for considering ways in which Hermosa Beach residents can
improve our own lot while demonstrating to the world (or at least other Californians) the art of the
possible.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into quantifying the environmental and economic impacts
associated with PLAN Hermosa, the core of which is captured in the city’s Carbon Planning Tool
spreadsheet. This tool is a great start but developing solid recommendations requires high quality
assumptions and scenario analysis.
Given my review to date, I strongly believe the Carbon Planning Tool analysis is flawed, leading to
incorrect conclusions and, therefore, the tool cannot be the basis for decisions in its current form.
Without a doubt, additional review and input is required to ensure the recommendations made by the
Planning Commission and the decisions made by the City Council are founded upon sound assumptions.
Below are some of the concerns I have with the analysis underpinning PLAN Hermosa.
Community Solar
The 2030 carbon neutral scenario includes a dramatic, rapid and expensive adoption of
community solar, the scale of which significantly exceeds traditional definitions of community
solar. Specifically, a 134 MW solar facility is modeled into the 2030 scenario at a cost of $340M.
A community solar plant with 134 MW of capacity would be enormous. This plant would cover
60% of the city, if not more. Alternatively, if the expectation would be to invest in a 134 MW
Hermosa Beach-owned solar power plant somewhere in the California desert, I believe the
investment would be higher than $340M as an enormous amount of land would be required,
substations would be needed, etc.
Attachment 4
492
In all community solar projections, I believe the financial benefits are significantly overvalued.
Solar plants sell the power they generate at wholesale rates, whereas the model seems to
assume that Hermosa’s solar power plant would sell its power at retail rates, which are at least
2-3 times higher than wholesale rates.
o As an example, a very recent solar power purchase agreement (PPA) was signed
between a 155 MW solar plant in Kern County and the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LA DWP). The contracted prices for this facility were just under 4
cents per kilowatt hour. Here is the link
(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/8minutenerg
y-Boasts-the-First-Solar-PPA-to-Beat-Fossil-Fuel-Prices-in-Calif?client=ms-android-
verizon).
o In stark contrast, the PLAN Hermosa spreadsheet uses prices starting at 18 cents per
kilowatt hour in 2017 and growing to over 45 cents per kilowatt hour by 2050.
The modeling for community solar also includes inconsistent assumptions for the costs and
benefits as they are heading in opposite directions. Specifically, the cost of solar panels declines
every year by 2% while the price at which the solar plant could sell its power increases by 3% per
year.
Taking a step back, how confident are we that community solar should be a significant part of
PLAN Hermosa? Unfortunately, there is very little green space left in Hermosa Beach. Any
community solar installation larger than a demonstration-type facility could imply a meaningful
reduction in our community green space. I believe many residents would be frustrated with this
outcome.
Rooftop Solar
The PLAN Hermosa model appears to assume that Net Metering will continue in its current form
for decades. This is highly unlikely as Net Metering is meant to be available to a relatively small
portion of electric customers. Net Metering is a form of subsidy used to encourage adoption of
solar, thus stimulating the market for panels and driving down costs. Net Metering allows solar
customers to avoid paying for the fixed part of the electric grid (aka “the wires”). Electric
customers who do not have solar end up paying for the grid for themselves as well as for solar
customers. In many instances this subsidy is viewed as incongruent with social programs since
solar adopters are often more affluent than non-adopters.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is unlikely to maintain Net Metering in its
current form for much longer. Multiple states have recently slowed Net Metering and the CPUC
agreed to extend Net Metering in a hotly contested 3-2 vote. Moving forward, the CPUC
continues to evaluate alternatives for the next iteration. Clearly, subsidies will be reduced in the
future. The question is by how much. These likely scenarios are not modeled in the PLAN
Hermosa spreadsheet.
General comments and questions
It is not clear which outcomes we are prioritizing. Is PLAN Hermosa about the health and well-
being of Hermosa Beach residents first and foremost? California residents? Or the global
populace? Some alternatives in PLAN Hermosa could bring wonderful local impact (e.g.,
increased local adoption of electric vehicles) while some alternatives have much more state,
Attachment 4
493
national or global impact (e.g., shift in central station energy mix from natural gas to solar or
wind). Which of these are most important? How will we prioritize?
While I definitely agree with promoting a much smaller carbon footprint, I am concerned that
we seem to have decided to go fully net zero without really understanding the associated costs
and benefits. How much more expensive does the investment plan get if the goal is 70%
reduction, 80% reduction, 90% reduction or fully net zero. Hermosa Beach residents deserve this
view of the investment plan before we commit to going fully net zero.
Related to the point above, I am concerned that the financial projections currently look so wildly
positive that the right conversations have not been held to weigh trade-offs and discuss sources
of capital.
An important assumption in PLAN Hermosa is that Hermosa Beach should not buy carbon
credits (aka offsets) as part of the plan. While I agree that we should strive to dramatically
reduce our own impact before committing to spending on credits, we should understand the
economic tradeoffs. If some of our own impact is extremely costly to eliminate, the same
amount of money spent on credits could provide a much more dramatic reduction in overall
carbon impact for the planet.
Paradoxically, many aspects of PLAN Hermosa contemplate some sort of offset, but not the type
of offset enabled by carbon credits. For example, spending money on energy efficiency upgrades
on a residential home in Hermosa Beach reduces its energy consumption. As a result, fewer
fossil fuels must be burned (mostly in other parts of California) to supply that home’s power. By
investing in the home in Hermosa we are offsetting the carbon emissions elsewhere. Of course,
this is a good move for the environment but this is indeed a form of offset. If we are supportive
of this kind of offset, I believe we should be willing to consider carbon credits as well.
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) calls for 50% of California’s energy to come from
renewable sources by 2030. As far as I can tell, this dramatic shift to utility-sourced, cleaner
energy is not contemplated in PLAN Hermosa. Rather, PLAN Hermosa casts doubt on Southern
California Edison’s (SCE) ability to reach the 50% renewable mandate by mentioning the
decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). SONGS has been
offline for more than five years and SCE is on track to meet the RPS requirements. In my
opinion, PLAN Hermosa should assume that 50% of Hermosa Beach’s power will be green and,
therefore, we must only solve for the remaining 50% through alternative means.
PLAN Hermosa contemplates significant carbon emission reduction due to statewide programs
but does not describe what those statewide programs are nor does it describe how they relate
to the additional actions described in PLAN Hermosa. Are we sure that the alternatives
contemplated in PLAN Hermosa are indeed incremental to statewide programs? Could we be
double counting?
The economic modeling currently underpinning PLAN Hermosa does not yet (but could) employ
cost/benefit trade-offs across alternatives nor does it include sensitivity analyses or real-world
scenarios. In order to make informed decisions we need to be able to address questions such as
the following:
o Which alternatives reduce the greatest amount of emissions for the lowest cost?
o What is the most expensive alternative we are considering?
o What is the overall order of alternatives from a cost/benefit standpoint?
Attachment 4
494
o How do these costs compare to the cost of reducing the same amount of carbon
emissions through carbon credits?
o Which assumptions are our forecasts most sensitive to?
o How sensitive are the projections to the cost of solar? Or to the rates we think we can
charge/recoup for community or residential solar?
o How sensitive are the projections to plausible net metering scenarios?
o Does the math still work under all scenarios? If not, which scenarios and investment
plans are the most robust across plausible states of the world?
I would strongly suggest including an analysis of traffic congestion and environmental impact
due to school drop-off and pick-up at Hermosa View, Hermosa Valley and soon to be North
schools. (Admittedly, I have not fully digested the EIR.) I believe we owe it to ourselves to
evaluate whether we can kill multiple birds with one stone. The number of SUVs and minivans
hurrying around Hermosa between 8am and 8:30am is astounding. With the improvement in
electric shuttles/buses we are seeing, I could imagine a much quieter, safer and more
environmentally-friendly Hermosa Beach through adoption of a system that transported our
kids to and from school on weekdays while serving the broader community and visitors during
other parts of the week. Finally, with parents less constrained by school schedules, we would be
better able to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled as more residents could work from home or
find adequate time windows to work locally. Today’s school schedule often forces one parent to
sacrifice their career while the other travels farther and wider to support the entire family in
order to afford the cost of living in Hermosa.
In conclusion, I encourage you to take more time to get this right. We have a wonderful opportunity to
make a positive impact on our environment while serving as an example to be emulated across
California and beyond. However, if our investment decisions are based upon incorrect assumptions we
will misappropriate capital, squander community goodwill and, most importantly, under-deliver on the
environmental impact we aspire to achieve.
I would be happy to continue to contribute to extent that I am capable. Please take my input in the spirit
of being helpful and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt Abbott
Attachment 4
495
Attachment 4496
From: Michael Clemens
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:05 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality
My name is Michael Clemens. I am a retired Fire Captain and have been a Hermosa Beach resident and homeowner here
since 1986. I have seen many planning commissions and issues come and go over that time period and have seen many
important decisions impact this city, both positive and negative
The current issue which concerns me most is the general consensus to approve Carbon Neutrality for our city as part of
the General Plan. Although this sounds noble and attractive to be the first city to get on board with this, it is a recipe for
financial disaster with our city cannot afford. As I am sure you are all aware, we have real time issues in our city that
should be addressed with our limited funds (street, sewers, lighting, fire department, aging structures, etc.). We have
limited funds to address these issues with. Our 1 square mile city, it it even became carbon neutral, would have virtually
no effect on this world issue. And the real fact is to even try to achieve this goal it cannot be done without the purchase
of Carbon Offsets, which is nothing but a shell game to appease. But it would affect the afore mentioned items and the
residents here would be saddled with trying to fund not only the city issues required for compliance, but try to afford all
the myriad of increased city fees and additional personal fees enacted on them as they try to build, replace or remodel
their homes or buy/repair the vehicles.
We live in the most progressive state in the union that has has already addressed carbon reduction in its general plan to
reduce 2005 levels by 66% by 2040. We don't have to try and set the limit to an unreachable and unachievable goal for
the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Let the state recommendation stand proudly and support it.
Aren't you all there to do what is best for the majority of the residents? Please don't listen to the very, very small group
of political activists that have their agenda. Look at the research (not just the studies and recommendations in the
positive) and listen to the people.
Respectfully,
Michael H. Clemens
From: Bette Mower
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:29 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN
Carbon neutrality is too extreme
From: Nancy
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:53 PM
To: citycouncil@hermosabch.or; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality and Historic Designation
Dear City Counsel Members and Planning Commission members,
As a Hermosa Beach resident for over 45 years, and a property owner of two properties on 29th Street, my husband
and I want to strongly voice our total objection to the carbon neutrality goal in the proposed General Plan. It is way
too extreme!! Hermosa Beach should NOT EXCEED any federal or state carbon goal without a total vote of all the
citizens of the city!
497
Furthermore, the city should NOT DESIGNATE any private property as "historical " WITHOUT the property owner's
written consent!
PLAN Hermosa is a catastrophe and multiple lawsuits in the making. Please stop this plan now and make the
necessary revisions. A vote of all residents should then be in order.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wolf
Phil Caliva
Hermosa Beach
Sent from my iPhone
From: Donna Jay
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Historical Home Designation
Planning Official,
I was recently made aware that my home is being considered for historical status as part of
PLAN Hermosa.
May I please have the following information:
-Criteria under which my home is being considered for historical status?
-What is the review process? Any financial costs required of me as part of the review process?
-When does the official designation take effect?
-What is required of me as the owner of a historically designated home? (Maintenance,
upkeep, etc)
-What recourse do I have if I disagree with the historical designation? Is there a "challenge
process" in place?
Considering the February 22 Planning Commission is just around the corner, I would appreciate
the information as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Donna M. Jay
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
From: Malinowski, Joseph
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:59 AM
To: 'PlanningCommission-Group@HermosaBch.org'; 'CityCouncil@HermosaBch.org'
Subject: Plan Hermosa
I have been a homeowner in Hermosa Beach for about 15 years. I want to register my objection to the
proposal that is currently being considered to make Hermosa Beach carbon neutral if it will require
498
homeowners to comply with any measures that push us beyond what the State requires. The State has
imposed standards that all residents of the State must comply with by 2040. They obviously studied the
issue with far more capable and experienced people and have expended far more resources available to
them to consider the matter. Why does our city council think it knows better and why do they feel
compelled to push the edge?
If you are wondering why I’m raising my objection at such a “late” date, it is because I only recently
became aware of the city council’s intention to impose the type of standards on homeowners and
businesses that they are currently considering. Within the last week or so, I’ve had a number of email
exchanges with a couple of members of the council, and I know their response in defense will be that
they have had numerous meeting, workshops and mailings, so the residents knew or should have known
that this was going on. Frankly, I think that is disingenuous of the council members to assert that. As to
mailings to the public, I vaguely recall seeing one mailing more than a year ago that said there would be
a meeting to “study climate change”. That is not meaningful or in any way accurately descriptive. I’ve
spoken with a number of people in Hermosa about this, and ALL of them expressed total surprise that
this could be happening and NONE of them believed I could possibly be correct. Surely you can
appreciate that but for a few liberally active people, the residents don’t pay attention to what is on the
agenda of the city council. And, to my knowledge, there have been no reports or fliers to the people of
the types of issues being considered in any meaningful respect. It was only when I saw a link to a
YouTube video where the Planning Commissioner was expressing his negative views about the carbon
neutral plan, that I became concerned. It almost floored me that the council was actually discussing the
matters that the Planning Commissioner described in the video.
What I object to most is that, instead of attending to the various needs of the city such as roads, sewers,
commotion on the Pier and the Strand by drunks and troublemakers, etc., the city council took it upon
themselves to spend many thousands of taxpayer dollars and thousands of staff and consultant hours to
consider imposing draconian rules that will punish its residents beyond the standards that even the
State thought was prudent for its residents as a whole. Our taxpayer dollars need to be used more
wisely, and our residents and businesses need to be allowed to spend their money on things they think
is best for their families and within their means. On spending taxpayer dollars more prudently, I recently
had an issue that resulted in having to call the Hermosa Code Enforcement Department. They
responded that while they sympathized with me on the matter, they simply don’t have the staff to
address the issues – not only my issue but the many issues that fall under their control. If I understood
correctly they only have a total three people in their group. Why pass ordinances and rules if the city
council won’t see fit to hiring the staff necessary to enforce them.
We are a small city. What possible positive impact will this plan have on the country’s climate? Not
even an infinitesimal one; not even on the State’s climate. But what impact will this plan have on the
residents of Hermosa – massive disruption of their everyday life and finances. Will residents and
businesses need to forego doing the remodel or addition that they wanted to do (or be forced to do it
on the sly)? Certainly not a very good omen for contractors, builders, etc. in our community. Will
homes simply fall into disrepair because many families could barely get a loan for the remodel, without
even considering the impact of these additional costly items? Will people who want to buy a home in
Hermosa elect to move to Redondo, Manhattan or elsewhere in Southern California where they don’t
have to contend with an activist city council that believes they know what is good for the people they
rule? Not a good omen for realtors in Hermosa.
499
Why should the rules on carbon neutrality be tightened on the residents of Hermosa when, for example,
there is no way to prevent visitors from around Southern California and elsewhere from coming to
Hermosa to enjoy its beach and nightlife and emit carbon from their cars, etc. It’s like the Hermosa ban
on plastic bags. Only residents of Hermosa contributed to the effort, and all the thousands of visitors
from Redondo, Torrance, etc. continued to visit and litter our beaches with the plastic bags they were
given at their local stores before coming to our beach. It took State action, not the action of a tiny city,
to effect a change.
It is incumbent on the city council to see that the carbon neutral plan is removed from Plan Hermosa
and added to the November ballot to allow the residents to vote on the carbon neutral aspect of Plan
Hermosa. They should be given the chance to decide for themselves if they want to be saddled with the
impact of this proposal. If the voters are not given the opportunity to vote on the plan, I’m confident
they will take the opportunity at the November election to vote the current council members out of
office and allow the plan to be revised by their successors to create a more sensible, workable plan.
Joseph M. Malinowski
From: Irina Gaal
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 1:50 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality Plan
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am writing to let you know that I am appalled at the plans for making our city “Carbon Neutral by
2040” and am VERY MUCH AGAINST IT. It is ridiculous to spend our tax money buying ‘carbon credits’
and some of the other things mentioned in ‘The Plan’. We have many other priorities that we should be
spending our city’s funds on. I do not subscribe to the far-fetched reasoning that taking this course will
make any difference in the ‘overall scheme of things’, but am quite sure it will disproportionally cause
unneeded financial consequences. When I speak with other friends of mine, both in Hermosa and other
cities, I get the unanimous feedback that this is felt to be ‘a pet project’ of a few people in
power. Please know that this does NOT represent SO MANY OF US. Having said this, please know that I
consider myself a responsible party who has WILLINGLY placed solar panels on my roof, at a personal
cost of over $30,000. The key word here is ‘willingly’. I was very upset to see the word "require" in the
Plan document at all, let alone so many times. I did a word search on this and noticed the word
"require" is in it 169 times! Please do not think that a few ‘do-gooders’ in City Council (and maybe other
branches of our small city government) should have the power to put us on this costly and very
subjective course of action.
Irina Gaal
From: getchel wilson
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 4:33 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Please post for Jan22 council meeting: Dissent to Carbon Nautrality component of General Plan
Update
500
Dear Commission and Council,
My name is Geoff Garland. I am a former resident and property owner in the City of Hermosa Beach (133
34th Street). I also work in commercial real estate, as a service provider, investor and developer of
properties across the West Coast.
After review of the proposed General Plan update, I thought it was necessary to specifically address and
express my dissent regarding the Carbon Neutrality component in the plan. I believe this is an overreach
and intrusion into property ownership in the City.
While I am a proponent of environmental protection and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
understanding the impact that they have on the globe and the people and animals whose home it is, I
don't believe that this initiative should be included in the General Plan code for the City. This will have far
reaching implications to property ownership within the City, many of which will be unintended
consequences.
Title 24 has already had significant impacts to commercial property development, and once fully
implemented, will have devastating impact to property owners across the state.
I would urge you NOT to include this provision in the General Plan. State regulations are far reaching
enough.
Thanks,
Geoff
Geoffrey C. Garland Los Angeles, California 90071
From: Joe Montana
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 1:46 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN Hermosa input
Dear Hermosa Council members and Commission members,
I would like to thank all of you for the energy and effort you put into our great city.
I am writing to ask you all to take a fresh look at the PLAN Hermosa direction as currently
written. I am fully aware that most of you are in your position due to the great enthusiasm and
support of those who fought against Measure O and kudos to you for your victory on this effort
and your subsequent election to your position (if applicable - I realize this is not true of every
single one of you).
I want to relate a quick story from the Super Bowl Party we attended last Sunday, with a very
large number of Hermosans cutting across the complete political spectrum. Hard to believe, but
501
there are still people who do not hate each other for their political beliefs and still have a great
time socializing together - like the Hermosa Beach of old!
I brought up the current effort to make our city carbon neutral and the response was one of a
universal scoff and eye-roll, regardless of political persuasion. What you see and hear in your
positions are primarily the "true believers" to all things environmental. This is a very, very
important thing to them and their time and commitment is shown in accordance with the
importance they place in it. Who you do not hear from are those of us who just want our city to
let us live our lives and to stay out of our lives. We are working, coaching, playing, raising kids.
We are not worrying about what our city might be putting into effect that forces us to pay for
things the majority of us don't want, and punishing us for not believing as deeply as the true
believers. Listen, I love the city and state and the environment - I have been in the solar industry
for eight years - please, buy solar panels for city buildings and do other green initiatives that are
not so drastic, but you really need to take a chill pill on the Carbon Neutrality and Carbon Offset
stuff. The negative "unforeseen consequences" that so often happen with well-intentioned
government policies are truly not that unforeseen in this case.
Elections and "movements" are often won by the most enthusiastic supporters, even when those
supporters are actually a surprisingly small percentage of the population. For Measure O, one
could reasonably be see both sides of this argument, but Carbon neutrality and purchasing carbon
offsets with OUR tax dollars would be taking on WAY more than our laid-back little beach town
really wants you all to do. Please, I beg you, please listen to us quiet guys and gals just trying to
get along. We really don't want you to do this.
Thank you,
Joe
From: Margaret Curtis
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:37 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: No to Carbon Neutral!
I’m all for doing good things for the environment, but having the city go carbon neutral is too much! Carbon reduction
is a better option.
Thanks for your attention!
Maggie Curtis
Date: February 17, 2017
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and interested parties
From: Matt Abbott, Resident
Subject: Input Regarding PLAN Hermosa
To whom it may concern,
502
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the future of Hermosa Beach. I have been a Hermosa
Beach resident since 2004 and a homeowner since 2007. My wife and I have three daughters who
attend the Hermosa Beach schools. We thoroughly enjoy living in Hermosa and have a vested interest in
making PLAN Hermosa the best it can be.
I am extremely passionate about the opportunities in front of us to improve the ways we live, learn and
work through the adoption of clean technologies such as renewable energy, electric vehicles, smart
water systems, etc. I applaud the city for considering ways in which Hermosa Beach residents can
improve our own lot while demonstrating to the world (or at least other Californians) the art of the
possible.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into quantifying the environmental and economic impacts
associated with PLAN Hermosa, the core of which is captured in the city’s Carbon Planning Tool
spreadsheet. This tool is a great start but developing solid recommendations requires high quality
assumptions and scenario analysis.
Given my review to date, I strongly believe the Carbon Planning Tool analysis is flawed, leading to
incorrect conclusions and, therefore, the tool cannot be the basis for decisions in its current form.
Without a doubt, additional review and input is required to ensure the recommendations made by the
Planning Commission and the decisions made by the City Council are founded upon sound assumptions.
Below are some of the concerns I have with the analysis underpinning PLAN Hermosa.
Community Solar
The 2030 carbon neutral scenario includes a dramatic, rapid and expensive adoption of
community solar, the scale of which significantly exceeds traditional definitions of community
solar. Specifically, a 134 MW solar facility is modeled into the 2030 scenario at a cost of $340M.
A community solar plant with 134 MW of capacity would be enormous. This plant would cover
60% of the city, if not more. Alternatively, if the expectation would be to invest in a 134 MW
Hermosa Beach-owned solar power plant somewhere in the California desert, I believe the
investment would be higher than $340M as an enormous amount of land would be required,
substations would be needed, etc.
In all community solar projections, I believe the financial benefits are significantly overvalued.
Solar plants sell the power they generate at wholesale rates, whereas the model seems to
assume that Hermosa’s solar power plant would sell its power at retail rates, which are at least
2-3 times higher than wholesale rates.
o As an example, a very recent solar power purchase agreement (PPA) was signed
between a 155 MW solar plant in Kern County and the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LA DWP). The contracted prices for this facility were just under 4
cents per kilowatt hour. Here is the link
(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/8minutenerg
y-Boasts-the-First-Solar-PPA-to-Beat-Fossil-Fuel-Prices-in-Calif?client=ms-android-
verizon).
o In stark contrast, the PLAN Hermosa spreadsheet uses prices starting at 18 cents per
kilowatt hour in 2017 and growing to over 45 cents per kilowatt hour by 2050.
The modeling for community solar also includes inconsistent assumptions for the costs and
benefits as they are heading in opposite directions. Specifically, the cost of solar panels declines
503
every year by 2% while the price at which the solar plant could sell its power increases by 3% per
year.
Taking a step back, how confident are we that community solar should be a significant part of
PLAN Hermosa? Unfortunately, there is very little green space left in Hermosa Beach. Any
community solar installation larger than a demonstration-type facility could imply a meaningful
reduction in our community green space. I believe many residents would be frustrated with this
outcome.
Rooftop Solar
The PLAN Hermosa model appears to assume that Net Metering will continue in its current form
for decades. This is highly unlikely as Net Metering is meant to be available to a relatively small
portion of electric customers. Net Metering is a form of subsidy used to encourage adoption of
solar, thus stimulating the market for panels and driving down costs. Net Metering allows solar
customers to avoid paying for the fixed part of the electric grid (aka “the wires”). Electric
customers who do not have solar end up paying for the grid for themselves as well as for solar
customers. In many instances this subsidy is viewed as incongruent with social programs since
solar adopters are often more affluent than non-adopters.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is unlikely to maintain Net Metering in its
current form for much longer. Multiple states have recently slowed Net Metering and the CPUC
agreed to extend Net Metering in a hotly contested 3-2 vote. Moving forward, the CPUC
continues to evaluate alternatives for the next iteration. Clearly, subsidies will be reduced in the
future. The question is by how much. These likely scenarios are not modeled in the PLAN
Hermosa spreadsheet.
General comments and questions
It is not clear which outcomes we are prioritizing. Is PLAN Hermosa about the health and well-
being of Hermosa Beach residents first and foremost? California residents? Or the global
populace? Some alternatives in PLAN Hermosa could bring wonderful local impact (e.g.,
increased local adoption of electric vehicles) while some alternatives have much more state,
national or global impact (e.g., shift in central station energy mix from natural gas to solar or
wind). Which of these are most important? How will we prioritize?
While I definitely agree with promoting a much smaller carbon footprint, I am concerned that
we seem to have decided to go fully net zero without really understanding the associated costs
and benefits. How much more expensive does the investment plan get if the goal is 70%
reduction, 80% reduction, 90% reduction or fully net zero. Hermosa Beach residents deserve this
view of the investment plan before we commit to going fully net zero.
Related to the point above, I am concerned that the financial projections currently look so wildly
positive that the right conversations have not been held to weigh trade-offs and discuss sources
of capital.
An important assumption in PLAN Hermosa is that Hermosa Beach should not buy carbon
credits (aka offsets) as part of the plan. While I agree that we should strive to dramatically
reduce our own impact before committing to spending on credits, we should understand the
economic tradeoffs. If some of our own impact is extremely costly to eliminate, the same
504
amount of money spent on credits could provide a much more dramatic reduction in overall
carbon impact for the planet.
Paradoxically, many aspects of PLAN Hermosa contemplate some sort of offset, but not the type
of offset enabled by carbon credits. For example, spending money on energy efficiency upgrades
on a residential home in Hermosa Beach reduces its energy consumption. As a result, fewer
fossil fuels must be burned (mostly in other parts of California) to supply that home’s power. By
investing in the home in Hermosa we are offsetting the carbon emissions elsewhere. Of course,
this is a good move for the environment but this is indeed a form of offset. If we are supportive
of this kind of offset, I believe we should be willing to consider carbon credits as well.
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) calls for 50% of California’s energy to come from
renewable sources by 2030. As far as I can tell, this dramatic shift to utility-sourced, cleaner
energy is not contemplated in PLAN Hermosa. Rather, PLAN Hermosa casts doubt on Southern
California Edison’s (SCE) ability to reach the 50% renewable mandate by mentioning the
decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). SONGS has been
offline for more than five years and SCE is on track to meet the RPS requirements. In my
opinion, PLAN Hermosa should assume that 50% of Hermosa Beach’s power will be green and,
therefore, we must only solve for the remaining 50% through alternative means.
PLAN Hermosa contemplates significant carbon emission reduction due to statewide programs
but does not describe what those statewide programs are nor does it describe how they relate
to the additional actions described in PLAN Hermosa. Are we sure that the alternatives
contemplated in PLAN Hermosa are indeed incremental to statewide programs? Could we be
double counting?
The economic modeling currently underpinning PLAN Hermosa does not yet (but could) employ
cost/benefit trade-offs across alternatives nor does it include sensitivity analyses or real-world
scenarios. In order to make informed decisions we need to be able to address questions such as
the following:
o Which alternatives reduce the greatest amount of emissions for the lowest cost?
o What is the most expensive alternative we are considering?
o What is the overall order of alternatives from a cost/benefit standpoint?
o How do these costs compare to the cost of reducing the same amount of carbon
emissions through carbon credits?
o Which assumptions are our forecasts most sensitive to?
o How sensitive are the projections to the cost of solar? Or to the rates we think we can
charge/recoup for community or residential solar?
o How sensitive are the projections to plausible net metering scenarios?
o Does the math still work under all scenarios? If not, which scenarios and investment
plans are the most robust across plausible states of the world?
I would strongly suggest including an analysis of traffic congestion and environmental impact
due to school drop-off and pick-up at Hermosa View, Hermosa Valley and soon to be North
schools. (Admittedly, I have not fully digested the EIR.) I believe we owe it to ourselves to
evaluate whether we can kill multiple birds with one stone. The number of SUVs and minivans
hurrying around Hermosa between 8am and 8:30am is astounding. With the improvement in
electric shuttles/buses we are seeing, I could imagine a much quieter, safer and more
environmentally-friendly Hermosa Beach through adoption of a system that transported our
505
kids to and from school on weekdays while serving the broader community and visitors during
other parts of the week. Finally, with parents less constrained by school schedules, we would be
better able to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled as more residents could work from home or
find adequate time windows to work locally. Today’s school schedule often forces one parent to
sacrifice their career while the other travels farther and wider to support the entire family in
order to afford the cost of living in Hermosa.
In conclusion, I encourage you to take more time to get this right. We have a wonderful opportunity to
make a positive impact on our environment while serving as an example to be emulated across
California and beyond. However, if our investment decisions are based upon incorrect assumptions we
will misappropriate capital, squander community goodwill and, most importantly, under-deliver on the
environmental impact we aspire to achieve.
I would be happy to continue to contribute to extent that I am capable. Please take my input in the spirit
of being helpful and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt Abbott
Added 2/22/17
From: Kevan Puckett
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 12:34 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Cc: Marylou vonHeyman; Lisa Jones; Wade Jones; editor@TBRnews.com
Subject: Carbon Neutrality is too Extreme!
I am a 20 year resident and home owner in Hermosa Beach and I DO NOT support carbon neutrality. The mandate
that all Hermosa residents retrofit their homes by removing all gas appliances, which I assume includes my gas
furnace, is a financial nightmare that will impose an undo burden on my ability to continue the lifestyle I expect in
Hermosa. The mandate and requirement that a home be retrofitted before selling is a draconian over reach by the
elected officials of this city. I am disgusted that there are no plans to put this to a vote of the residents in Hermosa.
I will watch carefully the actions of the city council and I will vote accordingly in the next election.
Sincerely,
Kevan Puckett
Hermosa Beach
From: steve kingdon
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Subject: carbon neutrality
506
I think the carbon neutrality idea is to extreme. I would not be practical or fair to put it in effect to the
people who live here. Look up the california iso web site , a small percent of electric in the state is
renewable and hermosa can not be all renewable all the time
thank you steve kingdon
From: jgoodlett
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 4:09 PM
To: citycouncil@hermosahb.org
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: CARBON NUTRAL - NO THANKS
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission Member:
As a native to the Beach Cities since 1957, and a current
resident and property owner in the City of Hermosa Beach for
the last 26 years, I urge the Council and Commission to drop
the “Carbon Neutrality” plan currently being raised by the
City. The proposed plan is extreme and would be costly in the
long run. I see NO benefits from such a plan, and think your
time would be better spent finding ways to enforce all the
other useless laws on the book in the tiny beach town. Please
direct your energies on ways to create more parking, create
more safe routes and sidewalks to school, and other issues like
more park/open space that would benefit the residents note
penalize them.
Once again as my elected officials, I URGE YOU TO drop the
plan.
Kind regards,
Michelle Goodlett
From: Jim Butler
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Opposed to carbon neutrality in PLAN Hermosa
507
The carbon neutrality provision should be removed and offered as a ballot measure to be voted on by
the citizens of Hermosa Beach. This provision has far reaching and important consequences, but is
currently “under the radar” of most citizens. A ballot measure is the only way to provide an appropriate
level of scrutiny and debate.
From: Julie-Ann Forney
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 2:51 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality is Too Extreme!!
I have been a resident of Hermosa Beach since
1984 and I plan to stay indefinitely. I love HB.
Please know that myself and many others are
absolutely totally against carbon neutrality.... this is a
ridiculous and burdensome folly.
Do you really think it would be feasible to exclude all
gasoline cars? Gas grills? Retrofit homes?
We are FOR carbon reduction but NOT mandatory
carbon neutrality.
Please do not enact this... or at the very least put it
to a vote and you will see that the majority of citizens
in HB do not want this imposed upon them or the
city.
Thank you and Kind regards,
Julie-Ann
508
From: Larry Fisher
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 3:13 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: HB Carbon Neutral??
Really??? Even though Judge Kennedy sided with the court's four liberals in a 5-4 decision ruled that
the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. It seems a crazy
decision to many of us. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth! Sure, too much of anything is bad,
e.g. even drinking too much water.
The carbon neutral plan being promoted by the city council and planning commission, seems too
extreme to be implemented without voters approval. Especially in light of the costs that will be forced
on homeowners and businesses for measures that from a practical sense will be merely symbolic.
Larry Fisher
Hermosa Beach
From: Andy and Leanne Clifton
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 1:16 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: carbon Neutrality
Oh Please! First you people talk about changing us over to being our own electric company, with a
whole bunch of unknowns, which will most likely tie us into huge increases in power charges down the
line. In addition, no way of going back to Edison if it doesn't work out.
Now it's carbon neutrality. I don't think anyone is against conservation and being careful with our
environment, but we don't have to go nutsy about it. Lets wait and see if other small cities go carbon
neutral and see how it works for them. If it is a ringing success and doesn't bankrupt businesses and
make homes impossible to build or remodel and cause all kinds of other financial hardships, then we can
consider putting it to the vote of the people.
I do not want Hermosa Beach to be the test case for either of these environmental follies !!!!
Leanne Clifton
509
From: John Wisdom
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:57 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality
Carbon Neutrality
This is to important an issue, not to be voted for by the city residents.
City Council has no idea of the cost to convert from gas to electric.
This affects: stove, oven, FAU heating, water heaters BBQ, upgrade
electric panel, plus the added cost of underground electric, which also
affects your landscaping and hardscape.
If you think your home electric bill is high now just wait until you pass
this unrealistic, idealistic measure. Keep in mind this affects all of
us. Property value will go down, rents will up. If this passes be sure this
will be litigated against the city of Hermosa Beach and City Council
Members. Don’t destroy our city.
John Wisdom
Former Civil Service Commissioner
From: michael wasylyshyn
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:31 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: City new General Plan 2040 concerns....
City of Hermosa Beach resident concerns about new General Plan February 19, 2017
As residents and property owners in Hermosa Beach we believe the City Council is about to make drastic errors
with a new General Plan based on ‘cherry picked data,’ and the 2040 environmental hysteria.
Please note, all forms of life on earth are Carbon based. All green plants use Carbon Dioxide in Photosynthesis
which is the source of all plant energy and thus all animal life. Without Carbon, there is no life, a fact which many
510
of us do not remember or never learned in school. The concept of ‘carbon neutrality’ is thus, nonsense.
And the City already has many other important items to work on such as police, fire, recreation, parks,
infrastructure, traffic and parking. For example, the City eliminated Gold Parking meters in favor of convenient
‘Charging Stations’ for people who can afford new electric cars. Isn’t this biased against the vast majority of city
drivers with gas powered cars? Why not install gas pumps next to the electric charge stations? Why not return
Herondo Avenue to its former 4 lanes and end the failed experiment of intense traffic, angled parking and unused
bike lanes? That would be progress.
If these 2040 Environmental goals are such a good idea, then the homes and property of City Council members
should be the first to be inspected, updated or fined and condemned now. In accordance with 2040 limits, City
Council members homes should not have a garage, or parking. Council members should ride bikes
everywhere. Council homes must have their Natural Gas shut Off, only use Renewable electricity and fuel, meet
the insulation, UV, VOC, ‘Off Gasing Limits,’ and pay retroactive ‘carbon offsets’ for the impacts of their home’s
original construction.
Finally, City council members are not scientists and not qualified to make predictions and decisions about the solar
system, the earth’s climate or the city’s ability to control it. We believe it is a waste of City money to focus on
Greenhouse gas impacts, Carbon offsets, reductions, penalties, emissions, fuels, and impressive but fuzzy
buzzwords such as ‘carbon neutrality.’ This is environmental gibberish.
In summary, we appreciate the good intentions of the City Council but they may not be aware of how these
General Plans masquerade as an environmental advance when in fact the plans are a sly way to pick economic
winners and losers. Public Relations firms describe these plans as - ‘Green, Smart, Environmental’ - but no matter
how high and mighty the plans may sound, the plans are really just a way to control people. Control where and
how people live, work, travel and even use their own property. We stand against scams designed to restrict
people’s choices and freedoms by looting and diluting their property’s uses and value. We do not want this
economic boondoggle and fear mongering in Hermosa Beach or anywhere.
We urge you to concentrate on the traditional concerns of city government, safety and infrastructure and drop this
Carbon ‘mumbo jumbo.’
Kathy Kramer
Michael Wasylyshyn
If you would like more information on the source of our concerns please read:
investors.com “If Global Warming is real, why do government scientists have to keep cheating” 2.6.2017
and
Agenda 21 / Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire,
or
Research the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and United Nations Environmental
Agenda for the 21st Century, (Agenda 21).
We know that Agenda 21 has penetrated many municipal governments across the country and while it sounds
wholesome we do not want this subterfuge in our town.
From: Sam Perrotti
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen
511
Cc: Ken Robertson; Yu-Ying Ting; Mayor Hany Fangary; Councilmember Carolyn Petty; Stacey Armato;
Jeff Duclos; Justin Massey; Elaine Doerfling
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 2-22-17 on Final EIR Report
Planning Commissioners,
I will not be able to attend your Planning Commission meeting on 2-22-17 so I want my email to be
added to the Planning Commission packet.
I am mainly concerned about the paragraph on page 6.09. I have included that paragraph.
“To do this, the following steps would be taken to modify PLAN Hermosa to
increase and accelerate the rate of carbon emissions reductions from the energy,
waste, and transportation sectors: •
Require on-site renewable energy generation and zero net energy as part of all
new construction and major building renovations. •
Mandate retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency at time of
sale, through rental inspections, and prior to issuance of building permits. •
Eliminate the use of natural gas within the city through the installation of biogas
technologies and electrification of heating and cooking appliances and fixtures
within the building stock”.
Subparagraph 1. I agree that new construction should have applicable energy upgrades. As for “major
building renovations” if a resident has a one story 1000 square foot home and wants to remodel it to a
multistory 2,500 square foot home, I would consider that to be a major remodel. However, if someone
adds a bathroom or a bedroom, I would consider that to be a minor remodel.
Subparagraph 2. There are unforeseen consequences by including the issuance of building permits to
trigger energy upgrades. Attached is a page from the city’s website, “When do I need to get a
permit”. If a resident needs to replace a water heater, according to this policy, all energy upgrades are
required including I assume solar panels.
In addition, consider this example. An elderly resident has balance or vertigo issues and his or her
doctor recommends they install hand railings to prevent falling. This would also trigger energy
upgrades.
This policy assumes that solar panels would save a great amount of energy. In the R3 zone there are one
story homes surrounded by 30 foot residences. They would not get adequate sunlight.
What about multi-residential properties? If a water heater must be replaced in one unit, does that
trigger the energy upgrades to the other units and the whole building?
Another unforeseen consequence is economic or financial. There are retires in the city who are on fixed
incomes. Other younger people live paycheck to paycheck. They do not have the finances to pay for
these energy upgrades.
512
In the real world, residents will avoid pulling building permits and do the required construction on
weekends to avoid the energy upgrades.
Subparagraph 3. This policy is an over reliance on one source of energy, electricity. Having lived
through storms and hurricanes on the east coast and earthquakes and storms in California, the electric
power was often lost. I do not recall the gas shutting down. In addition Edison’s record on power
outages in the best weather is well known.
I recommend subparagraph 1 be retained with some clarification to residents as to what a major
remodel is. Perhaps some examples should be added. Subparagraphs 2 and 3 should be deleted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sam Perrotti
From: Elizabeth Connolly
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen
Cc: Ken Robertson; Councilmember Carolyn Petty
Subject: Plan Hermosa Mandatory Historical Designation
Greetings:
Without my consent my home has been designated an historical property.
This designation limits my options for resale with a projected 50% loss in value and severely
impacts my ability to do minor repairs and maintenance.
I believe this unasked for intrusion is infringing upon my rights as a property owner.
I ask you to proceed prudently & consider the ramifications & expense to these homeowners,
especially the financial hardship for fixed income, elderly owners.
Who in this town could take a 50% loss in their property value due to a rash, injudicious
decision?
Past planning commissions have decided that such a designation should be voluntary; Manhattan
Beach says"designation of culturally significant homes will have no effect on property owner's
rights."
Continue with voluntary not mandatory.
Additionally I have serious concerns about the clause regarding pulling a building permit, let's
say for a mundane fence repair, & that would trigger the necessity for energy upgrades.
Also eliminating natural gas for heating & cooking is unrealistic.
Any reasonable resident supports reducing our carbon footprint but this Plan is overreaching and
elitist.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Connolly
650 6th. St.
Hermosa Beach
513
Dear Planning Commission, --- Kim, Please add to the 02/22/17 Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda. thx!
Here is my input for your “Planning Commission - PLAN Hermosa and Final Environmental
Impact Report” meeting.
First of all, thank you for all the work you are putting into this. It certainly is a large undertaking.
My comments are focused on the Carbon Neutrality section:
I support having carbon neutrality called out in the PLAN, since it is a priority for the
state of California.
I support Hermosa aligning with the state's goals and timeline. Therefore the question is
"When can we be carbon neutral?" rather than "Do we become carbon neutral?".
I don't support buying carbon credits.
I don't support having the city place an undue burden on residents, like mandating
retrofits to existing buildings on remodels, or eliminating natural gas for residents who
have natural gas for cooking.
I don't think that we need to by carbon credits or have burdensome requirements on
residents because to be carbon neutral because:
o Today we have several things happening to address the reduction of Commercial
and Residential emissions:
SCE now offers a 100% renewables plan. (Note: I signed up for it. It only
costs me two martinis a month more than my old plan).
We have various CCA options in play (e.g. Los Angeles County, South
Bay Clean Power, Hermosa Beach)
Residents and the city are embracing solar panels and other technologies
to reduce emissions.
The cost of renewals is decreasing at a rapid pace, while efficiency is
increasing. We are at the early stages of home and grid energy storage.
The city should explore having a goal that is more aggressive than the
state for Commercial and Residential emissions since the likelihood of
success is high due to the points above.
o The harder nut to crack in the short-term is the on-road transportation emmisions
type.
Based on rapidly changing technology (e.g. decreasing electric car costs
and increasing range) and planned infrastructure improvements by the
state and utilities (e.g. charging station expansion), Hermosa residents
will be transitioning to electric cars, not because they are forced to, but
because they want to. The question again is when and not if.
Electric cars sales have only just now gained traction and projection,
Here's a great piece from Bloomberg on EV
adoption. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/. (Note:
Since this was published, the Chevy Bolt has been released and Tesla is
taking orders for the lower priced Model 3. Bloomberg's predictions are
happening).
California is adopting EVs at a faster rate than the rest of the U.S., and
due to Hermosa's affluence it is likely that Hermosa residents will be
adopting EVs at a rate faster than California as a whole.
514
This is why I think Hermosa can become carbon neutral without
purchasing offsets or having costly mandates. Again, it's a question of
when.
I do support the city continuing to incentivize "green" behavior (e.g. electric charging
stations, electric beach trolly).
I also support mandates on new construction. New homes are over $2M. In some cases,
well over. I think mandating renewable energy sources (e.g. solar) and other energy
efficient technologies and approaches are good. In fact, they only add to the value of a
new home.
Finally, the EIR process does not and can not take into account technology advances
that will be occurring in the future. It is based on the technology we have today.
Therefore, it is a very conservative analysis. I would like the commission and council to
consider the rapid changes in technology in their planning. This is a long term plan, and
technology is changing at an ever increasing pace. This is what will allow us to achieve
carbon neutrality without severe mandates or purchasing offsets.
Sincerely,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Beach resident, 2nd & Valley
Hi,
Reviewing the Plan Hermosa Final Environment impact report, I see a small error I wanted to
report for whatever it's worth.
In Table 4.4-1, the Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Windshield Survey (2014) lists 218
properties.
My rental house @ 1139 17th. St is listed under Property Type as: HP2, Single Family
Property. It's actually a 2-house-on-a-lot duplex, with 2 separate houses on the same lot, the
other house having an address of: 1701 Golden Ave, HB, so I guess it should be listed
instead as: HP3, Multiple Family Property.
Thank you,
Brian Kinel, 1725 Golden Ave, HB
From: Donald Karasevicz
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 8:57:27 PM
To: Rob Saemann
Subject: PLAN Hermosa
Hello Rob,
With regards to the PLAN Hermosa General Plan I urge you to not vote in favor of the provision to adopt
a carbon neutral policy for Hermosa Beach. I have lived in Hermosa Beach since 1984 and have pulled
building permits for the construction of my own home as well as the remodeling of others. The far-
reaching implications of a Community Wide Neutrality by 2040 are mine boggling and I strongly urge the
city to adopt the State of California goal of 66% reduction of 2005 emissions by 2040. Adopting the State
515
goal will allow the city to adopt progressive policies while not tying it down in an attempt to adhere to
unrealistic goals which will can severely penalize its residents.
Sincerely,
Donald Karasevicz
Hermosa Beach
From: Gregory Kelsey
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:29 AM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Cc: larry larrabee; Marrakesh; John Thomas; Traudl
Subject: Carbon Neutrality
We believe the city council is overstepping it bounds. Carbon reduction is something we all strive for,
but carbon neutrality is an unrealistic political agenda that will ultimately lead to serious economic
consequences and ultimately the council being recalled and serious minded people put in your place.
The detrimental affect of such legislation on the senior citizens, middle class residents and the economic
health of our community cannot be overstated.
We are absolutely opposed to this fool hearty idea urge you to reconsider this tyrannical idea and work
to improve our city not destroy it.
Gregory and Sharon Kelsey
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
From: Scott & Annette Gustafson
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 7:53 PM
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Subject: Carbon Neutrality is too extreme
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council and Planning Commission,
We feel that Hermosa Beach needs to concentrate on fixing the city’s sewer system, city buildings, city
schools, city streets, city library, repair and maintain all city property and not focus on carbon
neutrality. Maintaining these general everyday needs should be the priority of the city.
You need to build a foundation, by strengthening our aging infrastructure before adding these additional
costs.
Thank you,
Annette & Scott Gustafson
Hermosa Residences for 30 years
From: Lee Hennis
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:57 AM
516
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Subject: Carbon Neutrality Mandates
I do not support the carbon neutrality mandates currently included in the new General Plan. I believe
these will impose an undo financial burden on all property owners and have a detrimental affect on
property values throughout the city. I feel that we cannot have these provisions hard coded as part of our
General Plan, providing the foundation for future policies.
Lee Hennis
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
I apologize for my tardiness in this process and wish I had been involved from the
beginning. Now, I find myself trying to catch up - a daunting task.
Are the plans for restrooms in Fort Lots of Fun and Seaview parks already a done deal? If not, I
would like you to consider the following:
Some history: When the Edith Rodaway Park was proposed after the school was demolished,
the City formed an advisory committee made up of mostly residents in the immediate area. My
husband and I were on that committee. It worked well because the design of that property
would have direct impact on our neighborhood. It was decided that that property would be
better utilized as a NEIGHBORHOOD park where families in the neighborhood would be able to
WALK there. It was not intended to be a park for people who lived outside the area.The design
was simple and we concluded that the addition of lighting and restrooms would encourage use
of the Park by people who were not necessarily nearby residents. That was not the idea and we
kept the focus of that park - NEIGHBORHOOD - as opposed to Clark Field, Valley Park, South
Park, and the beach.
As I observe the users of our neighborhood park Fort Lots of Fun, I notice many baby carriages,
strollers, scooters, bikes being used to get to the Park. In other words, I'm guessing most of the
users WALK there. It seems to me that if they live close enough to walk there, they can walk
home if they need to use a rest room. If folks need restrooms, they can utilize the other parks
that have such facilities.
As a member of the Golf Advisory Committee for L.A. City golf courses, I have learned that the
biggest headaches at these courses are the restrooms on the back nine holes where there is a
lack of supervision. The restrooms are a magnet for the homeless and others who use the
restrooms for purposes other than playing a round of golf. The facilities are vandalized and
require much more maintenance than the restrooms near the clubhouses where there is more
supervision.
In conclusion, I am hoping that there is still time to reconsider adding restrooms to these small
neighborhood parks. I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight but hope that this email will
be considered in my absence.
Sincerely,
Bette Mower
517
From: Mary Lhomme
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 11:03 AM
To: Mayor Hany Fangary
Cc: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Re: OBJECTION TO COMMUNITY WIDE CARBON NEUTRALITY
Thank you for your response Mr Fangary. I am surprised you are puzzled that I believe the citizens of
Hermosa Beach have not been informed of the extreme plan for Carbon Neutrality. This weekend I
visited every house on my block and not one person was aware of this issue. They were shocked and
appalled. I also emailed every friend I have in the city and again, same reaction and not one person was
aware of the city's drastic and costly plans. Hmmm. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because you
announce meetings that are about the City's 20-Year Plan and not highlight the city's grandiose and
extreme Carbon Neutrality plans. Please email me a copy of the two flyers that were sent out.
Lack of response to these routine sounding events does not constitute acceptance.
Bottom line. Based on my visits and calls this weekend, I believe the vast majority of Hermosa Beach
residents are not aware of the city's Carbon Neutrality plans. They should be made aware of what
Carbon Neutrality would mean to them in an understandable, concise format, as it goes way beyond the
State mandates, is extreme and will affect every single resident.
This needs voter approval unless revised to not go above and way beyond the state mandates.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 18, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org> wrote:
Hi Mary, thanks for your input, I appreciate it.
It is not clear to me why you are appalled and think what the Council has been doing is a disgrace. You
described what the Council has been doing as "absolutely underhanded and sneaky way." It is not clear
to me what you are basing this on, and what you think we should have done different.
Below is a link to the City's website with all of the workshops, meetings, etc that have occurred over the
last three and a half years regarding Plan Hermosa. The outreach regarding Plan Hermosa started in
mid-2013, before I got elected, and to date has included 19 city council/commission meetings, 5
community workshops, 3 educational series sessions, 2 citywide mailings, an online engagement
opportunity, and numerous press releases/articles written by local papers about the process.
http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=857
With more than 25 meetings, workshops and events happening over the past three and a half years
regarding Plan Hermosa, which were properly announced, and most of them televised, I am not sure
what else the Council could have done to inform and engage the community. So to describe that
process as "absolutely underhanded and sneaky" is somewhat puzzling.
518
Hany S. Fangary
Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone: 424-235-0857
hfangary@hermosabch.org
www.hermosabch.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Lhomme
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 4:49 PM
To: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>
Subject: OBJECTION TO COMMUNITY WIDE CARBON NEUTRALITY
We object to the city council going way beyond what the state requires for carbon reduction in the city's
20 Year Plan. It is appalling that the council members did not inform the community on such an
important issue that would severely impact all Hermosa Beach residents.
We are letting all our neighbors and friends know of the absolutely underhanded and sneaky way you
are trying to put this through without involving the citizens. It is a disgrace.
We request that you drop the grandiose idea of Carbon Neutrality and use the states mandate of Carbon
Reduction targets.
Mary Lhomme
Dana Keniry
From: lana van aggelen
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN Hermosa Comment
Goal 1 - Page 138 Budget money funds our infrastructure (sewers) and fire services liabilities (pension
obligations). Discretionary money should fund all green projects. Carbon reduction should be in our near future
NOT the extreme position of no carbon emissions by the year 2040.
As a retired couple on a low fixed income, we are not willing to relinquish the gas heating we now have. We are
thankful Hermosa has both gas and electric available to us as we always have had since we bought our home on
Prospect in 1970. We have friends and family who reside in other nearby cities. They only have electricity
available to them; their electric bills are about three times higher than ours. For them their electric bill is
sometimes a financial hardship. We are truly fortunate to have natural gas to heat our home. Do not take that
from us with a carbon neutrality plan!
Goal 2 - Page 139 Hermosa Beach to be a Carbon Neutral community by 2040 - No Thank You. This household
wants all references to carbon credits/offsets be stripped out and replace “neutral” with “reduction”.
Neutral is extreme. Reduction is both reasonable and desirable.
519
We would really like to continue to live peaceful lives unencumbered by EXTREME LIFE CHANGING INTRUSIONS
from the elected and appointed policy makers of this fair city in which we all live.
Thank You
Lana & Richard Van Aggelen
Hermosa Beach
From: Leanne Clifton
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:01 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality Crazy Idea
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members;
Please DO NOT go forward with this crazy, naïve idea of saddling Hermosa Beach with Carbon
Neutrality!!
You will ruin our city and destroy property values, and cause a huge mess! You fought Oil in Hermosa
and this stupid, idealistic idea will do 100 times as much damage as Oil ever would have.
So get realistic and drop this Environmentalist Pipe Dream, or at least let the Hermosa residents vote on
this dopy idea!
Andrew Clifton
49 year resident of wonderful Hermosa Beach!
From: Getchel
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Planning Commission; City Clerk
Subject: Comments on the proposed General Plan changes re: Carbon Neutrality
Dear Commissioners and City Council members,
I have real concerns about the upcoming vote to approve Wide Carbon Neutrality as part of the
General Plan update.
The state of California does NOT mandate "neutrality", but does have a bold carbon reduction
with a target of 66% reduction by 2040. This is a realistic and far reaching goal. The small city
of HERMOSA BEACH WILL NOT HAVE ANY GLOBAL IMPACT BY REACHING FURTHER WITH A
MANDATE TO IT'S RESIDENTS TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL.
Hermosa Beach is a commuter city - PCH is used by many people outside the city. You cannot
control the emissions from cars traveling on PCH. Restaurants use natural gas to cook
meals....you will force many of them out of business. You are asking residents to abandon their
gas heating and cooking appliances. You are asking for the residents to buy a new cars that
don't use gasoline. You are putting out the unwelcome sign to visitors with gasoline powered
cars - Hermosa businesses (and tax revenue) will suffer.
520
WHO IS GOING TO GIVE THE MONEY TO THE RESIDENTS TO BRING ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES
NEEDED FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY???? YOU ARE FORCING THE RESIDENTS TO SPEND MONEY
FOR AN UNREALISTIC GOAL!!
The spokesman for the UN global initiative just admitted "Carbon Neutrality" has nothing to do
with saving the planet from "Climate Change" - it has to do with ridding the world of
"CAPITALISM" - this was from a news article in IBD last week.
I do not believe 4 council members have the right to impose such draconian changes to the
residents, business owners, and property owners in Hermosa Beach. Most residents are not
even aware of the changes you are voting on.
I URGE YOU TO DELETE ANY MANDATED "NEUTRALITY" FROM THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
OR VOTE AGAINST IT.
Respectfully from a Hermosa property owner and local Realtor,
Getchel Wilson, CRS
Vista Sotheby's International Realty
Dear City Council,
It is unbelievable that we, Hermosa Citizen, have to spend soo much of our time on
fighting this Extreme Agenda of Carbon Neutrality !
As you well know the State of California does NOT MANDATE Neutrality. It requires
to target a 66% REDUCTION against 2005 emissions by 2040.
But you want to self impose MANDATES to get us Carbon NEUTRAL in 2030 .
Just as an example...you want to tell me what car to drive, what stove to cook on,
that I have to put solar panels on my house etc, etc, etc. What about our Property
Rights?
You are spending so much time and our money ( OVER $1,000,000.00 just for the
book PLAN Hermosa!) on implementing energy projects. And hired a SECOND
Environmental Analyst for a little City like ours!
And you are not addressing all our Infrastructure Needs!
Regards,
Traudl Weber
Subject: FW: IS COUNCIL PLAN TO GO CARBON NEUTRAL TOO EXTREME?
Dear Mr. Mayor
A review of all the links and data the City uses, shown below demonstrates the state of California is the origin of the
carbon neutrality goal, as the State government is mandating Carbon reduction. Even if Hermosa just complies with
the State requirements, and does not exceed them in some heroic fashion, there still is a problem. The need for
521
Carbon Neutrality is predicated on unsubstantiated facts and currently, can only be categorized as unproven
speculation.
The leading contemporary theory for climate and weather prediction modeling does not validate Man caused Global
Warming. Therefore mandates deriving from Man caused Global warming should be eliminated from the Hermosa
General Plan unless there is a financial penalty associated with leaving it out that is unavoidable.
The real question is what would change the mindset of the purveyors for the necessity of carbon neutrality via
Climate Model predictions, where failure to predict over the past 15 years the actual temperatures we have now
observed and recorded has occurred? No validation implicating Human-Caused influence on temperature changes to
the Earth is demonstrated and therefore the theory, as it stands is either flawed or possibly trivial in nature.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has failed to accomplished this goal. As a member of the IPCC,
the United States is complying with the conclusions of the IPCC, hence the basis for California’s compliance and their
imposed demand on City’s, such as Hermosa Beach. While understandable these demands remain unchallenged
and inadequately scientifically vetted.
The challenge is to solicit the best and the brightest to work to reach scientific consensus with validation by model
prediction comparison to the measurement of real weather, so we can finally stop all the debate, and move forward
with informed governance. However, truth in science occurs when a prediction model correlates to actual
measurement for any scientific phenomena. Only after modeling prediction testing compared to the actual
phenomena in question is shown to correlate, can one claim scientific truth. The correlation of actual weather
temperature variations to climate model predictions presently is demonstrated by learned reviewers to produce
significantly differing temperature variations from measured weather temperatures, therefore clearly requires further
scrutiny to obtain compliance to validation, before the claim of scientific truth is established, and is suitable for public
declaration and public policy initiatives.
No amount of expressed political outrage is a replacement for properly vetted science. We need to refrain from
wasting our time and efforts of bloviating debate and demand that our state political leaders insist on an assembly of
extraordinary scientific talent with adequate funding perform weather model research needed to reach the level of
scientific rigor required to establish validity before demanding our City compliance. The push back from the City to
the State needs to assure a valid necessity for the City to meet the States demands before we waste our precious
dollars funding theoretical and unproven Science.
To this end, I am challenging the Hermosa Beach City Government to demonstrate courage of leadership to remove
all references and agendas deriving from the need for Carbon Neutrality from its comprehensive city plan until such
time a scientifically validated confirmation to address these issue is matured to the point that scientific consensus by
the normal standards of scientific confirmation are in place, and therefore becomes convincingly explainable to the
public at large.
This argument includes Community Choice Aggregation as well as any other related Carbon agenda items such as
the purchase of carbon credits.
In its place, I am further suggesting the City install into the comprehensive city plan wording that demonstrates an
open-mindedness to compliance by the City of Hermosa Beach to the State of California to Carbon related issues, if
and when the science of this issue reaches a more mature and less contentious state obtainable only by scientifically
convincing validation comprising recorded measure of global weather history as predicted by demonstrable
mathematical models.
Hermosa Beach’s concerns for both the safety and quality of life of its community population remain at the top of our
agenda and equal integrity should also apply to the investigation process of all searches and investigations to identify
522
issues of health and quality of life concern. My expectation is that the City will carefully weigh the consequences of
acting on misinformation applied to its newly formed comprehensive City Plan.
A much more prudent decision, in the presence of such uncertainty, is simply to remain extremely open-minded while
relentlessly maintaining a trust but verify attitude.
Best Regards,
Brad Fritzel
Electrical Engineer and Control System Specialist, Aerospace Management, retired Hermosa Beach
47 year Hermosa Beach resident
From: Dunham Stewart
Date: February 21, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM PST
To: <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, <mflaherty@hermosabch.org>, <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>,
<mrice@hermosabch.org>, <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>, <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>
Subject: HB Planning Commissioners & City Council
I am in strong agreement with the letter below sent by fellow residents.
Additionally, as a longtime local real estate professional, I can further attest to the significant loss in
property values that would occur should many measures of PLAN Hermosa be approved. To change the
“highest and best use” (which means complying with HB city code) of a property, which a “historic”
designation would do, would have a significant detrimental impact on the value of the land.
Beyond simply taking away property rights, which should be enough, imagine the following:
A couple has purchased a “cottage” in the last 10 years to live in for a period of time, until they
start a family and outgrow the home, then build their “dream home” later. That dream would
now be stomped out, if they are not allowed to build the home the understood city code
allowed. (that is a real example)
A longtime owner of a property sells his home to a buyer who intends to build a new
home. The amount of money the buyer is willing to pay the property owner is “life changing”
(true story). Should the “highest and best use” of the property be changed, the value of that
property owner would have received, would have been significantly impacted.
A property has been passed on to the heirs (of which there are many). The original owners are
happy that the value of the home can be shared with the next generation heirs. Again, affecting
the value of that property, now affects the amount a property owner will be allowed to pass on
to their heirs.
A couple is getting divorced and needs to sell a home (not an uncommon event) they never
intended to sell. The value has been significantly impacted, and now each party will receive far
less in the liquidation of their largest asset.
Many homes are the most significant asset in a family. Often times they can help pay for big
ticket items like college, healthcare and other items. Affect the value of the home, it now limits
the amount funds a property owners could get from a lender for financing.
523
The examples could go on, and on. Hopefully, you understand the far-reaching unintended
consequences of a city mandate taking away property rights. It absolutely should a voluntary step of a
property owner to seek out a “historic” designation. Should the city want this step, it should come up
with an incentive for property owners to apply for the status.
My wife and I have been involved with numerous properties over the last 18 years. Many of these
properties were in significant disrepair, and quite frankly not safe. Others may have torn them down,
we enjoyed the process of fixing them up and enhancing their charm. Others now enjoy these
properties. No city ordinance required us to do that, we did it because we wanted. There are many
residents who enjoy the same. There have been numerous projects that have included remodeling and
upgrading existing properties, from Strand, to apartment buildings to cottages.
An incentive based program is the only fair approach to the end goal of this concept.
Dunham Stewart
323 30th St, HB
This letter has been submitted in the same form by the following:
Karynne Thim & John G. Wallace Jr.
Jolene O’Hara
Marc Panetta
Mike Michalski
Michalski & Fujita
Re/Max Estate Properties
Julie, Gary Haddock
Please do not follow staff’s recommendation to adopt PLAN Hermosa, and the accompanying EIR and
Mitigation
Measures at your meeting on February 22, 2017. Adopting them in their current form would be
detrimental to property owners’ rights, values, views and their ability to feasibly develop and renovate
their properties.
Below is a partial list of general concerns:
Identification of and restrictions on developing properties deemed “historic”
Restrictions on developing properties adjacent to “historic” properties
Restrictions on modifying or developing properties near 18 different spots in town deemed to
be “public viewpoints”
Restrictions on developing commercial properties adjacent to residential zones
Restrictions on improving walk streets
Carbon Neutrality by 2040
New construction requirements
524
Specific Concerns:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1. Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Mitigation Measure 4.1. This measure would inhibit a property
owner located within 50 feet of 18 vaguely identified public viewpoints throughout town from modifying
or developing their property if it would obstruct public views of the ocean, Palos Verdes, Santa Monica
Mountains, the LA Basin and San Gabriel Mountains. This is crazy! Please find that there are overriding
considerations and this measure would have an unconscionable impact upon the value of impacted
properties.
2. Air Quality. Mitigation Measure 4.2 Active developers and contractors should be notified of the
new requirements and be given the opportunity to review them and suggest alternatives.
3. Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. Historic designation and preservation should be a
strictly voluntary process, and only initiated by the property owner. Period. No mandates by the City,
other governmental agency, group or other private party.
a. 4.4-4a . Are there any alternatives to maintaining a list? Being named on a list diminishes a property’s
value.
b. 4.4-4b. Historic resource studies cost property owners thousands of dollars. The current wording is
vague - virtually any property could be required to conduct a study before it is remodeled or
demolished. At a minimum, delete “potential historic resource.”
c. 4.4-4d . This wording could be interpreted to mean that others can “nominate” a property as being
historic. The process should be strictly voluntary.
d. 4.4-4f. The ultimate infringement on property rights. Delete in its entirety due to overriding
considerations and its unconscionable impact upon the value of impacted properties.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Mitigation Measure 4.6. Suggest modification after more community
education and input.
PLAN Hermosa / Commission Comments and Suggested Changes:
During the Planning Commission’s review of the draft of PLAN Hermosa in 2016, they suggested
hundreds of comments, recommended edits and corrections that were intended to protect property
rights, views and values amongst other things. Staff subsequently recommended changes and responses
to the Commission’s comments, in some cases disagreeing with the Commission’s diligent work. Before
PLAN Hermosa is recommended for adoption, these inconsistencies must be reconciled and an
updated draft provided to the public for review and comment.
Plan Hermosa edits needed: There were areas where references to conflicting heights weren’t deleted
(Page 70 as related to R2 properties on Longfellow & 30th; Page 76 where “predominantly one or two
story single family structures” wasn’t deleted) and subtle changes in a single word would alter policy on
historic properties. An example is at Page 16 of the Comments regarding Page 99 of PLAN Hermosa
where the Planning Commission stated historic preservation should be voluntary. Staff came back and
said the policy as written was okay because it said demolition or alteration of “potentially” historic
resources would be “discouraged” not mandated. Discouraging is/will become the same as prohibiting,
525
whether in the form of not issuing a building permit or making it cost prohibitive or punitive in red tape
so homeowners would simply give up. There are countless examples like this. Too many to include in
this letter.
Carbon Neutrality: In my opinion, references to Carbon Neutrality should be changed to Carbon
Reduction, with voluntary participation rewarded by incentives. Carbon Neutrality is an extreme
measure, especially when mandated on existing buildings . When remodeling or selling , owners
could be required to install new windows, solar panels, change from gas cooking/heating to all electric,
etc. Energy audits and retrofits would cost property owners thousands of dollars. This will have a
huge negative impact on property owners in Hermosa. It’s an overreach of authority and shouldn’t be
mandated on an accelerated schedule, decided by a vote of 5 council members. Residents need an
opportunity to really understand how this would impact their daily lives and cost of living/doing
business in Hermosa. There are other punitive measures and costs unrelated to property ownership,
such as having to purchase carbon offsets and and penalties for not driving an electric vehicle.
Draft EIR
Extending beyond the 200+ properties identified as being potentially historic, the draft EIR recommends
that the adjacent properties implement “design guidelines to ensure new development would not
sharply contrast with nearby historic resources” at Page 205 of the draft EIR. This infringes on property
rights and values of many properties in town.
Walk Streets
There was a notation that walk streets are to be preserved. This needs careful study to insure property
owner’s rights to remodel and building wouldn’t be impacted, nor restrict improvements to the walk
street itself. At 18th Street, property owners got together to beautify the walkstreet with new planters,
drainage and concrete walkways.
The wording infers that nothing can be done.
Commercial Properties
There is reference to restricting the development of commercial properties adjacent to residential
zones. This would be devastating to the rights and values of the affected properties. See page 321 of the
draft EIR. “1.10 Transition between uses. Encourage new projects in non-residential areas to employ
architectural transitions to adjoining residential properties to ensure compatibility of scale and a sense
of privacy for existing residences. Such transitions could include setbacks, gradations and transitions in
building height and appropriate landscaping.”
Guiding principles for PLAN Hermosa should have been finalized BEFORE the EIR was done. If sequenced
properly based on a final PLAN, taking into account the desires of all stakeholders, residents wouldn’t be
faced with these punitive mitigation measures. Is it procedurally possible to amend the EIR and
mitigation measures based on a revised PLAN Hermosa?
The documents before you contain hundreds of pages, some of which just came out with the staff
report a couple days ago. They are complex and have far-reaching implications. They require
significantly more study and revision.
526
Property owners haven’t been properly noticed about the broad reaching impacts.
PLAN/EIR Carbon Goals
David Grethen
Please recommend to City Council that the greenhouse gas emissions (carbon reduction) goals in PLAN
Hermosa be no more ambitious than, or the same as, those derived from associated State of California
goals.
State-consistent goals would provide a compromise on this divisive issue by establishing a goal than is
realistic and more practical than carbon neutrality, but still very challenging for those who seek
environmental leadership opportunities or related economic benefits.
This approach would also not likely substantially perturb the EIR in its current proposed final form since a
state-consistent goal (such as 66% reduction by 2040) would be consistent with environmental thresholds
and what is listed as part of the mitigation measures for monitoring and adaptive management.
Similarly I suspect that most of the PLAN implementation policies and actions would remain fairly intact,
with the main impacts to the document being to replace “carbon neutrality” by “carbon reduction”, “carbon
neutral” by “low carbon”, and insertion of some finite value for the amount of reduction in a given year as
part of the goal formulation.
I realize that our city’s history on this subject means we have accumulated a lot of momentum, making
this a potentially difficult ‘ship’ to ‘steer’ at this point. But now that we are beginning to better appreciate
what the ideal of carbon neutrality means in practice, it is time for a ‘mid-course correction’.
The Planning Commission is uniquely positioned and judiciously appointed to initiate that correction. Your
recommendation will especially enable City Council to adopt a realistic carbon reduction goal in the final
PLAN by promoting the opportunity to do so.
David Grethen
P.S. Please recall that I have already spoken and written to the Commission several times about
concerns over the carbon goals starting in early 2016.
From: Robert Fortunato
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 6:30 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Carbon Neutral Opportunity Easily Lost
City Clerk, Please enter this letter into the record.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Carbon Neutral initiative will make it easier and less expensive to make the choices that
enhance our lives, our local economy and our health – vs. the polluting fuels that gives
someone else the wealth while giving us the risk of explosion and the cost of cancer, heart
disease and lung disease…
527
The Redondo Beach School District saved $1.7 million in the first two years of their solar
program and returned that savings to programs for their kids. We can do the same thing and
the savings can go into our roads, sewers, police, fire…
Unfortunately, there has been an attempt to scare people with misinformation. They are
claiming that: “no resident in HB will be permitted to emit carbon”. That is just plain false. And
they claim that carbon credits, mandates and banning things are the only ways to make as
much renewable energy as we use – tell that to Elon Musk! The Carbon Neutral HB initiative
has always been promoting more choices, incentives and community education as the method
that gets this done.
The steep drop in price of distributed energy generation, electric cars and battery packs are
game changers. We have the opportunity to partner with the companies that are creating these
game changing technologies to make it less expensive for us - but only if we live up to our
reputation as a city of innovators and push for an aggressive Carbon Neutral goal.
Don’t lose this opportunity and reward their false statements. Support an aggressive Carbon
Neutral goal - and your health and the health of your loved ones at the same time.
Respectfully,
Robert
From: Traudl
Date: February 21, 2017 at 11:07:01 AM PST
To: Hermosa City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>, "planningcommission@hermosabch.org"
<planningcommission@hermosabch.org>, "cityclerk@hermosabch.org" <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Reg. Carbon Neutraliy,
Dear City Council,
It is unbelievable that we, Hermosa Citizen, have to spend soo much of our time on
fighting this Extreme Agenda of Carbon Neutrality !
As you well know the State of California does NOT MANDATE Neutrality. It requires
to target a 66% REDUCTION against 2005 emissions by 2040.
But you want to self impose MANDATES to get us Carbon NEUTRAL in 2030 .
Just as an example...you want to tell me what car to drive, what stove to cook on,
that I have to put solar panels on my house etc, etc, etc. What about our Property
Rights?
You are spending so much time and our money ( OVER $1,000,000.00 just for the
book PLAN Hermosa!) on implementing energy projects. And hired a SECOND
Environmental Analyst for a little City like ours!
And you are not addressing all our Infrastructure Needs!
528
Regards,
Traudl Weber
From: Tony Choueke
Date: February 20, 2017 at 9:36:18 PM PST
To: phoffman@hermosabch.org, mflaherty@hermosabch.org, rsaemann@hermosabch.org,
mrice@hermosabch.org, dpedersen@hermosabch.org
Subject: Designation of historical houses
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Sincere apologies for sending you my thoughts in a letter addressed to all of you.
I would just like to touch on a consideration which may be less obvious in our discussion of historic
houses in HB.
With wise guidance from the Planning Commission, i.e. all of you, I truly believe that Hermosa Beach
can and will have the most interesting and vibrant downtown commercial district anywhere in
California.
1. I was there when lower Pier Ave was turned into the auto free, walkable street which it is today. It
was a great concept by those who came before us and well executed.
2. The benefits of the renovation and rehabilitation of upper Pier Ave. is undeniable and well thought
through. We are grateful for the efforts that have yielded this to our city.
3. The elimination of bars on The Strand and the introduction of the Strand + Pier Hotel project is an
exciting new development that will benefit both residents and tourists alike.
What’s next?
4. On the South side of 14th. Street, between The Strand and Hermosa Ave., there are eight
contiguous parcels that back up to the City parking lot. These eight lots are owned by Celina Douglas
and members of the Choueke family. We would like to work together with the Planning Commission
to come up with an amazing (awesome, if you like) plan that will further enhance downtown
Hermosa Beach so that the concentration of commercial activities can spread beyond the current Pier
Ave., on to 14th. St. It is a natural progression and we have a unique opportunity and willingness to
work together to transform the downtown, one step at a time, for the better.
5. The same situation exists on 11th St., where the current parcels, with wise and collaborative
planning, can enhance the area South of Pier Ave. Again this is a unique and once in a lifetime
opportunity to shape the City into something that serves the residents and for which they can be
proud.
Problem is…
If the City were to enact new zoning, changing the existing, commercial district into a historic,
residential district, it would not be possible to assemble the number of lots required to build an
529
integrated space where hotels, service providers, retail stores and restaurants share in an inspired
vision of a new and redefined Hermosa Beach Downtown.
I would like you to consider the wider implications of a zoning change. Whereas some interesting
properties may well be preserved, the downtown runs the risk of presenting the image of
a hodgepodge of buildings with no particular aim. This may please some tourists but will have no
positive effect on residents who want a functioning and cleaned-up downtown.
Jointly we have the opportunity to build something beautiful for the next generation of
residents. This is an opportunity which may not come again for 50 years. So let’s work together to
accomplish point 5 and 6, and not just stopping there, but to think of what we can do that future
generations may consider worthy of historic preservation. Together we can make history.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration. I would be happy to organize a committee of
property owners on 14th. St. to meet with you, the members of our Planning Commission, to further
explore how we can positively impact the future of the one of the most desirable places to live on
earth.
Thanks again,
Tony
Tony Choueke
Choueke Capital Group
From: ann maynard
Date: February 20, 2017 at 9:18:53 PM PST
To: hfangary@hermosabch.org, jmassey@hermosabch.org,
jduclos@hermosabch.org, sarmato@hermosabch.org, cpetty@hermosabch.org,
phoffman@hermosabch.org, mflaherty@hermosabch.org, rsaemann@hermosabch.org,
mrice@hermosabch.org, dpedersen@hermosabch.org
Subject: Carbon Dating
Carbon dating of Hermosa Beach is a colossal grab of private property rights tantamount to a
TAKING. Spare Hermosa Beach from future lawsuits in regard to your Community Wide Carbon
Neutrality Plan. Eliminate it.
Ann Maynard
Hermosa Beach resident
From: Gina L. DeRosa, C.P.A.
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 4:24:42 PM
To: Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen
Subject: 845 4th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Esteemed Planning Commissioners,
530
My uncle, George (Jim) Schumacher, lives at and owns the property at 845 4th Street. Jim is elderly and
fully disabled and I am his guardian. He has had full-time live-in care for the past seven years and has
paid for that care with a reverse mortgage. When the reverse mortgage expires in September 2017 he
will owe approximately $600,000 to the mortgage lender. The value of his property as a tear down is
approximately $1,000,000. I will have to sell his property to pay off the mortgage and use the balance of
the proceeds to support him in a nursing facility for the rest of his life.
I learned yesterday that Jim’s property is on the list of properties that could potentially be deemed
“historical” under PLAN Hermosa. As a life-long South Bay resident and a 22-year Hermosa Beach
resident, I understand the value of preserving our heritage and history. However, in my uncle’s case,
the designation could cause a catastrophic drop in property value. He could be left destitute if I cannot
sell his property for the full market value.
I implore you to consider the lives and rights of the residents in the potentially historical properties
when making your decisions and recommendations to the City Council.
Thank you,
Gina DeRosa
(512 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach CA)
From: Maria Thomas
Date: February 20, 2017 at 3:07:27 PM PST
To: <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>, <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, <mflaherty@hermosabch.org>,
<mrice@hermosabch.org>, <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>, <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Historic proporty Designation
Dear Planning Commission & City Council Members,
I am the owner of 565 20th Street, Hermosa Beach. I have owned this property and lived in my house for
over 50 years.
My home is on the list for “Potential Historic Properties” in Hermosa Beach. I have no interest in having
my home on a “Potential Historical Property” list or having it “Carbon Neutral” .
I am requesting that my home be removed from the “Potential Historical Property” list for Plan Hermosa.
Please include this letter in your meeting minutes.
Thank You, Maria Thomas
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
From: "Tracy and Mark Hopkins"
To: "Peter Hoffman" <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, "Michael Flaherty"
<MFlaherty@hermosabch.org>, "Rob Saemann" <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>, "Marie Rice"
<mrice@hermosabch.org>, "David Pedersen" <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>, "City Council"
<citycouncil@hermosabch.org>, "City Clerk" <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Item to be submitted for the Plng Commission meeting agenda on 2/22
531
Mentioned in the PLAN Hermosa Vision Statement, "...and commitment
to sustainability intersect."
I submit the attached report, Inside the World of Planning, that explains
the potential damages to individuals caused by sustainable development
seeming to be heavily interweaved throughout the planning documents.
Please do not follow staff’s recommendation to adopt PLAN Hermosa, and
the accompanying EIR and Mitigation
Measures at your meeting on February 22, 2017. Adopting them in their
current form would be detrimental to property owners’ rights, values, views
and their ability to feasibly develop and renovate their properties.
Respectfully,
Tracy Hopkins
From: CHRISTINE KETZ
Date: February 21, 2017 at 1:50:44 PM PST
To: phoffman@hermosabch.org, mflaherty@hermosabch.org, mrice@hermosabch.org,
rsaemann@hermosabch.org, dpedersen@hermosabch.org, Mayor Hany Fangary
<hfangary@hermosabch.org>, Jmassey@hermosabch.org, jduclos@hermosabch.org,
sarmato@hermosabch.org, "cpetty@hermosabch.org" <cpetty@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Hermosa Beach Plan
I am very concerned about the Carbon Neutral Plan you are considering approving. This city has very
limited resources (money), you are telling us we can’t afford our fire dept. and you want to spend
money on something that is the responsibility of the State and Federal government. How many staff
have advanced degrees in air emissions? How many economists do we have on staff to determine the
economic impacts on residents? The whole concept is absurd. I do not live in Irvine because I Do not
want to be told what color I can paint my house. I also do not want to be told what kind of energy I
must purchase or use. I don’t want to be told what kind of car I must buy. What happened to personal
freedom? I don’t have air conditioning, I don’t need solar panels. I have live here over 35 years. I am
retired and wanted to live here the rest of my life. I don’t know if I could afford YOUR Hermosa. Two of
my close friends moved out of Hermosa and the state because they can’t afford it in their
retirement. Does n this plan haven an economic section. What would the impact of these changes
haven your city? I don’t believe that you have a clue of what the consequences of this plan. Why not do
a survey of the entire city asking the residents what they want. Most people don’t know anything about
this. Please don’t approve this.
From: Beth Bohl
Date: February 21, 2017 at 1:52:41 PM PST
532
To: "phoffman@hermosabch.org" <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, "mflaherty@hermosabch.org"
<mflaherty@hermosabch.org>, "rsaemann@hermosabch.org" <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>,
"mrice@hermosabch.org" <mrice@hermosabch.org>, "dpedersen@hermosabch.org"
<dpedersen@hermosabch.org>, "citycouncil@hermosabch.org" <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Historic preservation
Hello,
I wanted to express my support for the historic and environmental preservation aspects of the General
Plan. We don’t want to become Santa Monica. I see these old houses being razed in favor of huge
mansions that make the developers and real estate agents lots of money but turn our city into
something that is much less livable and affordable.
Please KEEP HERMOSA KEEP HERMOSA!!
Beth Fasola
From: Dency Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:40 PM
To: Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen
Cc: Ken Robertson; Kristy Morris; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Final EIR Comments for PLAN Hermosa & Carbon Neutrality
Members of the HB Planning Commission:
It will come as no surprise to any of you, as all of you know me well, that I write this in total
support of the proposals for the City of Hermosa Beach to pursue the Carbon Neutrality goals
set forth in PLAN Hermosa. I would be there to speak in person, and rest assured that I will be
there to speak in person, come hell or high water, when this comes before our City Council next
month. I have duties as an officer of Beach Cities Democrats that demand my attendance of
our monthly meeting, which this month coincides with your Public Hearing on this matter.
It is short-sighted and factually unsubstantiated to take a position not in support of these
proposals, and it will be embarrassing for our city if we do not pursue these forward thinking
measures, as I am quite certain that the cities and counties that rush past us and adopt these
measures will prove all of the naysayers wrong. Those communities will start reaping both the
financial and health benefits of this aggressive approach, and we will be left literally in the toxic
dust. I want better for Hermosa, and I am grateful that there are many more in our city who
think the same way. What is troubling is to hear the politically motivated “Alternative Facts”
that are being spread throughout the community with alarmist, ill-informed scare tactics. Big
Brother is not about to descend into our homes and onto our rooftops, forcing us to cut off our
Natural Gas and install photovoltaic solar panels (though those who do, like me and many
others who have, would soon experience the benefits, financially and otherwise, that my family
and me have experienced for almost 20 years now!) It is irresponsible for certain leaders in our
community to speak from the dais, in their appointed positions as policy makers, suggesting
that adoption of fully electric homes means that we are tied to the electric cooktops of the
1960s! That is not only ridiculous, it is, as I said, irresponsible. Leaders are supposed to impart
533
knowledge. Statements such as those are lacking in knowledge of where we are in the 21st
Century.
I apologize for not sticking to the elements of the EIR in this letter, as I know that will be the
direction given to those who will step up to speak on Wednesday night. But I suspect that
there are many who will pursue an anti-Carbon Neutral agenda when they step up to speak,
and my family and I need to be counted in support of those Carbon Neutral goals. If I were to
depart in any way from some of the language contained in the PLAN, I will say that I truly
believe that we can and must attain the CN goals without purchasing offsets, but by investing in
our own efforts to both reduce our own carbon and in producing our own clean, local
energy. We can do it, yes we can!
Sincerely,
Dency & Moira Nelson & Family
Hermosa Beach
From:
Date: February 21, 2017 at 7:44:15 PM PST
To: <Planningcommission@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Community Wide Carbon Neurtrality
Planning Commission
I’am a longtime resident and homeowner in Hermosa Beach who is totally opposed to this plan.
Imposing provisions included in this measure without a vote of the people is simple
wrong. This measure will directly effect all residents in so many important ways, it cries for a vote of the
people of this City.
Bernard Robbins
1510 The Strand
Hermosa Beach
From: <jim@fasolaarchitects.com>
Date: February 21, 2017 at 6:05:38 PM PST
To: <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, <mflaherty@hermosabch.org>, <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>,
<mrice@hermosabch.org>, <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>
Subject: PLAN Hermosa
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to adopt the resolution to recommend certification of the PLAN Hermosa Final
Environmental Impact Report.
As a former Manhattan Beach Planning Commissioner, and a current Hermosa Beach resident, I see the
value in adopting strategic documents exactly like this one.
534
PLAN Hermosa is modest, reasonable, and very good for the City as a whole.
Thank you,
Jim Fasola
2024 Rhodes St, Hermosa Beach
310-374-7000
From: Karen Kohles
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:26 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: carbon neutrality
Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,
My husband and I are writing to voice our concerns over the city's new "carbon neutrality"
decision. The details of this issue were recently brought to our attention for the first time in editorial
articles in the local newspapers. We were unaware what this issue would mean to us as homeowners
before we read these articles. An issue this large with such a costly outcome for homeowners should be
brought before the citizens for a vote. We have owned and lived in our home in Hermosa for twenty five
years and have always tried to stay abreast on issues that concerned us. Somehow this one slipped right
by us! After talking to other locals, it seems to have slipped by them too!
My husband's occupation for the last twenty years has been as an electrical distribution linepatrol
mechanic (aka "lineman") for the city of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). He has
gone through years of extensive training in the field of electricity and power distribution. With his
knowledge regarding this subject, he feels that carbon neutrality would be an ENORMOUS AND
COSTLY MISTAKE for the city to make. Most homes in Hermosa currently use both natural gas and
electricity for basic household functions. Natural gas is superior for heating the air, heating our water,
cooking and drying our clothes in our homes. Its cost is much lower than electricity and it is better for our
environment. Another huge concern of ours is the cost of converting these appliances in our homes
would be enormous!!
Most electricity generated in the state of California is generated by burning natural gas to power
the steam turbines. Therefore, converting solely to electricity is not "cleaner" or more environmentally
friendly. It will cost Hermosa Beach citizens a huge amount of money with no benefit in return. It will not
be more environmentally friendly. It might sound like it is, but it really isn't.
Please consider what an enormous negative fiscal impact this decision will have on the citizens of
Hermosa Beach. What are the benefits to it? We don't see any. Please reconsider this matter. It should
be voted on by the citizens.
Sincerely,
Karen and Chris Kohles
Hermosa Beach
From: JOE REYNA
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:54 PM
535
To: City Council
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon Neutrality - EXTREME!
Planning Commission and City Council,
I have been a homeowner, tax payer, and voter in Hermosa Beach since 1992. I want to be on the record
and make my objection to the council’s push toward carbon neutrality! Why is it that some of you are
way ahead of the State’s proposed actions regarding the reduction of California’s carbon footprint? We
are a 1.2 sq. mile city with no real measureable beneficial impact to being ahead of the State’s plan. Can
you really justify the expense incurred by the city to research the benefits of being ahead of the state? If
so, why wasn’t any money spent on opposition research, so we the TAX PAYERS and yourselves could
have the benefit of both sides of the argument?
What are the potential mandates/costs that the city will impose on citizens to reach certain goals? Have
you folks researched and presented the added financial burdens that our citizens and businesses would
experience? Do you folks really understand the consequences of carbon neutrality, if so why not share
that with the taxpayers, are we to stupid to understand? I never heard anyone make the argument that
carbon neutrality is expense neutral, if it is, then please share so we can make an intelligent opinion and
or at least hire an expert to challenge those arguments.
I urge you folks to strip the carbon neutrality language and goals from the general plan and
concentrate all your efforts and OUR tax dollars on fixing and updating roads, sewers and making our
city safer! Once you folks have achieved these simple necessities, we can then have conversations on
what to do next, until then do the job you were elected to do. Please remember you work for us and
can be fired!
Larry Bryant called today to oppose PLAN Hermosa. He wanted to pass along the message that carbon
neutrality is way too extreme.
From: larry larrabee
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:28 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Carbon neutrality
You have been elected by the people to make rational laws for the betterment of the community, but I
think this quest goes way beyond the job description and if not substantially amended or withdrawn
entirely, should at minimum require a vote of the people. This entire global warming theory is based
upon unproven and unsubstantiated data. The arrogant concept that man can control mother nature,
positively or negatively, in any way other than negligible is preposterous and vulgar. I am so weary of
government involvement in new and trendy legislation dictating to me what I buy or use, what I can or
can't do, how I do it, when I do it etc. etc.
Please remove this portion of the City Plan. I trust the plan could be revised when sufficient hard facts
are garnered to generate the rational and betterment portion of the equation.
Sincerely,
536
Lawrence Larrabee
Diane Larrabee
40 year Hermosa Beach resident
From: Mayor Pro Tem Justin Massey
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 3:30 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: PLAN Hermosa
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
Carbon neutrality is projected to return $2 for every $1 spent, a return that can lower the cost of living
and doing business and free up funds to run the City ($16 million in annual savings by 2040).
The fair questions are:
1. Can we get there by 2040 without mandates beyond those required to meet State greenhouse
gas (GHG) reductions?
2. And, can we fund the effort with outside capital or, if not, at a rate that justifies the cost?
There are good reasons to believe the answers are yes.
As a general principle, we have two obvious choices when faced with a challenge: Attack it or ignore it.
Our recent history is one of attacking challenges. For example, when we faced inadequate State funding
for school programs and facilities, our community funded HbEF and passed Measure S. There is a lesson
in our determination in passing Measure S: Because it passed it at the same time voters approved $9
billion in State bonds under Prop 51, our schools will be first in line for Prop 51 money.
That is first mover advantage.
A two-child family in the median-priced $1.25 million Hermosa home (as of 2015) that answers the
annual appeal of HbEF spends roughly $3,600 a year on HbEF and Measure S combined. That money can
now be multiplied with State funding at no cost because we passed Measure S.
The communitywide carbon neutrality goal of 2040 proposes to attack a different but equally
real challenge over a shorter term, for less, and with similar opportunities to multiply our capital.
At the start of the PLAN Hermosa process, facing factors including State GHG reduction mandates,
climate change, and 5,000 premature deaths that AQMD attributes to air pollution annually, twenty-two
residents starred the following statement at the workshop on November 16, 2014:
A steady, common sense approach is necessary to advance a long-term goal of communitywide carbon
neutrality. Tackling environmental challenges early and proactively will maximize options and minimize
costs.
There is good reason to believe attacking those challenges can maximize options and minimize costs.
Here are three examples:
537
First, by buying power directly through a CCA, we should be able to lower rates, generate revenue to
help our community meet and exceed State GHG mandates, and offer more renewable energy -- further
easing the process of meeting and exceeding the mandates. That is the story of every CCA in California,
and it comes with no need to start a public utility and no risk to the City treasury.
Second, by using CCA revenue to facilitate public-private partnerships with automakers, as Sonoma is
doing, we should be able to offer cash incentives to encourage electric vehicle (EV) ownership. EVs
under $40,000 with ranges of over 200 miles are on the market, with more on the way. Whether it’s a
Tesla or a Chevy, EV owners save money and get a car that is better and cleaner than the alternative.
Third, by using public and private capital and continuing permit waivers, we should be able
to offer incentives for property owners to install rooftop power, which helps lower residents' cost of
living and adds property value because rooftop solar increases property values at a rate that meets or
exceeds its cost of installation -- meaning owners get free power and recoup 100% of their investment.
By grabbing low-hanging fruit like this, the City can ease the burden to Hermosans of meeting and
exceeding State GHG requirements -- all by expanding choices and incentives, not mandates.
If we pursue smart policy, the remaining reductions needed to meet and exceed State GHG goals should
be incentive-based and cost well under the $1,000 per year per household that communitywide CN is
projected to cost (the $1,000 is based on the communitywide capital cost of $244 million to meet a 2040
goal, as detailed in Table 7 of Att. 3 to your agenda this evening, divided by 10,000 households, divided
by 24 years). There are three reasons for that: First, by grabbing the low-hanging fruit, we get closer to
the goal; second, code changes required by State GHG goals (for example, net zero energy for new
builds and major renovations by 2020) get us even closer; and third, as with Measure S, attacking the
challenge puts us at the front of the line for public and private funds (from cap and trade funds, public-
private partnerships, etc.) that multiply our capital.
In sum, we know we have to meet State mandates. Solving a challenge that severely diminishes quality
of life and has eluded generations of southern Californians would be a bargain at under $1,000 a year
per household for 25 years. The terms appear to be even better than that, though, because the effort is
projected to pay back double in savings, and there is good reason to believe the steady, commonsense
course to carbon neutrality over the next 24 years (roughly a full generation) proposed in PLAN
Hermosa will increase our odds of getting there with incentives and outside capital, not mandates.
Thank you for all your hard work on PLAN Hermosa. It is appreciated.
Respectfully,
Justin Massey
Hermosa Beach City Council
424-262-1390 (voicemail)
538
539
540
541
542
Inside the World of
Planning
Tactics used to promote regionalism and sustainable development
planning in your community
Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Sustainable Freedom Lab
This report was prepared for community
members and public officials
543
1 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Inside the World of Planning
Report by Sustainable Freedom Lab
544
2 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Meet your planner ...................................................................................................................................... 5
The role of planners ............................................................................................................................... 5
Three major concerns about planners ................................................................................................ 5
Good people, do harmful things ........................................................................................................... 6
Meet your federal government ................................................................................................................. 7
Yes, the government is probably involved in your community plan ............................................... 7
CDBG ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing .................................................................................................. 7
The Partnership for Sustainable Communities .................................................................................. 8
The Six Livability Principles .................................................................................................................. 8
Grants, grants and more grants! ............................................................................................................ 10
Money everywhere ............................................................................................................................... 10
Watch out for the strings ..................................................................................................................... 10
Grants are not ‘free’ and dreams are not guaranteed .................................................................... 11
Welcome to your new region .................................................................................................................. 12
Planners promote regions to help communities thrive ................................................................... 12
Beneath the rosy regional rhetoric ..................................................................................................... 12
Regions mean governance boards ................................................................................................... 13
Planners Tactics: ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Understanding planners’ mindset ...................................................................................................... 14
When idealism meets government mandates .................................................................................. 15
Underrepresented communities ......................................................................................................... 16
Meeting control ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Misleading and under sampled surveys ........................................................................................... 18
Cherry-picked survey results .............................................................................................................. 20
Exaggerated or false claims ............................................................................................................... 20
Planners are salespeople ................................................................................................................... 21
Planners’ words are selling tools ....................................................................................................... 21
The words are not the plan ................................................................................................................. 22
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 22
545
3 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
INSIDE THE WORLD OF PLANNING
Foreword
Community planning is a fundamental part of America’s history. In 1682, William Penn
envisioned an urban greenbelt surrounding a grid work of Philadelphia streets and created a forerunner of the modern suburb.
One of Congress’ first acts authorized the planning of Washington DC. In 1791, George Washington personally selected Pierre L’Enfant to complete the task.
These two great city plans remain in use after 200 years. Today, over 7 million inhabitants pack Long Island’s 120-mile length. With 5400 people per
square mile, planning is fundamental to keep services moving.
But, when does planning go too far? No longer just about transportation and public services,
today’s planners seek to improve the quality of life and reduce poverty through regionalism and sustainable development. The sustainable philosophy is so broadly defined it encompasses
work, recreation, the economy, the community’s social make-up, use of resources, vehicle miles
traveled, personal and public property use and, in some cases, whether or not community members can even have an automobile.
When planners approach local officials armed with community designs and access to federal grant money, they are really marketing a program that is virtually the same plan used in Denver,
Portland, San Francisco, Atlanta, Carver, MA, or even Stockholm, Sweden.
When planners speak of adhering to the unique “character” of your community it is truly a case
of beauty being skin deep. Your new and functional design may have cosmetic appeal, but beneath the façade most sustainable development plans include restrictions, regulations and easements that potentially infringe on future property rights and values, land use and even the
character, lifestyle and social makeup of your neighborhood. All of this is to address an ethereal concept of “sustainability.”
Too late citizens discover that planning is not always, “what you see is what you get.” The ‘unexpectedly’ high costs of implementing and maintaining designs leads to increased taxation.
Still, there is no clear proof that, on balance the plans actually improve the quality of community
members’ lives.
If planners were completely forthcoming about the positive and the negative effects of their
sustainable designs, far fewer communities would opt to participate in their development schemes. Knowing this in advance, many firms, and even participating federal agencies, use
practices that emphasize the benefits of planning, while minimizing the harmful outcomes. Statistics are frequently cherry-picked to elicit community opinions that are most favorable to
planners’ proposals, while the cost projections to implement your community’s new sustainable
development plan are so commonly underestimated, one university professor, Bretn Flyvbjorg, dubs their predictions, “strategic misrepresentation.”
546
4 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
In fairness, many organizations are aware of the real-cost versus projected-cost gap. Groups, like the American Planning Association, are taking positive steps to improve the accuracy of
long-range cost projections.
This report does not suggest that all planners are dishonest. By its very nature, planning impacts personal property rights, lifestyles, home values and even economic, environmental
and social issues. It is the responsibility of community members to stay informed and participate in the planning process to protect their own futures.
Yet, many planners’ do use manipulative and opaque techniques to gain community buy-in for their plans.
The purpose of this report is to explain the potential damages to individuals caused by sustainable development, and the misleading tactics many planners use to sell their programs.
A better-informed citizenry is better able to spot manipulations when they do occur and better
prepared to ask the critical questions necessary to either accept, reject or modify the proposal.
547
5 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Meet your planner
The role of planners
Planners have an agenda. In general, their goal is to reduce poverty and improve the quality of
life. They often seek to make the world a better place now and for future generations by
applying the knowledge they have gained about transportation and land use systems in the
context of economic, social and environmental realities.
Planners frequently work directly for governments, or for private firms who in turn work for
governments. Because they spend much of their time engaged with governments and officials,
they are better versed than community members to navigate the system that ultimately decides
whether or not a sustainable development plan is approved. For this reason, even when dealing
with the most ethical firm, it is important for community members to attend planning meetings
and develop close working relationships with planners and local officials.
Planners often work in teams that include experts in design, land use planning and in policy
planning.
According to the American Planning Association,
“Planners work with elected officials, businesses and residents to create a vision of
the future. Then, by studying current conditions and trends, the planner develops
suggestions for acquisitions that will allow the city to achieve its vision. Planners collect
information about population, the economy, and the environment. This information
allows planners to understand whether the city is growing in population or shrinking
and whether employers are moving into the city and creating new jobs, or are moving
away because of suburbanization or globalization. Planners look at whether the supply
of houses is likely to be sufficient to meet the needs of residents over the next 20
years, whether the existing transportation system allows people to get to jobs,
shopping, school, and recreational activities without safety problems, unacceptable
delays, and increasing pollution. Where problems are identified, planners then
strategize ways the city government can work with residents, businesses, and other
units of government to solve those problems and achieve their vision for the future.”1
Three major concerns about planners
As you can see, planners are engaged in a broad range of activities that can be interpreted to
cover nearly every aspect of family, work and society. This can include land acquisition and
protection, zoning recommendations and even social justice. The potential for planners’
designs to infringe on resident’s living standards and lifestyles is the first major reason for
community members to be concerned.
The second are the loose definitions by which planning firms operate. Sustainable development
itself is defined as…
“…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.” 2
This can embrace a broad interpretation of climate change impact or CO2 reduction, traffic
congestion, human over-population concerns, economic disparities, fossil fuel use, land use and
more. Each may have solutions, which can negatively affect property rights and lifestyles. Once
a plan is approved, the lack of clear limitations and definitions can easily lead to disenfranchised
local citizens and negative consequences in years ahead.
548
6 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Planners, according to the American Institute of Certified Planners, try to work within a code of
ethics that obligates them to “take the public interest seriously in all of their work.”
But, like the definition of sustainable development, ‘public interest,’ and ‘seriously’ are elastic
terms that may well depend on the beliefs of the individual planner.
Finally, planners are often a direct pipeline to federal grant money that can impose severe
restrictions on local residents’ planning choices.
Most planners actively pursue federal cash grants for local communities to begin the
development work the planning firm proposes. On the surface, this is a clear win. The
community receives “free” money and gains the benefits of the planning scheme.
But federal grants include contractual requirements in the application. Often applicants must
commit to a point qualification system that is ‘loaded’ in favor of the planning the government
desires. This process corrals local communities into accepting specific changes like light rail,
bike trails, densification, mixed use buildings and open spaces that infringe on property and
lifestyles and often come with a surprise long term price tag not covered by the grant.
Good people, do harmful things
The author has spent hours with many planners discussing the planning profession. The
impression drawn is that most planners are dedicated professionals. They do not intentionally
set out to mislead community members or to endanger the community’s’ choices.
But, there was a sense that each planner felt he or she was doing work that transcended the
interests of the individual and responded more to global, environmental or even regional
concerns.
This makes sense. After all, planners are dealing with the entire community. But this can run
counter to individual choices. The problem for community members is the imbalance as plans
de-emphasize individual concerns in favor of the collective good.
While these observations are not intended to define all planners, the mindset just described has
substantial enough consequences that caution must be taken to verify everything planners say,
propose or do. This includes checking the long and short-term outcomes of plans, obtaining a
detailed analysis of any proposals, verifying independent studies of the personal and community
impacts of proposed development schemes, the source of all data, and learning the details of all
referenced surveys or reports. Well-intended planners can cause severe harm to communities.
549
7 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Meet your federal government
Yes, the government is probably involved in your community plan
Most people do not think of the federal government when they think of local planning. Yet, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through their Community
Development Block Grants and regulations like Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, manage
the planning for millions of Americans in over 1200 U.S. communities and government divisions.
According to the Agency, their “Office of Community Planning and Development” (CPD) seeks to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide decent housing,
a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income
persons. The primary means towards this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and non-profit organizations.”3
While the agency’s mission statement sounds generous and beneficial, consider the massive changes HUD could force on your community to accomplish their objectives. When HUD
supplies the grant money, they decide the definitions of terms like “decent housing,” “suitable
living environments,” and “economic opportunities”.
The agency can easily deem that a community’s current zoning laws create ‘barriers’ to
affordable housing and demand zoning and building changes that affect existing home values and lifestyles.
HUD is now reviewing decades old grant applications from communities. If they discover misstatements, they can order costly zoning changes over the objections of local officials and
community members. In 2013, even with the government’s sequestration cuts, the CPD spent $6.4 billion on programs
and budgeted $6.6 billion in 2014, making them one of the largest development organizations in the nation.4
CDBG
Community Development Block Grants originated in 1974 as a flexible way to allow
communities to use federal grants (a portion of your tax payments) to expand low and moderate income housing, in the way the community felt was best suited to their local needs.5 This left
communities in control.
Over the years, HUD tightened the restrictions on what communities could do with the CDBG
money. In the grant applications, the agency wrote restrictive clauses that refused money to
communities that contained ‘barriers’ to affordable housing. The government decided what constituted a barrier and generally, the courts support the government’s definition. This worked
well until 2009, when a third party sued Westchester County, NY for having barriers to affordable housing at the time of their grant application. The county lost in court and approached HUD for help. In response, the agency imposed restrictions beyond the court’s
settlement that, according to the county executive, could cost the county nearly 1 $ billion.6
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Under HUD’s new 2013 rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,7 the Agency authorized itself
to review all cities, towns and villages in the nation which had received HUD grant money and
test for what they deem are instances of segregation or discrimination including barriers to
affordable housing.
550
8 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
If the agency identifies a barrier or inequality, they have granted themselves the authority to
force communities into compliance. HUD Sec. Shaun Donovan said at the NAACP Convention in July 2013,
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong.”8
Though Donovan’s intentions may be good, the result of his agency’s actions will be the loss of
individual property rights and neighborhoods forced into zoning regulations whether they want
them or not.
HUD is not the only federal agency that is engaged in heavy-handed local planning activities.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, in effect, reverses that American Dream, making
it harder for the poor to pull themselves from poverty. It operates on the principle that
social justice will improve the lives of the poor. HUD and AFFH then attempt to create social justice by transferring the earnings of primarily middle class Americans to the
poor in the form of low cost housing. This is like saying, “wealthy people drive BMW’s. Therefore, if the government
provides low-cost BMWs to poor Americans, they too will be wealthy or at least better off.” In practice, they become more dependent on someone else to make the car
payments.
People move out of poverty through the process of working together and saving for their future. While a social safety net is important, the expansive and dictatorial
practices of programs like Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, invade personal savings, diminish ambition and tear down the very communities that people fought
hard to build.
The Partnership for Sustainable Communities
In 2009, HUD, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency
jointly formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communities,9 “to help communities nationwide
improve access to affordable housing, increase transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment.”
The three agencies realize their goal of creating sustainable communities through their internal practices, regulations and by exercising control over local and regional planning.
Planners and federal agencies frequently work together to partially fund local and regional plans with grant money. In the grant application, communities must agree to advance the Six
Livability Principles, or they do not receive the money.
The Six Livability Principles
Provide more transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our dependence on oil, improve air quality and promote public health.
Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages,
incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of
housing and transportation.
551
9 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Improve economic competitiveness of neighborhoods by giving people reliable
access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic
needs.
Target federal funding toward existing communities – through transit-oriented and
land recycling – to revitalize communities, reduce public works costs, and safeguard
rural landscapes.
Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage
funding and increase the effectiveness of programs to plan for future growth.
Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe
and walkable neighborhoods, whether rural, urban or suburban.10
Similar to the goals of HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development, the Six Livability
Principles sound community-friendly. That is, until you realize that advancement of the
Principles often requires re-ordering of community master plans, zoning ordinances and even
lifestyles to be in compliance with the government’s centralized plan.
When the community’s planner entices public officials with new grant money, in many cases,
when the grant is approved, the community is automatically resigned to adhering to the dictates
of the federal government’s Six Livability Principles, whether it is justified or not and whether or
not it is what community members’ desire.
552
10 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Grants, grants and more grants!
Money everywhere
Grants help communities launch new planning programs that many towns or regions could not
otherwise afford. They are also the chief way the federal government gains control over local
planning.
Imagine receiving $475,000, as Wisconsin did, to build a data center to help regional
sustainable development. Or $1,000,000 like Virginia’s New River Valley that received the
money to engage citizens in a visioning process. In Tennessee, the citizens of Knoxville got a
check for $4,327,500 to develop programs that will improve the region-wide quality of life.11
Money, money everywhere. At times, the federal government seems like a bottomless spring,
pouring money into communities for fuzzy-sounding sustainability objectives. In 2011, Envision
Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania received $3.4 million from HUD “to have an unprecedented
community conversation about our future,” according to Holly Edinger who spearheaded the
grant application process.12
While the conversation may be unprecedented, the obligations attached to the grants they
accepted are anything but fuzzy. Federal grants include far-reaching requirements. As we have
seen, if recipients fail to honor the stipulations, their penalties can range from re-allocating or
returning the money all the way to coercive legal action.
Watch out for the strings
On the surface, it makes sense for federal agencies to place some requirements on grants.
After all, it is the government’s money. (Well, not exactly their money. We will get to that in a
minute.)
HUD, as part of their Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grant program, issued each
of the previously mentioned grants.13 Under the program, these communities were required to
be part of a region to be eligible for the grant. Regional formation can have severe
consequences for local rule. Yet, since officials are likely to receive millions of ‘free’ dollars, for
plans people associate with green jobs and prosperity, many communities form or join regions,
primarily for the money. Never mind that the number of green jobs are dramatically
overestimated14, and as you will see in the next chapter, forming regions is not always in the
best interests of community members.
In addition to forming a region, every one of the recipient entities is responsible to advance the
principles of the federal government’s Six Livability Principles outlined in the prior chapter.
There is nothing ‘fuzzy’ about the wording of the grant. For example, here is an excerpt from
page 58 of HUD’s 2011 Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, these are
the:
“a. Mandatory outcomes from the creation of a regional plan for sustainable
development.”
The agreement goes on to list 20 “mandatory outcomes” including:
Creation of a regional transportation plan;
Alignment with Federal planning;
Reduced social and economic disparities;
Reduced automobile usage; (vehicle miles travelled - VMT);
553
11 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Increased health outcomes through walkable communities;
Decrease in the rate of conversion of undeveloped land across the region;
Increased proportion of the local population adequately prepared to participate
in the core economic growth sectors of the region…
This single grant agreement dictates portions of every aspect of local community living including
the economic structure, driving habits, workplace opportunities, lifestyles, health concerns, the
environment and even the region’s social make-up.
Grants are not ‘free’ and ‘dreams’ are not guaranteed
It is no wonder so many Americans of all political leanings are beginning to resist the restrictions
placed on them by the formation of regions15 and the acceptance of grant money. But, ridding
the communities’ addictions to the flow of cash is difficult.
Planners genuinely believe some level of control is necessary to build a stronger infrastructure,
improved land use, better schools and a healthier living environment. Many of their
development schemes offer the promise of more jobs and cleaner air and water. The four-color
brochures and dramatic PowerPoint presentations are irresistible to many local politicians and
community members who easily fall into the dream.
But grant money is not free and the dream is not a guarantee. Grants come from the taxes
people pay. As the taxes rise, there is less discretionary money for people to live as they
choose.
Planners are notorious for underestimating the future costs of the public works projects they
propose. The numbers are underestimated so frequently that Bent Flyvbjerg, formerly of
Aalborg University in Denmark, refers to planners’ cost estimates as “strategic
misrepresentation.”16
Meanwhile, who is to say what it takes to improve the quality of community life? Just because
planners may believe that playing in a public park/playground offers families and children,
socialization and shared experiences, others may dislike waiting on lines to use a swing set.
Some people complain about the ride to work and others find it enjoyable.
While many planners and public officials find grants and promises tempting, for community
members, caveat emptor is the best practice. Because planning has such a powerful and
lasting effect on local lives, it is important to keep the entire planning process under local
control. This may mean having to say ‘no’ to that enticing grant money.
554
12 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Welcome to your new region
Planners promote regions to help communities thrive
Whether communities have their own planning boards, work with professional planning
organizations or a combination, eventually it will be suggested your neighborhood form or join a planning region. Today those regions are often created around the principles of the government’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities.17
Planners promote regions as a way to unite communities, share resources and build sustainably
to protect future generations.
According to the online magazine, The Atlantic:
“Planning at the regional scale is critical. As our economic, land use and transportation patterns have evolved over the last century, metropolitan areas have become
increasingly important. In most parts of the country, the political boundaries
established by municipalities long ago are no longer relevant to businesses' or residents' activities, to say nothing of environmental media such as air and water.”18
Regions such as Florida’s proposed, Florida Seven5019, are designed to prepare that state to attract commercial trade from the Caribbean basin and South America. Seven50 merges 7
Florida counties into a single region. “Plan Bay Area” is a “long range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy
through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area20, and Tennessee’s. “Thrive 55” has the ambitious goal of creating a three-state mega-region encompassing 16 counties21.
According to Clarion, the lead planning group for Tennessee’s Thrive 55:
“The Consortium's ultimate goal for the project is to bring the region together under a
common vision and prioritized action agenda, supported by decision-making tools, strategic transformative project ideas and metrics that will assist stakeholders at the
local and regional level to make more informed decisions that will lead to the long-term
economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of their locality and the region.”22
Beneath the rosy regional rhetoric
In spite of the flowery words and grand ambitions, local residents are increasingly rejecting the planner’s arguments.
Three of the original seven counties have already withdrawn from Florida’s Seven50 program23. Opponents successfully argued that Seven50 is based on faulty science and that the promoters
already accepted grant money from HUD, obligating the communities to adhere to the Federal
government’s planning requirements. Further, the regional scheme will cost taxpayers far more than the planner’s projected costs and provides minimal benefits to Floridians24.
In San Francisco, traditionally liberal community members are joining with conservative groups like the “Tea Party” to oppose Plan Bay Area. They argue the nine county plan places up to
36% of existing low-income home owners at risk of being displaced and makes plans for
accommodating up to 280,000 new residents. But, it fails to say who will pay for all of the newly required services.25
555
13 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
And community leaders in Tennessee are fighting the 16-county region formed by Thrive 55.
They see the program as little more than a federal takeover of local communities with the money being channeled through and controlled by the larger cities.
This leads us to the biggest challenge with regions that planners tend to trivialize.
Regions mean governance boards
Most people are familiar with America’s representative form of government. People vote for
elected officials who once in office, wield power to represent their constituents’ interests. If the
officials fail to live up to expectations, they can be removed from office at reelection time.
When regions are established, they are managed by unelected council members who often
wield the same or even more power than local elected officials do. They can set policy, make
changes in zoning regulations and even make decisions that affect community members’
lifestyles and property rights.
In spite of their power, in most cases unelected consortium or regional board members are not
answerable to the people or the local public officials. Community members cannot vote them
out of office or even hold them accountable for failures. Lacking local oversight, regional boards
are ripe for political favoritism, backroom deals and outright bribes.
Overbearing regional boards are one of the biggest causes of citizens’ complaints against
Sustainable Development Regions. Plan Bay Area, which covers nine counties, wants to reduce
greenhouse gasses by forcing people into smaller homes and limiting their access to automobiles. Similar attempts have had little effect on greenhouse gasses, but have driven up
the cost of housing by as much as 100%26. Still, none of these arguments has deterred the
regional council. As we will discuss later, when the Plan Bay Area planning commission was caught sending misleading surveys to community members, there was little the community or
local officials could do to stop the regional commission.
Once in power, regional boards may directly overrule local official’s authority, or partner with
groups like transportation authorities to sway officials to vote their way using their control of
millions of dollars. In situations like these, local officials surrender much of their authority and
community members find themselves with no place to go for representation.
556
14 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Planners Tactics:
Understanding planners’ mindset
I have been fortunate to know many fine planners, and while we disagree on some issues, I
never met a single planner who intentionally desired to limit people’s property rights or even
mislead community members into accepting programs that cost more or return less than
promised.
Yet, this is precisely what they do. Their idealistic vision for protecting the common good and
expanding ‘social justice’ necessarily leads to the loss of the individual good and diminishes the
ability of local community members to decide their own definitions of ‘justice.’
Here are excerpts from three revealing narratives by young planners explaining why they
entered the field:
“I entered planning because I was so used to riding bikes during my college years, that
I felt if I could develop communities that were less dependent on automobiles, I was
helping the environment. I want to ‘nudge’ people into living greener and better
experiences.” 27
Another planner entered the field because it “gives hope” for the future. I love planning
because the concepts of “social justice and sustainability shape the field.”28
A University of California graduate entered planning to “find ways to help shape land
use and to learn how to design cities and spaces that promote healthy living that is
economically and socially just for its residents. My goal is to work collectively with the
community to address these issues and implement policies that support the wellbeing
of underrepresented communities of color.”29
These are idealistic and noble ambitions. But, these young people were talking more about
social engineering than about improving transportation, and land use. The fulfillment of their
visions will necessarily infringe on people’s property values and rights. One well-meaning
individual even wants to “nudge” or prod people into doing what he thinks is right.
With this in mind, I had lunch with a well-known and successful planner and posed the problem
of how planning can interfere with individual property rights.
To paraphrase his response:
I believe in property rights and that people should have a right to own property. But,
we have to look at the community rights, not just individual rights. If an individual or
company is damaging or impeding the health and welfare of the larger community,
then we have an obligation to protect the less fortunate. Planning can help. In either
case, we involve other community members and in a democracy, we go with what the
majority of community members want.
It was clear that, even though my planner friend was more than willing to infringe on people’s
rights, he did not view it as something bad. He just needed enough community members to
vote for his plan. I explained to him that the United States is not a democracy and property
rights are not negotiable, even by vote. In fact, I went on, individual property rights are so
important that our founders placed them ahead of majority interests. His response was
revealing:
557
15 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
“People have tried to convince me that we are not a democracy, but that is silly.”
It endangers the community when their chosen planner does not understand why the United States is not a democracy, nor understands the difference between that form of government and ours, a constitutional republic.
The fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the
structure of their laws as it relates to individual rights. In a democracy, the government grants all rights, including property rights, to its people. Since the government granted people their rights, the government can also alter or
remove them.
In United States, the Constitution establishes that the people’s rights come from nature, not from government. Further, government cannot, except in very limited circumstances, alter people’s rights.
Unfortunately, through processes like eminent domain, courts are
compromising individual property rights. When planners fail to recognize the difference between individual rights under a democracy versus a republic, it removes any legal motivations they may have for placing individual rights
above those of the common good. This paves the way for the reduction, or
even outright confiscation of property, all in the name of the public good.
When idealism meets government mandates
While planners have different motivations, it is clear most believe that individuals’ rights
may have to take a back seat to community interests in their quest for sustainability and
social justice. This may or may not be helpful to the community, but it can have
devastating effects on individuals.
Idealism and ignorance of our form of government may explain why the planners of San
Francisco’s Plan Bay Area are willing to uproot hundreds of low-income families in a
project to build…more low-income housing. In their optimism, they failed to consider the
devastating effect displacing people from their homes would have on families.
But planners’ idealism is only part of the problem community members confront when
their new Sustainable Development Plan unfolds. As noted, many plans are fully or
partially funded by federal grants containing restrictions on how the money can be used.
The grants become a vehicle to force de facto centralized planning on local
communities.
Programs involving the government’s Six Livability Principles, social justice and a
definition of sustainable development that requires management of the local economy,
environment and society, simply cannot be implemented without altering lifestyles and
risking infringements on property rights.
As a result, planners have become increasingly circumspect about the specifics of their
programs. In many cases they promote their new development scheme with spectacular
images and videos of environmental benefits, while downplaying the risks involved.
Interestingly, this is not because planners want to deceive people, but rather because
they passionately believe what they are doing is necessary for the survival of society, the
558
16 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
economy and the environment for the future. The fact that their vision might be
completely erroneous, or incur more damage than benefit, rarely occurs to them.
Planners know that if community members fully understood the potential for cost
overruns, the frequent failure of plans to meet their stated objectives, and the forced
lifestyle changes that accompany plans, it would be extremely difficult to sell their
development schemes.
As a result, planners are not always forthcoming about the full consequences of their
plans, unless pressed. They routinely use deceptive practices to create the impression
that their scheme will meet its intended objectives and that the majority of the community
is on board, whether completely true or not. Here are a few typical planners’ tactics that
leave community members misinformed and uninformed:
Underrepresented communities
It is vital for all community members to understand what their proposed sustainable
development plan will look like and how it will affect them when the plan is completed.
Promises that their plan will reduce traffic congestion, create jobs and protect the environment
are not the same as guarantees. Often, they are blatant exaggerations. The only way to
safeguard your individual and community interests is to fully participate in the planning process.
Though it is the planner’s job to gain community involvement, their efforts will probably not be
sufficient to engage large percentages of the community.
When selling their development schemes, planners will trumpet their outreach programs that will
engage community members. The engagement is, at best, weak.
The organizers of New York’s Capital Region Sustainability Plan urged community members to
“attend a public workshop or planning event.”
Yet in July of 2012, of the 1 million people who will be affected by the plan, just 150 attended 3
different workshops. Clearly, there was not enough participation to advance the program, but
that did not stop the planners.
The tiny group, now spoke for all of the inhabitants of the entire 8-county NY region. They went
on to identify “300 existing and proposed projects on county and town maps,” approved
technical committees and created eight focus areas including draft goals to include:
Climate adaptation
Energy
Transportation
Economic development
Solid waste
Land use/livable communities
Food systems
Water30
Poor engagement was not entirely the fault of planners and organizers. People must show a
personal willingness to participate and respond to planers’ requests.
Still, it was the planners’ idea to create a plan that would affect over a million inhabitants, not the
peoples’ idea. Therefore, it is the planners’ responsibility to get more representative groups and
opinions, even if it is difficult and even if it means more resistance to their planning scheme.
559
17 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
New York’s Capital Region Sustainability Plan is not alone in community underrepresentation.
In South Carolina, fewer than 350 people participated in the creation of Greenville County’s
comprehensive land use plan that will govern a population in excess of 450,000 (.0008% of the
population).31
The Thrive55 regional program proposes combining 16 counties and over one million residents
in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. Citizens complained that notification of public hearings
on the project were only announced in a single community leaving most unaware of the events.
In addition, most of the people who did attend were stakeholders who will profit, if the region is
formed.32
Community members cannot rely on officials and planners to prod them into attending hearings.
Planners have a program to advance and are only so willing to reach out to the community, particularly if it will mean including people who might be opposed to their plans. Community
members must take it upon themselves to participate in planning meetings.
Meeting control
Planning meetings are intended to elicit community input as members participate in the planning
process. But, attendees should not be surprised to discover that the input planners seek is
limited. If too many people object or raise questions, the planners’ development scheme may become derailed.
If attendees do not want proposed public transit options, open spaces, bike trails or compact living, their opinions may not be as welcome as those who do support those designs.
By exercising subtle control of meetings, planners or facilitators are able to sway community members to support the fundamental design the planners choose. They keep their plans on
track by guiding community decisions, often toward cosmetic changes, to protect the integrity of
their basic plan.
Large groups of community members who disagree with the planners fundamental requirements, could disrupt the meetings, or call for the abandonment of ideas on the planner’s ‘must do’ list. To overcome resistance to their ideas, meeting facilitators use several techniques
to get the outcome they desire, while creating the appearance of community approval.
One strategy is to marginalize those who disagree with the plan. This can involve praising people who agree with proposals and activities that advance the plan while ignoring comments from those who disagree.
Another approach is for the facilitator to ‘talk down’ to the persons in opposition, as if
there ideas obviously lacked merit or are irrelevant. For example, “Bob, thank you for
that idea. But, our group wants to focus more on areas that will help the community as a whole.”
If this subtle technique fails to silence opposition, the facilitator may attempt to turn the
group on the dissenter. “Thank you Bob. I think the rest of our group would like to discuss how we might be able to use more open space to preserve our community and our wildlife.”
Planners may enlist ‘research,’ surveys and comments from ‘experts’ to soften or
eliminate opposition. But much of the research is biased, misrepresented or simply
560
18 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
incorrect. It is up to community members to analyze information to identify which is
legitimate and which is faulty.
If a dissenter is particularly effective at swaying community opinion, the attendees may be broken down into smaller groups and sent to separate areas or rooms, each with their own facilitator. In that way it is easier for the facilitator to manage the opposition and
keep the dissenters’ opinions from affecting the entire community. There are many ways facilitators can manage or eliminate the influence of people who disagree
with their proposals. Community members must understand that the planners’ primary objective is not to get just any input, but the input that will most likely advance their development scheme.
Community members must gain as much information as possible; and engage the planners in
discussions that fully expose the pros and cons of their plans.
Misleading and under sampled surveys
Surveys are used to measure community attitudes toward forming regions, sustainable
development planning, urban or rural living and a host of planning activities. They are a
legitimate source of information and are used to direct activities and inform community members
of what their neighbors are thinking. But community members should be cautious, even of
surveys conducted by known firms.
Survey questions can be accidentally or intentionally worded to elicit the outcomes the planners
desire. In other cases, so few people are sampled, the results tend to be of little value. When
not used responsibly, surveys can become a tool to promote the planners’ vision rather than
gauge community interests.
Manipulative questions:
Carver, MA
In the Carver Massachusetts, Open Spaces Survey33, one question asks:
“Which of the following would you like protected or acquired?”
It then lists open spaces, access to streams, places of historic value, etc. The survey
fails to explain that once any selection is made, it automatically constitutes a vote in
favor of having a local authority “protect or acquire” property. Nor does it explain the
consequences of “protecting or acquiring “land. Respondents have little way of
knowing that the creation of the open spaces may well lead to the confiscation of
private property and increases the potential for higher property taxes.
By wording the survey in this manner, the planners have already begun a positive
momentum in the area of acquiring property, a highly controversial move in most
communities.
American Planning Association
Results of a 2012 American Planning Association survey titled, Planning and
Perceptions in America, show that 79% of Americans “support community planning.”34
Obviously this is a boon for a group in the planning industry. But, look at the question
that elicited so many positive responses.
561
19 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Their definition of community planning was…
“…a process that seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous, convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and future
generations.”
This definition is so broad and optimistically stated, the only surprise is that 100%
did not support it. The survey result may be accurate, but it is virtually meaningless.
San Francisco, CA
The planners of San Francisco’s, Plan Bay Area conducted a phone survey which they
claim showed that 84% of respondents supported a regional plan. However, like the American Planning Association, the survey question was worded in such an appealing
manner, that nearly anyone would answer in the affirmative, effectively negating any
value of the response.
Here is the survey question…
"Plan Bay Area is something that will improve the economy, reduce driving and GHG,
and provide access to housing and transportation to anyone who needs it. In general,
how important is this regional plan? "
Again, who would not find a program important that does all of the items listed? Plan Bay Area presents a powerful lesson for other communities. The planners’ and
planning commission’s responses to opponents of their plan serve as a graphic example of just how far planners are willing to go to override community wishes and implement the plans of their choice.
Local community members objected to the biased wording above and asked for the survey to be redone. The planners agreed. However, the ‘revised’ survey contained
wording identical to the original. Naturally, the ‘revised’ survey received similar results.
When the citizens cried, “fowl,” the planning commission issued a report saying there
would be a full evaluation of the planning process, but not until “after the Plan’s adoption.”35
Under-sampled territories:
In other cases, survey results are misleading because so few community members actually
participated in the survey. The results are further degraded when the people surveyed had a
bias in favor of the planners’ proposal.
New York State
Results of New York’s Capital Region Sustainability Plan’s Climate Adaptation Survey, show
that “97% of respondents support green infrastructure.” In the fine print of the survey
appendix, you will discover that of the region’s 1,000,000 inhabitants, only 96 participated in
the online survey.36
Respondents take survey multiple times:
“Thrive 55”, Proposed Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama Region
562
20 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Survey planners took no precautions to assure that a single respondent did not take the
same survey multiple times. In one example, a respondent bragged that she had taken the
survey numerous times and observers watched several plan facilitators take the survey
repeatedly. While planners hold up the results as conclusive evidence the local community
approved of Thrive 55, in fact, their information was so doctored, the results were worthless.
Cherry-picked survey results
Another practice that creates a false impression for community members is ‘cherry-picking’ the
results of surveys. In this tactic, planners sift through the survey results and either ignore
responses that do not support the plan scheme, or downplay them while simultaneously giving
more attention to those results that favor the plan.
New Jersey’s State Development and Redevelopment Plan37 proposes the use of high-density
(urban) living and mixed-use housing in their Smart Growth model. To foster the idea that most
community members prefer living in urban as opposed to suburban settings, the Plan
references survey results showing that…
Americans favor “walkable, mixed-use, - smart growth neighborhoods versus those that require more driving between home, work and recreation.”
The authors are quoting results from the National Association of Realtors Community Preference Study. The New Jersey Plan fails to reveal that the same survey shows that twice
as many respondents preferred suburban to urban living and most preferred single detached
homes to the ‘mixed-use’ homes popular in Smart Growth.38
By ignoring this portion of the survey, plan proponents created the false impression that their
Smart Growth proposals were what most people wanted.
Exaggerated or false claims
Citizens rely on the information provided by governments and planning organizations to help
them decide whether to support a plan proposal. Often, the information they receive is not true.
Planners generally propose their community development plans as a response to some pending
emergency. It may be a concern for overpopulation, crowded freeways, dangers from climate
change or increased CO2 levels. The purpose of the plan then, is to provide ways to address
the ‘critical’ challenges. Closer inspection proves that these claims are often overblown or even
fabricated.
In 2010, the Hollywood, California town board used census data to produce a report
showing that the community’s population was exploding and they would need to
accommodate 60,000 more residents by 2030. After several ‘stakeholder’ meetings,
the board concluded that the solution was to build more high-density dwellings and
provide more transportation options in the form of transit-oriented development.39
But, informed community members challenged the report’s findings. After the board
repeatedly ignored their comments, they took the town to court. Under oath, it was
finally revealed that the officials had falsified the census data and concealed portions
of the census report that proved the community was actually growing at a very
manageable rate. The judge stopped the board from advancing their plan.40
All communities are not as lucky as Hollywood. Their falsified report built an following of
misinformed people who supported the plan. It was only because a small group of engaged
563
21 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
citizens doggedly pursued the board and the planners, that the truth was discovered and the
plan derailed.
It is not just at the local level that people are deceived. Sometimes reports from trusted entities
can be misleading.
California passed SB 375, which mandates that communities throughout the state establish
sustainable development schemes as a way to address global warming. The National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) created a widely used booklet, Communities Tackle Global
Warming, A Community Guide to SB 375.41 It promotes high-density living as a solution to
reduce GHG’s and therefore lower global warming. Planners, officials and community members
use and quote frequently from this reference.
The Community Guide is highly misleading.
In promoting California’s plan, the authors pull this quote from a National Academy of Sciences’
report, Driving and the Built Environment.
“Residences in auto-oriented suburban areas produce greater GHG emissions than higher-density areas.”
The NRDC has now created the impression that their planning recommendations for compact living will reduce GHG’s.
What NRDC failed to reveal was that on the last page of Driving and the Built Environment it clearly states:
The committee does not have the verifiable scientific evidence it would like to support
this claim.
Only modest reductions in short-term energy use can be expected.
We have not examined all of the related cost-benefit considerations.42
Worse, comprehensive studies from the UK43 and Australia44 report that high-density living does
not reduce CO2. It may actually, increase it. This information was never shared with
community members.
Planners are salespeople
The overarching objective of urban planning is to improve the quality of life and reduce poverty.
Because of the civic nature of their work, it is easy to forget that planners and planning firms, are salespeople who are selling their design schemes to your neighborhood. They use
sophisticated graphics, polished presentations and other selling tools to convince community
members to act on their ideas.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. The selling process is valuable. It allows the community to
see plans in detail and ask questions before development schemes are implemented. As with any sales situation, the buyers must be cautious. Community members must understand the
details and ask questions before ‘buying into’ development designs.
Planners’ words are selling tools
Words are powerful tools that planners use to explain, or frequently to sell their designs. The
right words can lull community members into a false sense that they are improving their
community, whether or not this is true.
564
22 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Terms like ‘healthy’ cities, ‘sustainable’ cities and ’smart’ cities have marketing appeal, but can
be disarming. Who would not want to be part of a healthy, sustainable or smart city? But many designs promote concentrated living that studies show is not necessarily healthy45 or any more
sustainable than current community standards.
Open spaces and bike trails may sound inviting, but both can infringe on people’s property rights. Those tree-lined streets, and community parks require on-going upkeep, and the true
costs of public works projects are almost routinely underestimated.46 All of these can lower the living standards of community members as their property taxes are raised to accommodate the
‘unexpected ‘additional expenses.
The words are not the plan
Community members must look at the entire scope of the proposed work and relate it to the
planners’ commentary before judging whether or not a program is in their best interests.
Consider this comment from the website of one of the partner planning organizations for the
proposed Florida Seven50 region:
“We strive to maximize public involvement in planning the built environment.
Most of our plans are designed in intensive charrettes*; these on-location events
merge the modern design studio with interactive town meetings. Each charrette is customized for the situation. Computer visuals, pioneered by our firm, and drawing in
teams make planning more meaningful for citizens and clients. To implement the
resulting plans, we typically produce simple, illustrated form-based codes that can replace conventional zoning.”47
(*Charrettes are intensive planning group sessions structured to get accelerated results.)
This firm engages the community in intensive meetings where they work together with the
planners and sophisticated design programs to arrive at community plans. This is an excellent
format, and no doubt the planning group means every word of it.
But, if you look at the Florida Seven50 website, the regional group already accepted grant
money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that forces them to advance
the government’s centralized Livability Principles.48
Regardless how good the process might be, except for minor changes, the outcome of this plan
has already been pre-determined.
Conclusion
Planners’ designs can provide substantial benefits to communities and their individual members.
But all plans are not created equal and, on balance, do not protect the environment, improve the
quality of life or reduce poverty.
Claims of population density, and CO2 scares are often overstated or unproven. Even in those
cases where densification and compact living has been implemented, the cost to the quality of life and the rapidly increasing costs of housing have resulted in more subsidies to support newly
unaffordable lifestyles. In Seattle, an iconic example of the successes of Smart Growth, a new
140 square foot apartment, barely the size of a small bedroom, costs $800 a month. The furnished unit has a shared kitchen “down the hall,”49 and is the up and coming mode of living.
565
23 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
As community members’ sacrifice lifestyle choices and pay higher taxes to protect the
environment and reduce CO2, the benefits of the sacrifice often are not there. Portland Oregon, another Smart Growth city, implemented costly and invasive programs to reduce CO2 levels.
After bragging about reducing CO2 below 1990 levels, it was discovered the math used to
obtain the lowered figures was false50 and the methods to obtain the data were questionable51. In fact, Seattle and Portland, long considered the embodiments of a successful planning drive to
create improved living quality and reduce income inequality have been failures at both.52 53
Unless the current course of planning changes, within one or two decades more Americans will be living in urbanized ‘livable’ communities whether they want to or not. More Americans will
lose control over the homes and property they have worked for years to own.
It is for these reasons that community members must work together and fully engage in any
community or regional planning processes. They must attend meetings, ask for copies of
agreements, research the planners’ claims and surveys, question the implied outcomes and do
their own in depth research.
While planning is an American tradition, and can improve transportation and other basic
services, today we are so top-heavy with planning authorities and government influence that all development schemes must be viewed with extreme caution.
Harvey Ruvin, a proponent of sustainable development said, regarding planning, “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the community”. This is only true if community members
allow it. By attending planning meetings, learning more and participating in the planning
process, it is the planners who will have to take a backseat to the community’s wishes.
566
24 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
Endnotes. All links were active at the time of printing.
1 https://www.planning.org/ncpm/pdf/UrbanPlannerExcerpt.pdf
2 http://www.iisd.org/sd/
3 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning
4 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/about/budget
5
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs
6 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323623304579056721426092030
7 https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2501-AD33/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing-fr-5173-
8 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/08/obama-administration-using-housing-department-to-compel-diversity-in/
9 http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/aboutUs.html
10 http://www.dot.gov/livability/101
11 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FY10RegPlanGrntSum.pdf
12 http://articles.mcall.com/2011-11-21/business/mc-allentown-planning-grant-20111121_1_hud-grant-
study-development-simon-silk-mill
13
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/economic_resilience/sustainable_communities_regional_planning_grants
14 http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/green-jobs-fact-or-fiction/
15 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Actions-of-Discontent.pdf
16 http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED.pdf
17 http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/getInvolved.html
18 The Atlantic; Aug, 12, 2011, The Importance of Regional Planning that Matters, Ken Benfield
19 http://seven50.org/
20 http://onebayarea.org/plan-bay-area.html
21 http://thrive2055.com/About/Default.aspx
22 http://www.clarionassociates.com/services/planning/regional-planning/chatanooga.php
23 http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2013/dec/17/indian-river-county-would-like-seven50-group-to/
24 http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/10/24/floridians-push-back-against-regionalism-new-urbanism-and-seven50-plan-in-saint-lucie-county/
25 http://www.sfbg.com/print/2013/05/28/planning-displacement
26 http://www.pacificresearch.org/search/article-
detail/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=6604&cHash=658a3834ac8dbc15eeb7be7cc85e72a0
27 http://agoraplanningjournal.com/online-content/2014/3/29/why-i-came-to-urban-planning-part-iii-dustin-
hodge
28 http://agoraplanningjournal.com/online-content/2014/3/13/why-i-came-to-urban-planning-part-i-jacob-
yan
29 http://agoraplanningjournal.com/online-content/2014/3/21/why-i-came-to-planning-part-ii-lucina-navarro
30 http://sustainablecapitalregion.org/sites/default/files/Round%201%20Workshops%20Summary.pdf
31 http://www.greenvillecounty.org/gcpc/pdf/comprehensive_plan.pdf
32 http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/nov/18/chattanooga-growth-plan-draws-spirited-banter/?businesstnvalley
33 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Carver-Open-Spaces-Survey.pdf
34 http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/54711/planning-america-perceptions-and-priorities
35 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Plan-Bay-Area-Summary-of-Mtg-Comments-intro.pdf
36 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Appendices-to-Capital-Region-Sustainability-Plan.pdf
37 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NJ-Proposed-Draft-Redevelopment-Plan-w-notes.pdf
38 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2011-NAR-Community-Preference-Survey.pdf
39 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/11/local/la-me-hollywood-plan-20131212
567
25 | P a g e
Copyright 2014 Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC
40 http://hollywood.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/judge-rues-hollywood-community-plan-fundamentally-flawed
41 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CA-Communites-Tackle-Global-Warming.pdf
42 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Driving-and-the-Built-Environment-TRB-2012.pdf
43 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Does-Urban-Form-Really-Matter1.pdf
44 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2007-Australia-GHG-Report-Analysis.pdf
45 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/dev2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Does-Urban-Form-Really-Matter.pdf
46 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cost-Underestimation-in-Public-Works-Projects.pdf
47 http://www.doverkohl.com/firm_services.aspx
48 http://seven50.org/plan/livibility-principles/
49 http://www.seattlemag.com/article/are-apodments-ruining-seattle-neighborhoods
50 http://reason.com/blog/2005/08/05/portlands-emissions-omission
51 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Portland-Admits-Error-in-Global-Warming-Report.pdf
52 http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2013781132_guest28mcgee.html
53 http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Portlands-dwindling-diversity.pdf
568
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: no on Carbon Neutrality
‐ Leeanne
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kim Chafin
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: no on Carbon Neutrality
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Amy Irwin [mailto:kajlirwin@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:09 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: no on Carbon Neutrality
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
Please do not go forward with Plan Hermosa’s Carbon Neutrality idea. While I am in favor of many environmental
improvements, this Carbon Neutrality idea sounds extreme, expensive, unreasonable, and intrusive.
I am not in support of this plan at all!!!!! I have been a resident in Hermosa Beach for more than 30 years and love this
city, but I feel strongly that t he Carbon Neutrality plan would be a huge mistake!!
Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter,
Amy Irwin
569
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: carbon neutral plan
Attachments:To all city council members.docx
- Leeanne
From: Kim Chafin
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: carbon neutral plan
From: gary brown [mailto:thesmithy@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:09 PM
To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: carbon neutral plan
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Let’s try this again.
Gary
570
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: Re: Follow-up questions and thoughts
- Leeanne
From: Yu‐Ying Ting
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: Re: Follow‐up questions and thoughts
From: mike flaherty [mailto:mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Yu-Ying Ting
Subject: Fwd: Re: Follow-up questions and thoughts
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Greg Maffei" <jgregorymaffei@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017 13:22
Subject: Re: Follow-up questions and thoughts
To: "Karynne Thim" <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>
Cc: "Pete Hoffman" <phoffman@lmu.edu>, "Rob Saemann" <rsgc1@aol.com>, "Mike Flaherty"
<mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>, "Marie Rice" <Marierice@gmail.com>, <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>,
"Hermosa Beach City Council" <Citycouncil@hermosabch.org>, <jjalili@hermosabch.org>, "Kent Allen"
<kentjallen@gmail.com>, "Dunham Stewart" <dunham.stewart@vistasir.com>, "Robb and Noelle Stroyke"
<robb@stroykeproperties.com>
Great letter, Karynne. The real estate brokerage community shares your concerns for all of our clients/friends in
Hermosa Beach. I noticed the evasiveness of the staff as well.
Commissioners, did the staff give their opinion today about eliminating "the list" altogether? This is no joke.
We as real estate professionals now, per our fiduciary obligations to our clients, have to provide a disclaimer to
buyers of effected homes about this matter concerning not only the 200+ homes on the list, but to the 400+ that
surround these 200+ homes. Fear and disclaimers in and of themselves bring down home values. This isn't
cute. This isn't insignificant. This isn't a joke. Please get the staff to focus because we are now ethically
engaged to watch every step of this process.
Thank you for your time.
Greg Maffei
_________
Greg Maffei
571
2
Broker / Realtor
RE/MAX ESTATE PROPERTIES
Los Angeles South Bay and Westside Specialist
310.800.0388 (mobile direct)
310.937.3288 (office)
310.388.0381 (fax)
greg@primesocalrealestate.com
jgregorymaffei@gmail.com
www.primesocalrealestate.com
www.primesouthbayrealestate.com
www.nofailshortsale.com
***Please excuse any typos. They are due to my big thumbs on my iPhone***
On 23 Feb 2017, at 11:00 AM, Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the historic preservation and
carbon neutrality issues last night. Had a few thoughts and questions:
Will the topic of Mitigation Measure 4.1 regarding public viewpoints be
discussed tonight? This is a very important property rights issue as well.
Regarding carbon neutrality, my understanding is that offsets were not
supported by any commissioners and the intent is to meet state guidelines
rather than accelerated to 2030. Is that correct? Was there a consensus
that "neutrality" be replaced with "reduction"?
There is significant confusion about implementation by 2040 (same as state
guidelines?) and what that means to property owners. This is an important
issue that the community needs to understand. Marie indicated last night
that existing homes wouldn't be required to improve efficiency, eliminate
gas, etc., but it my understanding that cars and homes are the two largest
creators of carbon in Hermosa and it's not possible to solve with cars alone,
just with the natural trend of more people driving EV's and hybrids. If there
is a report that outlines measures needed for a 2040 implementation, can
you please send it to me?
I remain very concerned that staff and Leanne aren't listening to the
Planning Commissioners and residents, and don't consistently have the bests
interest of residents at heart.
1. They failed to notify people on the "list."
2. Staff recommended adoption of the PLAN, EIR and mitigation measures
in their current form - even though PLAN revisions aren't done and they
knew aspects of the PLAN would have a devastating impact to property
rights and values. This is unconscionable.
572
3
3. The Planning Commission has repeatedly stated that historic designations
should be voluntary, yet they continue to push for ambiguous language that
leaves doors open. As just one of many examples, PLAN Hermosa's Goal
10.4 Treatment of potentially historic resources" says "Discourage the
demolition, degradation, and inappropriate alteration of potentially historic
resources." In the comment and change matrix, staff suggested that the
language be left as-is because it says "discourage." In a real world context,
this would be interpreted a property owner couldn't demo. This goal should
be deleted, not left to interpretation, especially since it relates to a property
that's not even designated. Wording like this creates confusion, fear, loss of
value and a bunch of unnecessary red tape. A second example was Rob
Saemann's comment about deleting references to "guidelines" for properties
adjacent to historic properties. He knows that having "guidelines" will
morph into having a negative impact on surrounding properties and what
can be done with them, yet Leanne persisted on keeping this language in
place even after hearing the community's resounding input on the matter.
Residents are really upset and city leaders need to address this. I've copied
the interim city manager here for this purpose.
Karynne
Karynne Thim
Broker Associate
CalBRE #01161295
Strand Hill Properties | Christie’s International Real Estate
+1 310-753-7816 | kt@ktbeachproperties.com
www.KTBeachProperties.com
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
573
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: PLAN Hermosa | Carbon Neutrality
- Leeanne
From: Kim Chafin
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: PLAN Hermosa | Carbon Neutrality
From: Elaine Doerfling
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:24 PM
To: Yu-Ying Ting; Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson
Subject: FW: PLAN Hermosa | Carbon Neutrality
From: Jim Sullivan [mailto:jim.sullivan@daumcommercial.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:39 PM
To: Elaine Doerfling; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Peter Hoffman; David Pedersen
(dpederson@hermosabch.org)
Subject: PLAN Hermosa | Carbon Neutrality
Dear Ms. Doerfling, Ms. Rice, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Saemann, Mr. Hoffman & Mr. Pederson:
I am writing to speak out strongly against the any further consideration of carbon neutrality for the City of
Hermosa Beach. Reducing carbon output is a worthy goal but, let’s be honest, it is beyond the means of the city, its
residents and its businesses to achieve total carbon neutrality without inflicting burdensome costs, regulations and
government intrusion on all of us. However, carbon reduction is something that the city, its residents and businesses can
get behind. In fact, I believe virtually everyone with a connection to the “Best Little Beach City” is already taking steps to
reduce their carbon footprint.
Consider that Hermosa Beach probably has one of highest per‐capita‐Tesla‐ownership ratios in all of Southern
California, along with many, many other electric vehicles. I am genuinely happy (and so is Elon Musk) that so many
residents have the $100,000 needed to cruise silently through the city and across the landscape in a Tesla. I see lots of
skaters, cyclists, walkers and runners all over the city doing their part by not using vehicles at all.
Many of my neighbors have taken the step of installing roof‐top solar of their own volition ‐ without being told
to do so by government. They are the folks who appreciate the benefits but more importantly they have the money to
do it. Not all of us are so fortunate. The city has no business imposing regulations requiring roof‐top solar.
It is not the city’s place to engage in this kind of social engineering or to become the city’s nanny. However, if
the city wishes to create incentives for residents and business to reduce their carbon footprint I am 100% for it. But I am
100% opposed to laws, regulations and mandates of any kind that would force us to do so. I’ve read the Carbon
574
2
Neutrality Evaluation in PLAN Hermosa. It is beautifully written in award‐winning, bureaucratic jargon. And full of
troubling, undefined language. To wit:
Table 4. Building Efficiency: : “For existing homes…What percentage could undergo a deep energy renovation?”
What, may I ask, is “a deep energy renovation”? Is this something like “residential plastic surgery.”? Maybe a
chemical peel or a foundation lift?
Page 8, middle of the page: “… if the City were to forego the use or purchase of carbon credits to offset
emissions that cannot be eliminated…the City would have to take more aggressive measures to ensure that all
emissions are eliminated locally.” I have to say that hearing the words “City” and “more aggressive measures” in
the same sentence in this context is frightening. Would the City hire “Energy Police” to patrol our streets
looking for energy scofflaws driving gasoline powered vehicles instead pedaling a bicycle?
And then, the “piece de resistance”, The Amended Assumptions to Achieve 2030 Carbon Neutral Goals.
o “Require onsite renewable energy generation and Zero Net Energy as part of all new construction and
major building renovations.”
o “Mandate retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency at time of sale….” Seriously?
o Eliminate use of natural gas within the city…and require use of all‐electric appliances…” Really?
o “Modify Land Use Designations to…increase commercial and residential densities…? I thought more
density was anathema in Hermosa Beach. Haven’t I heard for years that density is bad for us?
o “Mandate (there’s that word again) public and private clean fuel and electric vehicle infrastructures to
facilitate deployment of electric vehicles…” Pardon me, but this sounds like bureaucratic double speak
for “we, the government, are going to force people to put in charging stations and force them to buy
electric vehicles whether they want to or not.” One more time, seriously?
o “Modify parking standards and programs to disincentivize conventionally fueled automobile use through
programs that…increase the cost of public parking, elimination of parking minimums and establishment
of maximums for new development (I’m not even sure what that means),…and changes to the
preferential parking permit program.” Really? This one is guaranteed to make Hermosa business
friendly. Never mind what it does to us residents.
I have no idea how much time and money have been spent on just this part of PLAN Hermosa but I imagine it’s one heck
of a lot of both. This at a time when the city is struggling to figure out how we pay for the fire department we deserve;
to pay for the sewer system we deserve; to pay for the Community Center we deserve; to build sidewalks along 8th
Street so kids can safely walk to school; to maintain our streets to the high standard we deserve; and on and on and on.
More now, than ever, Hermosa Beach has to get back to basics: Being The Best Little Beach City doing a great job
providing great, basic, public services.” Once we have all this sorted out then we can come back to our carbon footprint.
Thank you.
James Sullivan | CA BRE: 008490945
DAUM Commercial Real Estate Services | D/AQ #: 01129558
O: 310.538.6725 | C: 310.704.5464 | F: 310.538.6775
1025 West 190th Street, #420 | Los Angeles, CA | 90248
jim.sullivan@DAUMcommercial.com
575
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: Follow-up questions and thoughts
- Leeanne
From: Yu‐Ying Ting
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: Follow‐up questions and thoughts
From: mike flaherty [mailto:mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Yu-Ying Ting
Subject: Fwd: Follow-up questions and thoughts
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Karynne Thim" <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017 11:00
Subject: Follow-up questions and thoughts
To: "Pete Hoffman" <phoffman@lmu.edu>, "Rob Saemann" <rsgc1@aol.com>, "Mike Flaherty"
<mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>, "Marie Rice" <Marierice@gmail.com>, <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>,
"Hermosa Beach City Council" <Citycouncil@hermosabch.org>, <jjalili@hermosabch.org>
Cc:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the historic preservation and carbon
neutrality issues last night. Had a few thoughts and questions:
Will the topic of Mitigation Measure 4.1 regarding public viewpoints be discussed
tonight? This is a very important property rights issue as well.
Regarding carbon neutrality, my understanding is that offsets were not supported by any
commissioners and the intent is to meet state guidelines rather than accelerated to
2030. Is that correct? Was there a consensus that "neutrality" be replaced with
"reduction"?
There is significant confusion about implementation by 2040 (same as state guidelines?)
and what that means to property owners. This is an important issue that the community
needs to understand. Marie indicated last night that existing homes wouldn't be
required to improve efficiency, eliminate gas, etc., but it my understanding that cars and
576
2
homes are the two largest creators of carbon in Hermosa and it's not possible to solve
with cars alone, just with the natural trend of more people driving EV's and hybrids. If
there is a report that outlines measures needed for a 2040 implementation, can you
please send it to me?
I remain very concerned that staff and Leanne aren't listening to the Planning
Commissioners and residents, and don't consistently have the bests interest of residents
at heart.
1. They failed to notify people on the "list."
2. Staff recommended adoption of the PLAN, EIR and mitigation measures in their
current form - even though PLAN revisions aren't done and they knew aspects of the
PLAN would have a devastating impact to property rights and values. This is
unconscionable.
3. The Planning Commission has repeatedly stated that historic designations should be
voluntary, yet they continue to push for ambiguous language that leaves doors
open. As just one of many examples, PLAN Hermosa's Goal 10.4 Treatment of
potentially historic resources" says "Discourage the demolition, degradation, and
inappropriate alteration of potentially historic resources." In the comment and change
matrix, staff suggested that the language be left as-is because it says "discourage." In
a real world context, this would be interpreted a property owner couldn't demo. This
goal should be deleted, not left to interpretation, especially since it relates to a property
that's not even designated. Wording like this creates confusion, fear, loss of value and a
bunch of unnecessary red tape. A second example was Rob Saemann's comment about
deleting references to "guidelines" for properties adjacent to historic properties. He
knows that having "guidelines" will morph into having a negative impact on surrounding
properties and what can be done with them, yet Leanne persisted on keeping this
language in place even after hearing the community's resounding input on the matter.
Residents are really upset and city leaders need to address this. I've copied the interim
city manager here for this purpose.
Karynne
Karynne Thim
Broker Associate
CalBRE #01161295
Strand Hill Properties | Christie’s International Real Estate
+1 310-753-7816 | kt@ktbeachproperties.com
www.KTBeachProperties.com
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
577
1
Kim Chafin
From:Leeanne Singleton
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:51 PM
To:Kim Chafin
Subject:FW: Carbon Neutral
- Leeanne
From: Kim Chafin
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton <lsingleton@hermosabch.org>
Subject: FW: Carbon Neutral
From: Tom Lewis [mailto:tommlewis@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:58 PM
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Subject: Carbon Neutral
Hi ‐
I am a long‐time Hermosa Beach resident. I wanted to say I strenuously oppose the PLAN Hermosa regarding
Carbon Neutrality and forming a CCA. My reasons are as follows:
1. Our city does not have the fiscal resources necessary to do so nor have there been any estimate of cost
to the city, homeowners or independent economic impact to home values
2. Such a plan is a broad overreach of the city and the city council
3. We can't afford basic services such as sewers (new fee assessed), fire (looking at outsourcing), schools
(poorly funded) and to undertake such a risky proposition as carbon neutrality and forming a CCA with
NO expertise in these areas seems irresponsible
4. California has some of the world's strictest environmental policies; to propose anything more for our 1
square mile town not going to make a positive impact
I believe we should do what we can but our city has $100MM+ in unfunded projects that we cannot
afford. We certainly can't afford this.
What is next ‐ I have to buy carbon credits if I get a dog or have a kid (heaven forbid twins) as doing so would
not be carbon neutral. Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy yet you want to get rid of that. You
are putting in electric charging stations versus any thoughts of hydrogen stations. I am all for carbon
reduction, including teaching it in our schools, but you are carrying it way to far for our small city with no
financial resources.
Kindest regards,
578
2
Tom Lewis
Hermosa Beach
579
PLAN Hermosa
1
Proposed Changes to PLAN Hermosa Goals and Policies
(Attachment 2B)
The following includes the changes recommended by the Planning Commission prior to the discussion during 2/22/17 meeting that had been identified in Attachment 2B.
Goal 10. A strong sense of cultural and
architectural heritage.
Recognition and celebration of the city’s cultural resources and eclectic architectural
styles provides for a unique sense of place and a deeper connection to and
appreciation for the rich cultural history that has shaped Hermosa Beach.
Policies
10.1 Historic landmarks and districts. Encourage the voluntary designation of potentially historic
resources as landmarks or historic districts.
10.23 Protect designated landmarks. Continue to use the Certificate of Appropriateness process
for reviewing Prohibit theapplications to demolishtion, degradation, and inappropriateor
alteration of designated landmarks.
10.34 Treatment of potentially historic resources. Discourage the demolition, degradation, and
inappropriate alteration of potentially historic resources.
10.5 Evaluation prior to demolition. Require evaluation and documentation of potentially historic
resources prior to demolition.
10.6 Incentives for preservation. Provide incentives for preservation of designated landmarks,
potentially historic resources, and older buildings.
10.4 Public and institutional facilities. Consider the designation of potentially historic public or
institutional resources under threat of demolition or deterioration.
10.57 Historic resources as cultural tourism. Promote historic places and cultural tourism as an
economic development strategy.
10.68 Adaptive reuse and sustainable development. Promote historic preservation as sustainable
development and encourage adaptive reuse of historic or older properties.
10.79 History and cultural heritage. Support and encourage efforts to document and share the
cultural heritage and history of Hermosa Beach.
10.810 Culturally inclusive planning. Ensure that historic preservation planning is culturally
inclusive and reflective of the unique background and diversity of neighborhoods in the city.
Commented [LS1]: Duplicative of 10.11
580
PLAN Hermosa
2
10.911 Incentives and technical assistance. Provide expert technical assistance to owners of
eligible and designated historic properties with tools and incentives to maintain historic resources.
10.102 Salvage architectural features or materials. Encourage the preservation or reuse of
historic architectural features on site or within the community. salvaging of architectural features
that would otherwise be transported to landfills as a result of demolition.
10.113 Archaeological and paleontological resources. Recognize the prehistory and history of
the city and strive to identify, protect, and preserve archaeological and paleontological
resources.
Proposed Changes to PLAN Hermosa Implementation Actions
(Attachment 2C)
LAND USE-14. Amend the CEQA documentation and initial study process to ensure cultural and
historical resources are studied in accordance with CEQA and any local historic preservation
programs.
LAND USE-15. Amend Hermosa Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance to align with Historic
Preservation goals and policies including but not limited to:
Clarify that the City Council may nominate public properties and that only the property
owner may nominate private property.
Establish a list of encouraged actions that a property owner may take when a property
over 50 years in age is demolished, which could include photo documentation of key
architectural features, salvage or donation of key architectural features or original
materials, or installation of plaque, or other actions to reflect or recognize the former
structure.
LAND USE-165. Develop eligibility criteria to use in the designation of local historic sites or historic
districts.
LAND USE-176. Develop emergency preparedness and disaster response plans for cultural
resources, including a recovery action plan that addresses long-range decisions likely to be
faced by the City following a major disaster, including economic recovery, protocols for
demolition or restoration of damaged historic structures, and fee deferral for repair permits.
LAND USE-187. Create a program to provide for the voluntary installation of plaques and/or
public art related to historic buildings and sites in the city.
LAND USE-18. Establish design review procedures and establish effective means to protect
architectural features that have historical significance. Use the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
to evaluate impacts of alterations or new development on historical resources. Commented [LS2]: Recommend deleting as this process
is already in place for designated landmarks
581
PLAN Hermosa
3
LAND USE-19. Prepare design guidelines that illustrate and highlight important historic design
features of buildings.
LAND USE-1920. Research and develop innovative policies for preserving historic properties.
LAND USE-201. Work with community organizations to develop brochures, guides, walking tours,
and other marketing materials to highlight existing public art in Hermosa Beach.
LAND USE-212. Develop historic preservation expertise among staff and decision makers on the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, preservation ordinances, the State
Historical Building Code, environmental review for historical resources, and tax credits and
incentives.
Proposed Changes to the EIR and Mitigation Measures
(Attachment 1A and 1B)
Clarify for the record that the PURPOSE OF THE LIST WAS NOT TO INDENTIFY PROPERTIES TO
BE DESIGNATED; IT WAS ONLY TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE CITY TO
FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION OF THE CITY’S PRESERVATION PRIORITIES
Clarify for the record and make part of the recommendations that the point of the list is
NOT to serve as a list of eligible resources that the City intends to designate.
Table 4.4-1(or Figure 4.4-1 recommended for deletion previously) does not need to be
included in the Draft or Final EIR for the reasons that will be stated during the hearing, but
staff recommends instead including pages 7-20 through 7-34 from the existing conditions
report that describe in a narrative format the development context of the city. Staff also
recommends that changes to the Table of Contents or references to the deleted table
are made for clarity in the EIR.
Implementation Action Land Use -3 can be deleted from Section 4.4 of cultural resources,
but if it is recommended that the Implementation Action is deleted altogether, staff
would need to re-evaluate whether any new impacts would occur from the Aesthetics
and Visual Resources Section (Impacts 4.4-3, 4.4-4, and 4.4-5).
Revisions to the mitigation measures (which would be changed in the EIR, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Project Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations) are as follows:
MM 4.4-4a The City shall establish an updated list of potential historic resources to be maintained
by the Community Development Director. The list shall be updated every 10 years, at a
minimum, to identify as-yet-unknown historical resources (as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5) as potential resources are identified through citywide
surveys and on a project-by-project basis.
MM 4.4-4ab The City shall require project applicants of discretionary projects to conduct historical
resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports on a project-by-project basis, when a
project proposes to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential
Commented [LS3]: Recommend deleting based on commission discussion of guidelines for historic resources
582
PLAN Hermosa
4
historic resourcelandmark as defined by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section
17.53.
MM 4.4-4bc The City shall maintain the “Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach” guide, and shall
update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and
policies are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element.
MM 4.4-4cd The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and
streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts.
MM 4.4-4de Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by
persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716).
MM 4.4-4f For historical resources that may be adversely impacted, conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
application of the State Historical Building Code shall be required to protect the
eligibility of potential historical resources.
Proposed Changes to Project Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment 1C)
The following would be added to the Project Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations:
The Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4a that upon further review has been
determined to be infeasible and that the Planning Commission recommends this
mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. First, it is unclear how this measure applies
in Hermosa Beach, because the Municipal Code definitions for resources and landmarks
are not the same as under CEQA, creating confusion as to what properties must be on a
list. Second, CEQA already requires that environmental analysis be completed for any
discretionary project that may impact an historic resource. CEQA applies to
discretionary projects regardless of whether the City maintains a list of potential resources
and by preparing a list of potential resources that identifies specific properties, the list
could be misconstrued as a list of designated landmarks, which carry a different level of
review and procedures established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the
Municipal Code. For this reason, the proposed mitigation in infeasible.
MM4.4-4b is amended to clarify that discretionary projects are required under CEQA to
conduct an historical assessment. The City does not have authority to require studies for
ministerial projects. The measure is also amended to reflect the definition of landmark, as
that term is used in the Hermosa Beach Historic Resource Preservation Ordinance.
The Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4f that upon further review has been
determined to be infeasible and that the Planning Commission recommends this
mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. While the intent of MM 4.4-4f was to apply
to designated historical landmarks, the wording could be interpreted more broadly and
would effectively prohibit any changes to buildings considered to be potential historic
583
PLAN Hermosa
5
resources and when modified to only apply to designated historical landmarks, it
becomes duplicative with requirements under State Law regarding the treatment of
designated historical resources, and interpreted more broadly could impede the City’s
greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability goals.
The Final EIR included an Alternative focused on Greater Retention of Character
(Alternative 3). Alternative 3 is not feasible because it would potentially cause greater
impacts to one category, greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the City does not have
the staff or expertise to establish a historic preservation commission. Throughout the years,
the community has opposed design restrictions (often referred to as art juries) in favor of
allowing individual property owners design as they please within the confined of
development standards. To do otherwise would go against a long-standing community
policy. The community has also consistently rejected the idea of a view protection
ordinance, because a view protection ordinances favor the views of those who have
already built to the height limit over those properties that have not yet built up. Rather,
the community values a more fair system, whereby each property can build to a set
height limit that applies universally to the entire zone.
584
PLAN Hermosa
1
Proposed Changes to PLAN Hermosa Goals and Policies
(Attachment 2B)
The following includes the changes recommended by the Planning Commission prior to the
discussion during 2/22/17 meeting that had been identified in Attachment 2B and additional
changes to the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles to remove terminology of carbon
neutrality based on the comments during the 2/22/17 meeting.
Vision Statement
Hermosa Beach is the small town others aspire to be; a
place where our beach culture, strong sense of
community, and commitment to sustainability intersect.
Our small town, beach culture
Our beautiful beach, eclectic neighborhoods, unique commercial districts, and welcoming
gateways create an unrivaled coastal destination. Our exceptional local schools and
outstanding municipal services contribute to an extraordinarily high quality of life at the beach.
Our vibrant local economy
Hermosa Beach residents can work, shop, and play locally. Our economy capitalizes on our
entrepreneurial spirit, our legacy of creativity, and our local businesses committed to enhancing
Hermosa Beach’s distinctive character. We effectively balance our small town, beach culture
with our enviable position as a regional and statewide coastal destination.
Our healthy environment and lifestyles
Hermosa Beach is committed to protecting our coastal resources and takes a common sense
approach to reducing our environmental footprint. Our beach and open spaces create unique
places that support our active healthy lifestyle. Our complete streets ensure all places within our
city are well-connected and easily accessible by walking or biking. Our commitment to carbon
neutrality a low-carbon future and our sustainable beach city identity attract residents, visitors,
and businesses that embrace the opportunity to live and work in a healthy, active community.
Guiding Principles
We seek to achieve our vision by making decisions and taking actions that help us to...
Demonstrate our environmental leadership
Hermosa Beach will be a responsible steward of our ocean resources, open space, and
other natural resources as a healthy environment is the foundation of a more livable,
sustainable city and high quality of life.
Efficient water use, conservation, reuse, recycling and retention at the local level is
necessary for a sustainable and resilient city.
585
PLAN Hermosa
2
A steady, common sense approach is necessary to advance a long-term goal of
community-wide carbon neutralityreducing greenhouse gas emissions. Tackling
environmental challenges early and pro-actively will maximize options and minimize
costs.
Moving to carbon-free energy sources and concurrently planning to adapt to climate
change will reduce greenhouse gases, increase energy independence and resiliency.
Climate action and adoption of environmental targets will make Hermosa Beach an
environmental leader in Southern California.
Retain our high quality of life
Our small scale, eclectic architecture and vibrant beach lifestyle is an unrivaled coastal
asset.
Our high quality schools, as well as city fire, police, library and beach, shape our identity
as a first class municipality.
Our beach, the ocean, green spaces and natural resources of all types are the
foundation of our brand and high quality of life.
Creating a place where people can live, work and play locally is key to balancing
economy, community and environment.
Our city government, places and spaces are designed to be accessible to connect
people with all abilities and different stages of life.
Contribute to our economic and fiscal stability
Our business mix serves the daily and leisure needs of our residents, while providing a
quality experience for visitors.
Diversified districts with local businesses provide for the needs of residents as well as
attracting visitors support a robust and resilient economy.
Our sustainable, resilient economy is supported by keeping local dollars in the local
economy and maintaining a diversity of businesses and revenue streams.
Our desire for a high quality of life requires balancing economy, environment, and
community through a ‘sustainability lens’ and can attract like-minded entrepreneurs.
People are engaged in a broad range of enterprises creating a diverse economy and
providing fiscal stability.
Be a catalyst for innovation
Our business culture cultivates innovation, the arts/creative industries, locally owned
business, and environmental stewardship.
Innovative, forward-thinking approaches to anticipating future lifestyles, transportation
trends and environmental realities are necessary for creating a durable sustainability plan
and attracting residents, visitors and others which seek positive change.
586
PLAN Hermosa
3
Goal 1. Carbon Neutral Municipal Facilities and
Operations by 2020 and sustained into the future.
Hermosa Beach has committed to a holistic approach to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. This approach will ensure major planning decisions are evaluated for how
effective, how quick, and how cost-effective each action will be in helping to achieve
the goal of being a carbon neutral municipal organization by 2020. Once achieved,
the City will need to sustain carbon neutrality achievement beyond 2020 through
continued leadership and commitment.
Policies
1.1 Carbon neutral organization. Demonstrate environmental leadership and achieve carbon
neutrality as a municipal organization by 2020.
1.2 Highest return on investment. Prioritize the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction
projects that simultaneously reduce ongoing operational costs to the City.
1.3 Align reductions with sources. Pursue a diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction
strategies across the range of municipal activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions.
1.4 Carbon offsets as needed. When necessary, purchase carbon offsets to achieve the
municipal carbon neutral goal.
1.45 City leadership. Create a culture of leadership, innovation, and ingenuity to implement
creative and cost-effective greenhouse gas reducing projects for City facilities and operations.
1.56 Demonstration and pilot projects. Utilize demonstration and pilot projects as a means to
evaluate the greenhouse gas reduction potential and cost effectiveness of projects.
1.67 Promotion of carbon neutrality. Highlight the City’s carbon neutrality efforts as a means to
attract and encourage additional investment and new green and cleantech business
enterprises.
1.7 Evaluation and progress reports. Regularly evaluate and provide reports on progress toward
greenhouse gas reduction goals and project results.
1.8 Seek grant funding. Support implementation of greenhouse gas reduction projects through
the use of grant funding, rebates, and other incentive opportunities.
587
PLAN Hermosa
4
Goal 2. Hermosa Beach is a Carbon Neutral
Community by 2040Low-Carbon Community meeting
State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals for 2040.
Climate change, often cited as the environmental crisis of our generation, poses a
threat to the safety, health and welfare of the community. The City of Hermosa Beach is
committed to being a leader of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has engaged
in a number of innovative efforts to move toward carbon neutralityreduce greenhouse
gas emissions in alignment with State greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Policies
2.1 State targets and goals. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with long-term State
targets and goals, to reduce emissions by at least 66% below 2005 levels by 2040 and achieve
carbon neutrality as a community no later than 2040.
2.2 Health and economic benefits.Triple bottom line projects. Prioritize the implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction projects that simultaneously provide the greatest economic and
health benefits to the community.
2.3 Diversify GHG reduction strategies. Pursue a diverse mixture of greenhouse gas reduction
strategies across the transportation, energy, waste sectors, commensurate with their share of the
community’s greenhouse gas emissions.
2.4 Land use and transportation investments. Promote land use and transportation investments
that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced
number and length of automobile trips.
2.5 Carbon offsets as needed. When necessary, purchase carbon offsets to achieve the
community carbon neutral goal.
2.6 Grants and incentives. Seek additional sources of grant funding to support implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction projects for the City, as well as residents and businesses.
2.7 Discretionary projects. 2.7 Greenhouse gas emissions thresholds. Establish greenhouse gas
emissions thresholds for use in evaluating discretionary projects consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act and require discretionary projects above that threshold to
substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, and offset the remainder of
greenhouse gas emissions produced to meet annual thresholds.
2.8 Ministerial projects. Encourage ministerial projects to directly offset potential greenhouse gas
emissions generated.
588
PLAN Hermosa
5
Proposed Changes to PLAN Hermosa Implementation Actions
(Attachment 2C)
SUSTAINABILITY-1. Establish a local greenhouse gas impact fee for discretionary projects to
provide an option to offset their fair share of greenhouse gas emissions generated above
established thresholds, by providing funding for implementation of local GHG reduction projects.
SUSTAINABILITY-2. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance and standardize
potential mitigation measures for both discretionary and ministerial actionsprojects.
SUSTAINABILITY-3. Develop marketing materials and participate in conferences and events to
highlight the City’s leadership efforts and sustainable beach city brand.
SUSTAINABILITY-4. Identify, prioritize, and implement greenhouse gas reduction projects utilizing
the City’s carbon reduction planning tools for community and municipal operations.
SUSTAINABILITY-5. Regularly monitor and evaluate the City’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory
and report on progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Proposed Changes to the EIR and Mitigation Measures
(Attachment 1A and 1B)
No proposed changes to the Mitigation Measures at this time based on the Planning
Commission comments provided to date. The Commission should review and provide input on
the mitigation measures if you feel that they are infeasible.
MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development by the
South Bay Cities Council of Governments, or other appropriate tools to research current
data gaps, identify specific actions, and define the responsible parties and time frames
needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring milestones) identified
in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b.
MM 4.6-1b The City of Hermosa Beach will re-inventory community GHG emissions and evaluate
implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the calendar year of 2020
and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim reduction goals to be achieved
for consistency with long-term state goals include:
2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels
2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels
2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels
2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels
2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels
MM 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City’s Climate Action Plan when, upon
evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1b, the City determines that Hermosa
Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals. Revisions to PLAN
Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other City policies and programs will include
additional regulatory measures that provide a higher degree of certainty that emissions
reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive management approach would allow the
589
PLAN Hermosa
6
City to evaluate progress by activity sector (e.g., transportation, energy, water, waste) and
prescribe additional policies or programs to be implemented in the intervening five years
for activity sectors that are not on track to achieve the GHG reduction goals.
Proposed Changes to the Project Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment 1C)
The following would be added to the Project Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations:
Alternative 2 is infeasible because this alternative could pose greater environmental
impacts compared to the proposed project to aesthetics and visual resources, biological
resources, and cultural resources. Additionally, it could be cost prohibitive, with mandates
that are overly-burdensome on residents if they are carried out to require upgrades prior
to the end of useful life of vehicles, equipment or other building materials. It is also
unrealistic and burdensome to limit natural gas from homes, restaurants and hotels. Further,
the proposal far exceeds the state requirements, while the costs and burden could far
exceed the global benefits since Hermosa represents only a minor source of GHG
emissions when looking at the entire contribution of GHG emissions in the State of California.
590
Hello members,
First thanks for all your hard work.
I would like to please have you think about all 5he building that has been occurring in outer
town. There needs to be vision of what we see for its future. We need to have views history and
some green space left other than green belt. I would hope and ask you to please think of the citizens
that live here that would love to keep parts of our town historic. There needs to be a stop on SFR
being torn down and two to four on lots continuously being built. We really straining our sewer
system, bringing increased density, and decreasing the charm of what makes Hermosa beach,
hermosa.
We cannot become Santa Monica. Please think before you listen to only builders and real estate
agents. They might have a loud voice, but they don't represent the city as a whole.
Please put limits to over building and losing our history.
Thank you for listening.
Arcadia Berjonneau Keane
7th street
From: Malinowski, Joseph
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 6:30 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Plan Hermosa
I object to the point raised in the discussion Thursday by Mr. Pederson and Mr. Flaherty that, in the
rewrite of Plan Hermosa, they want to leave a little wiggle room to allow for changes based on new
technology. That misses the point and it is inconsistent with what those two Commissioners reluctantly,
and the other three Commissioners enthusiastically, stated that they wanted to eliminate mandates. So,
if new technology is developed, it sounds like the two Commissioners want to make the determination
for the homeowners whether they should be required to adopt the new technology, and that is exactly
what we homeowners disagree with. Let the homeowners weigh the pros and cons and make the
determination of the economic benefits of the new technology. It is unsettling that some vague
language be left in Plan Hermosa to be seized by your successors and the successors of the city council
to once again try to impose mandates.
Joseph M. Malinowski
591
From: Jim Krueger
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 9:23 PM
To: Mayor Hany Fangary
Cc: City Clerk; City Council; Elaine Doerfling
Subject: Re: Carbon Neutrality & CCA - to city council members
City Council members, ( my reply to Hany's email )
City clerk - please include this as a supplemental
I hope you were watching the recent city planning commission meeting Wed night 2-22-
17. If you were you would see that "your Carbon Neutrality" agenda was
overwhelmingly rejected by the city's residents. I find it rather odd that you believed that
the city was actually behind your agenda - It's shocking to see just how "out of touch"
you are with the city’s residents who you're supposed to be representing.
I urge / insist you to REMOVE this carbon neutrality wording from the cities agenda.
The frustrating part to this is that this should have been understood / detected a long
time ago - before we spent millions of dollars on studies, endless hours of wasted city
council meetings that could have been spent on basic issues like running the city: Fire
Department, police department , Sewer system , streets , schools, parking, business
development & maintenance. You were voted into council to represent the people - not
just a few special interests. It is your duty to as a council member to pursue what is
financially sound for the city. This issue has been misrepresented and the talking points
concentrated on by the council conveniently avoided the impact it would have and
focused on the "fluff" that would come by saying we are carbon neutral. There is NO
WAY this makes any financial sense whatsoever.
I am also disappointed in the lack of transparency and the "spin" that was put on it,
avoiding any real issues involved in implementing this agenda. I feel as though you
were trying to "sneak" this by the residents. If it wasn't for one city council member
(Carolyn Petty - who has taken a lot of heat from the rest of you) - this could have gone
unnoticed and passed without a community vote. Shame on you for trying to deceive us
and avoid addressing the "huge" sacrifices the residents would have to endure if this
agenda were to go through. California requirements are some of the most stringent in
the country. Why would you want to impose stricter requirements on our little
community? Boggles the mind on the money you spent to research this issue. Please
take that wasted million dollars and put it toward fixing our sewer system or fixing our
fire station instead of now having to increase our taxes to do it.
One incident that really stands out for me in just how one sided the council is on this
issue comes from a particular council meeting where the city was discussing the CCA
joint venture with Lancaster and there was an interaction with Carolyn Petty and a
member from the Lancaster CCA, where she brought up some very significant errors
592
with the numbers they were using to encourage us in joining their CCA ,,, and "Mayor"
Hany Fangary - completely disregarded the incredibly important findings she pointed
out & apologized to the Lancaster representatives. Not one city council member was
concerned, in the slightest, with what she had uncovered. “ shocking “ I found it
appalling and insulting that a sitting council member "Mayor" would apologize for
another member uncovering such significant errors that could have serious
consequences to the city getting into another Energy business catastrophe.(E&B) I think
that incident represents just how deep the council members want this issue to go
through - No matter what the city residents want. I think it's your agenda?
I don’t think you bothered to reach out any farther than who showed up to your council
meeting to determine who was for this agenda. Shame on you. You know almost
exclusively the “special interest" groups show up for these meetings to push their
agendas.
YOU ignored the silent majority!
I also find it extremely concerning that after our E&B oil issue, that we would embark or
even entertain another "energy situation" ( CCA) that has the slightest possibility of
putting the city at financial risk again!
I think the email below from Hany Fangary says it all on just how the council feels about
this agenda "convince us" he says ? - how about you reach out to the community
and find out what we want?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>
To: Jim Krueger
Sent: Thu, Sep 22, 2016 3:19 pm
Subject: RE: CCA - to city council members
Jim, you are welcome to reach out to each councilmember with your views and opinions about the issue
to try to convince us. However, we have also heard from others in the community that are supporting
the city’s carbon neutral commitment.
Hany S. Fangary
Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone: 424-235-0857
hfangary@hermosabch.org
www.hermosabch.org
From: Jim Krueger
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:28 PM
593
To: Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Re: CCA - to city council members
Hany,
Thank you for acknowledging my letter. Could you tell us what the community needs to do in order to
remove this "Carbon Neutrality" mission from our cities agenda? Many of us think this issue is taking on a
life of its own and is becoming much more costly / risky than it was ever intended. We would rather have
more visible improvements and cost effective things done around the city. Rather than spending so much
time & energy trying to become the first city to be carbon neutral.
How do we change the focus of the commission?
Thank you,
-----Original Message-----
From: Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>
To: Jim Krueger
Sent: Wed, Sep 21, 2016 10:50 am
Subject: RE: CCA - to city council members
Jim, thanks for your input, I appreciate it.
Hany S. Fangary
Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone: 424-235-0857
hfangary@hermosabch.org
www.hermosabch.org
From: Jim Krueger
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:47 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>; Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Mayor
Pro Tem Justin Massey <jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Jeff Duclos
<jduclos@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Stacey Armato <sarmato@hermosabch.org>;
Councilmember Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Tom Bakaly <tbakaly@hermosabch.org>
Subject: RE: CCA - to city council members
Please see attached letter.
594
Added 2/28/17:
From: lana van aggelen
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:40 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: PLAN Hermosa Comments
PLAN Hermosa should be amended to strip from the PLAN all references to carbon credits/offsets and
replace “carbon neutral” with “carbon reduction” by 2040.
Neutral is extreme. Reduction is both reasonable and desirable. Even the state of California is only asking
communities to reduce emissions.
The city budget should fund basic requirements like infrastructure (sewer) and fire service liabilities
(pension obligations). Only discretionary money should fund green environmental projects.
I agree with Greg Strangis’ position letter in the Easy Reader Letters section dated February 9, 2017. This
household insists the City Council break out the Carbon Neutrality provision from the General Plan and
offer it up to the residents as a separate ballot measure to be voted on by the citizens.
As a retired couple on a low fixed income, we are thankful Hermosa has both gas and electric available to
us as we always have had since we bought our home on Prospect in 1970. We have friends and family
who reside in other nearby cities. They only have electricity available to them; their electric bills are about
three times higher than ours. For them their electric bill is sometimes a financial hardship. We are truly
fortunate to have natural gas to heat our homes. Do not take that from us with a carbon neutrality plan!
We would really like to continue to live peaceful lives unencumbered by EXTREME LIFE CHANGING
INTRUSIONS from the elected and appointed policy makers of this fair city in which we all live.
Thank You
Lana & Richard Van Aggelen
From: Fred Dominski <fred.dominski@outlook.com>
To: citycouncil <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; planningcommission-group <planningcommission-
group@hermosabch.org>; hfangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Jmassey
<Jmassey@hermosabch.org>; jduclos <jduclos@hermosabch.org>; sarmato
<sarmato@hermosabch.org>; cpetty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>
Sent: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 05:20 PM
Subject: Opposition To Carbon Neutrality
Dear City Council
As a longtime resident, home owner and active voter in Hermosa Beach I would like to register my
absolute opposition to the move by the city council to put the city on a path to carbon neutrality. I find
595
Plan Hermosa to be a collection of vague statements and buzz words that will divert us from the most
important things a small city like Hermosa Beach should be focused on. I fear it will also put us on a
path towards over reach of government power that is unwanted by the majority of Hermosa Beach
residents. For example, the Plan Hermosa goals imply that residents may be prohibited from utilizing
cost effective gas appliances in favor of inefficient electric models. Or residents may be penalized for
purchasing a car that is not on some city approved list.
The city council should not be focused on global problems with unaffordable solutions. Period. Is the
city council sure that the average Hermosa Beach resident has the financial resources to comply with
carbon neutrality requirements? How many residents will be forced out of the community by the carbon
neutral financial burden? I urge the city council to focus on problems close to home that we can actually
do something about, such as a crumbling infrastructure and police/fire department funding.
I am very frustrated that the city council chose to waste valuable resources on developing a 200 plus
page plan utilizing expensive consultants and consulting advocacy groups with clear objectives that are
contrary to personal freedoms. A vision statement should be on the order of a page or two and focused
on improving the quality of life and freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Not
micromanaging how people live in their own homes or drive in their own cars.
Plan Hermosa will increase rules and regulations which will negatively affect the daily lives of Hermosa
Beach residents. Anyone who cares about the future of Hermosa Beach should be very wary of what is
buried in Plan Hermosa’s 200 plus pages.
I hope the city council comes to the correct conclusion that Plan Hermosa should be reworked to 1)
simplify and shorten the content while providing much needed clarity around what metrics will be used
to determine success and 2) remove all carbon neutrality requirements.
Best Regards,
Fred A. Dominski
30th Street, HB
From: Chris Karkenny [mailto:ckarkenny@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:43 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Fw: Carbon Neutrality- NO
Please enter below into record for meeting tonight. Thanks.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2017, 2:49 PM, Chris Karkenny <ckarkenny@yahoo.com> wrote:
596
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
I have been a homeowner, tax payer, resident and voter in Hermosa Beach for more than 10 years.
As such I would like to register my objection to going forward with carbon neutrality as part of the
General Plan, and would also object to any additional mandate, code, or standards that exceed the
California State mandates, regulations or statues. I would like us as a City to follow the State
mandates in terms of Carbon Reduction, not neutrality or elimination. I further do not want the City
to lay any groundwork to exceed State mandates. I find it rather peculiar that Hermosa Beach is
even evaluating making higher standards then the State has mandated (of which CA has some of
THE toughest environmental standards in the Country), and cannot fathom why we would spend a
dime to research going in excess of the State mandates. We are a 1.3 sq mile city with appx 2,000
voters, and it really makes no sense to put any undue burden, tax, or mandate upon us. By tax I
mean a back-end tax affected by mandated changes in the event I or anyone in the City decides to
sell their property. I say this because I asked this question of a council member and was give this
replay by the city staffers:
"Commissioner Saemann's assertion that if you're going to remodel your bathroom
and replace your tub, and you go down to pull a permit, you're going to have to retrofit your
house [with solar] in order to complete a $500 renovation to comply with the City's carbon
neutral goals is a bit of a stretch for a couple of reasons: First, the City is obligated before
enacting new regulations to show a nexus between the permit or service being requested and
the requirements being placed on a property, and second, the City recognizes that placing a
threshold that requires significant investment not connected with the permit, would result in
many people completing work or renovations without permits. It is more likely, that these types
of requirements would be placed on properties that are remodeling more than 50% of a house,
or adding more than 500 square feet to the building, common requirements currently in place for
adding fire sprinklers or upgrading electrical systems. "
I reject this assertion above regarding getting Hermosa to carbon neutrality that states requiring
us to retrofit our house with solar power is similar or common to upgrading fire sprinklers and
electrical systems. This is much more than that, period! and is quite obnoxious, including going
above and beyond CA state mandates, to potentially in any way, shape, form, or substance
require residents to be told what and how to do things with our finances. I am all for solar, but I
do not want to be mandated and told what to do by a group that has no business advising me
what is best for my household or my financial analysis of where and how to spend my money in
excess of what the State and City is already taking in the form of taxes (whether or not I ever
sell my house). Carbon Reduction the State has mandated should be our goal- figuring out the
How to get there should be your job, not to go above and beyond what the State has mandated.
The General Plan for Hermosa has listed on page 139 Carbon Wide Neutrality by 2040 with
options for 2030 are stated goals and my understanding from conversations with some council
members is this was the direction given at the time because the folks attending the planning
meetings 2 years ago had an interest on Carbon Neutrality- without fully knowing what affects or
financial impacts this goal could have on residents. I have not heard from anyone that
achieving carbon neutrality without a financial impact in some shape or form is possible. Once
again, I am perplexed as to why the council or planning commission would push forth with this
goal instead of sticking to the State Mandates of Carbon Reduction. I feel that no negative
financial impact should happen to residents to go above and beyond any State levels. How
about a better idea to make it easier for people that want to go above and beyond the State
mandates by offering incentives as opposed to being punitive or as a requirement on
residents. What the City can do to achieve environmental positive impacts without forcing or
597
putting in mandates, or making unreasonable impacts to residents- is to give incentives to
people whom want to go towards carbon neutrality- eg. if someone wants to put solar on their
roof give them another foot over and above the height restrictions ( so if solar is another foot of
space to install, then add 2 feet for them so they get an extra foot), or if someone purchases an
electric car offer them a free parking pass in the city, etc... Also you could offer to residents the
ability to donate to fund CN initiatives- I would be happy to donate for individual projects
that have a more "green" thinking above state levels- but DO NOT FORCE Residents to
have a negative financial impact to do so whether now or in the future if I remodel or sell my
house or simply reside in Hermosa with an added tax. I am sure many people like myself would
be happy to make donations for special green projects- just give folks the option.
You all manage a budget and maybe more attention needs to be placed on that for the benefit
of our families and children residing in Hermosa Beach. For instance, to make sure we have
the best fit schools, roads, sewers systems, fire department facilities, safety with police in
uniform. Taxpayer dollars need to be spent wisely, and if after you do all this, and you have
room for a project or evaluation in excess of what the State mandates, how about asking the
residents, the voters that you have been entrusted to serve, how they want their money
spent. My vote was entrusted to those of you on the council to represent us residents in order
to guide the City through the web that is our City and to make those decisions that are in the
best interest of our residents- not for individual ideas or plans- you all represent all of us. The
State provides guidance for us and YOU. This path of Carbon Neutrality in no way is in the
best interest of our residents and any evaluation or recommendation needs to be course
corrected quickly so taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted.
Regards, Chris Karkenny.
Concerned Hermosa Beach Resident.
From: Ken Hartley [mailto:kenhartley@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:44 PM
To: 'phoffman@hermosabch.org' <phoffman@hermosabch.org>; 'mflaherty@hermosabch.org'
<mflaherty@hermosabch.org>; 'rsaemann@hermosabch.org' <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>;
'mrice@hermosabch.org' <mrice@hermosabch.org>; 'dpedersen@hermosabch.org'
<dpedersen@hermosabch.org>; 'citycouncil@hermosabch.org' <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Vote against Carbon Neutrality
To: City Council and Planning Commissioners Peter Hoffman, Rob Saemann, Mike Flaherty, Marie
Rice and Dave
Pedersen phoffman@hermosabch.org ,mflaherty@hermosabch.org , rsaemann@hermosabch.org ,
mrice@hermosabch.org , dpedersen@hermosabch.org , citycouncil@hermosabch.org
Please do not follow staff’s recommendation to adopt PLAN Hermosa, and the accompanying EIR
and Mitigation Measures at your meeting on February 22, 2017. Adopting them in their current
form would be detrimental to property owners’ rights, values, views and their ability to feasibly
develop and renovate their properties.
Carbon Neutrality: In my opinion, references to Carbon Neutrality should be changed to Carbon
Reduction, with voluntary participation rewarded by incentives. Carbon Neutrality is an extreme
measure, especially when mandated on existing buildings. When remodeling or selling, owners
could be required to install new windows, solar panels, change from gas cooking/heating to all
598
electric, etc. Energy audits and retrofits would cost property owners thousands of dollars. This
will have a huge negative impact on property owners in Hermosa. It’s an overreach of authority and
shouldn’t be mandated on an accelerated schedule, decided by a vote of 5 council members.
Residents need an opportunity to really understand how this would impact their daily lives and cost
of living/doing business in Hermosa. There are other punitive measures and costs unrelated to
property ownership, such as having to purchase carbon offsets and penalties for not driving an
electric vehicle.
Respectfully,
The Hartley’s
723 30th Street
Hermosa Beach
599