HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-17-PC-Regular
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Post-Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
COMMISSIONERS
Stephen Izant, Chairperson
Michael Flaherty, Vice Chairperson
Peter Hoffman, Commissioner
Greg McNally, Commissioner
Kate Hirsh, Commissioner
Alison Becker, Community Development Director
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are
available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting,
you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at
cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting.
PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public
comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the
meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may
view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following:
Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2I6TzBpTDIjc2x6bGFwdz09
•
Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860•
eComment: On the HTML agenda, click an agenda item, then click on the blue “Leave
comment” (on computer) / blue speech bubble (on phone/tablet) button to provide a comment
for that item. Submit eComments no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time.
•
Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be
sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item
and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours
before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends
will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of
all, of the Commission after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at
the Community Development Department located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA
90254 during regular business hours.
•
Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are
available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time.
Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown
Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an
eComment to ensure your public participation.
Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed
mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible.
Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall
attend in Council Chambers.
Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach •
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 •
Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda •
Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs•
If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please
try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda.
Page 2 of 466
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.ROLL CALL
4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
This is the time for Planning Commission to discuss any changes to the order of
agenda items.
Recommended Action:
To approve the order of the agenda.
5.PUBLIC COMMENT 6
6.CONSENT CALENDAR
Recommended Action:
To approve the consent calendar.
6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2026 - 26-CDD-038
24
(Commission Secretary Holly Honma)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission
regular meeting of February 17, 2026.
7.PUBLIC HEARING
7.a LOCATION: 725 5TH STREET - 26-CDD-027 29
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON
WIRELESS) ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725
5TH STREET
CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3
categorical exemption, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines for new construction or conversion
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
To continue this item to the Planning Commission's Regular Meeting on
May 19, 2026 and for staff and applicant explore alternative locations for
the wireless telecommunication facility on the east and northeast portion
of the building.
Page 3 of 466
7.b LOCATION: 1244 2ND STREET - 26-CDD-030 258
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AND VARIANCE AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN
4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE (R-1)
CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15305.
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
To determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15305; and Adopt a Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 25-
02) and Variance (VAR25-03) at 1244 2nd Street and Assessor’s Parcel
Number 4186-027-030.
7.c LOCATION: 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - 26-CDD-008 296
A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02), TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE
WALL SIGNS PER BUSINESS, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS
FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10
PERCENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AS A PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SHOPPING
CENTER IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE
CEQA: Determine the project qualifies for Class 11 Exemption from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15311
(Associate Planner Jake Whitney)
Recommended Action:
To determine the Project qualifies for Class 11 Exemption from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15311; and Adopt a Resolution approving a Sign
Variance (VAR25-02) at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway subject to
conditions.
7.d LOCATION: 333 26TH STREET - 26-CDD-034 344
ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION DENYING A
REQUEST FOR A CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATION (CSD25-04) AT
333 26TH STREET
CEQA: Determine this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 21065 of the CEQA Guidelines
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
To grant the appeal of the Director's Determination and approve the
Convex Slope Determination.
8.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
9.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Page 4 of 466
10.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future
agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken.
10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 26-CDD-
039
465
(Commission Secretary Holly Honma)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the April Planning Commission tentative future
agenda.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 466
Planning Commission Regular Meeting | March 17, 2026 Agenda Item Name Comment Position Status Attachment URLLOCATION: 333 26TH STREET - 26-CDD-034Brandon Straus This is the Appellant's Submittal for Planning Commission ReviewAgainst Approved https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=55681LOCATION: 333 26TH STREET - 26-CDD-034Brandon Straus This is Appellant's Slide Presentation for the Appeal Hearing Against Approved https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=55682i just dont understand why these antennas cant be placed on a tall pole or several tall poles on the sidewalk adjacent to PCH or on a tall pole in the center of one of several nearby commercial parking lots even if it costs more. Did verizon fully explore options to reduce the potential health risks to nearby residents or the significant property losses associated with having an antenna so close to a residential property line or a childs bedroom?i doubt it. The city should fully investigate whether other options were considered and if not why.Energy decreases at the square of the distance so there appear to be options to substantially reduce resident risk & impact. but alternatives were largely ignored without explanation a when the city allowed verizon to put in the cell tower building on top of the cleaners at 27th & Manhattan Ave 4 years ago; so i wouldn't get my hopes up. It was a rubberstamp hearing. The city will make at least 40k annually in fees paid from verizon on this site. see urlhttps://share.google/aimode/0Kab8I2IFcVi3f44Istill wishing you lucktonyhigginsAgainst ApprovedLOCATION: 725 5TH STREET - 26-CDD-027Page 6 of 466
Planning Commission Regular Meeting | March 17, 2026LOCATION: 725 5TH STREET - 26-CDD-027Georgia Tesla My husband, Enrique Vassallo, and I live on the same block as the proposed cell towers at 725 5th Street. We strongly oppose the proposed location of the towers on our block. Proposed health risks caused by living near these antennas include emission of electromagnetic radiation, increased cancer risk, headaches, sleep issues, genetic damage, changes to reproductive system, memory deficits and impacts on the nervous system. There are also increased fire risks. Better alternative locations exist such as in some non residential area where there is a greater concentration of businesses rather than residences. Maybe somewhere on Pier Avenue.There will be obstruction of views and eye sore resulting in reduced property value. Please find an alternative, less residential location for the towers.Georgia Tesla and Enrique Vassallo 649 5th StreetAgainst ApprovedLOCATION: 725 5TH STREET - 26-CDD-027Ira Ellman I am against projects that can affect residents' quality of life or property value. Although many of the federal and other statutes seem to favor installation, #6 does not hold up. Based on the map in the staff report, this site is next door to a residence and adjacent to others. Note #6 below: 6. Preference shall be given to sites which are not located along primary streetfrontage, front yard areas or adjacent to residential uses. Against ApprovedPage 7 of 466
1
SROUR & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Development Services Group, Inc. 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 206, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 brandon@esrour.com 310/372-8433
March 11, 2026
Stephen Izant, Chair and Members City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Appeal of Director Determination for 333 26th Street
Dear Chair Izant and Members of the Planning Commission,
This is an appeal of the Director’s Determination dated January 28, 2026, that the survey of 333 26th Street does not demonstrate a convex slope under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). We request that the Planning Commission review the site survey and the results of the geotechnical report for the site and determine that 333 26th Street has a
natural convex slope, and the grade of the lot is the grade shown on the survey, reduced for the depth of fill soil.
HBMC Section 17.04.040 states: “For lots with convex contours (where the ground level
arches upward along a property line), the 'grade' of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical
survey along the property line with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot intervals.” In conjunction with determining whether “the ground level arches upward along a property line,” the City reviews a geotechnical report for a lot to determine the extent to which any potential convex slope is due to fill soil.
On November 12, 2025, the Appellant submitted an application to the City for a convex slope determination, which included: 1) a detailed topographical survey along the property line with spot elevations at 2-foot intervals; 2) a geotechnical report showing the depth of fill soil at seven locations on the site; 3) an analysis of these documents supporting a finding of
convex slope; and 4) a sketch of the house proposed for the site. The locations of the seven boring
sites (double the usual number) were chosen at the direction of City Staff.
Based on the analysis submitted, we requested that the elevations on the easterly and westerly property lines depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – be
used to determine the height limit for the subject lot.
The Director denied the convex lot finding based on two grounds: 1) the survey does not show “an arch or rise along a property line”; and 2) the proposed redevelopment of the property would alter the existing grade conditions, eliminating the mid-lot slope. For the foregoing reasons,
we request this appeal be granted.
Page 8 of 466
2
1)The survey does show that the ground arches upward along a property line.
The survey of 333 26th Street shows a classic convex sloped lot. The grade of the lot is a literal arch above the interpolated (straight-line) grade that rises along the property line in each direction until reaching the highest point of convexity.
The Director appears to have concluded that 333 26th Street is not convex, because it does not
resemble the following diagram in the City’s handout on convex lots.
In fact the subject site does resemble this diagram, but with the convexity elongated towards the middle of the lot rather than confined to the rear. The Director even acknowledges that there is a “mid-lot
slope” at 333 26th Street when she notes that the “the mid-lot slope” will be altered by grading. Nothing in the code states that a convex slope can occur only at the rear of a lot, and none of the Planning Commission’s prior convex slope findings have reflected this idea. For instance, one street over, the Planning Commission found the following lot to be convex. This lot has points of convexity in the front and the middle.
301 27th St. Front Rear
Page 9 of 466
3
Below are examples of other lots determined to be convex, none of which look like the diagram relied upon by the Director, and all of which have points of convexity in various locations along the property lines.
We are not arguing that the Planning Commission is bound to find the subject lot to be convex based solely on its past decisions. We are arguing, however, that the same analysis should apply to the subject site as was applied in all past cases; Namely, that convexity is determined by the slope of elevations along the entire property, not solely at the rear of the lot, and not only when it matches the sample diagram relied upon by the Director.
2.The proposed development of a lot does not determine its convexity.
The Director’s other basis for decision is that the lot will more closely reflect a flat or concave lot after it is graded. This circular reasoning is true for every convex lot. If the condition of the lot
post-grading were a factor in determining whether a lot is convex, no lot would be convex, because any lot can be graded flat. For this reason, the way a lot could be graded has never been a factor in a convex lot determination. To accept the Director’s reasoning is to read the convex slope provision out of the code.
Discount of Fill Soil
A geotechnical engineering investigation for the site indicates the extent to which the elevation of the existing grade is due to fill soil. In a report dated October 30, 2025, NorCal Engineering presented data from seven boring holes on the site, labeled B-1 through B-7 on the diagram below,
showing the following levels of fill at each boring site.
Page 10 of 466
4
At the boring sites nearest the highest points of convexity, B-4 and B-5, the report indicates 0.5’ of fill soil. Based on the relatively uniform rate of rise towards the points of convexity, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that a fill layer of 0.5’ or less spans the entire convex portion of the lot. Accordingly we ask that you find that the elevations on the easterly and westerly property
lines depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – may be used to determine
the height limit for the subject lot.
Sincerely
Brandon Straus
Brandon Straus
Applicant’s Representative
Page 11 of 466
HBMC Section 17.04.040
For lots with convex contours (where the ground
level arches upward along a property line), the
"grade" of a lot may be based on a detailed
topographical survey along the property line with
spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2)
foot intervals.
Page 12 of 466
333 26th St. Topographical Survey
A Classic Convex Arch Slope Along Property Line
Page 13 of 466
333 26th St. Soils Report
Depth of Fill Soil
Page 14 of 466
The City’s Precedent for Convex Slope Determination
(CSD) Analysis
•Based on these 2 documents, the Appellant requested:
•the City find that convex slope did exist on this lot, and
•elevations on the property lines be used as the grade of
the lot, less .5’ to account for the fill soil
•This two-step analysis has been the basis for convex lot
determinations for at least 15 years
Page 15 of 466
Consistent Convex Arch Slope with 301 27th to 333 26th
301 27th has smaller grade of ~2 feet compared to 333 26th with ~5 feet
333 26th St.
Page 16 of 466
Additional CSD Lot Examples
Page 17 of 466
The City Director’s Denial of Convex Slope
•Director’s denial based on 2 grounds:
•Lack of “an arch or rise along a property line”
•Slope would be graded away during construction
•No consideration of the Appellant’s soils report
333 26th St.
Page 18 of 466
The City Director’s Denial of Convex Slope (cont.)
•Director denied because lot does not resemble the below
diagram
•The Director/Staff presented proposed interpretation in the
February Planning Commission meeting used on Appellant’s
denial, which is intended for future applicants
Page 19 of 466
The Basis for Our Appeal
•Code does not state a convex slope can
occur only at the rear of a lot, like diagram
•None of the Planning Commission’s prior
convex slope findings have reflected this idea
•Approved convex lot examples do not look
like the diagram relied upon by the Director
•All have points of convexity in various locations
along the property lines
•The Planning Commission found the lot one
street over to be convex (as noted on next
slide)
•Lot has high points in the front and the middle,
at a lesser grade than 333 26th
Page 20 of 466
333 26th St.
Page 21 of 466
Timeline from Application Submittal
www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
11/12/2025
Application
Submitted
2/3/2026
Director explains new
convex lot analysis in
meeting with Applicant
1/28/2026
Convex Lot
Denied
2/17/2026
Director tells Planning
Commission a new set
of guidelines will be
issued, but they do not
yet exist
Page 22 of 466
Appeal Summary
•Our position: until the City provides new written standards on convex slope
determinations, the convexity analysis used in past cases applies
•by the slope along a property line, not solely at the rear of the lot, and
•not only when it matches the diagram relied upon by the Director, which is not part of the Code
•Director’s denial on the ground that a lot can be graded flat or concave is not
consistent with the language or intent of the Code
•If the lot post-grading were a factor in a convex determination, no lot would be convex since any lot can be graded flat
•Under the Director’s approach, the required the topographical survey and soils report
would not be needed
•To accept the Director’s reasoning is to read the convex slope provision out of
the code
•The subject lot clearly meets the convex lot standard under municipal code
Page 23 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-038
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
(Commission Secretary Holly Honma)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the
Planning Commission regular meeting of February 17, 2026.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of February 17, 2026
Respectfully Submitted by: Holly Honma, Commission Secretary
Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director
Page 24 of 466
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 17, 2026
5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Members Present: Chairperson Stephen Izant, Vice Chairperson Michael Flaherty,
Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Greg McNally,
Commissioner Kate Hirsh
Staff Present: Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza, Assistant Planner Jake
Whitney, Senior Office Assistant Holly Honma, Assistant Planner
Johnny Case, Community Development Director Alison Becker,
Assistant Planner DeDe Tran, Interim City Attorney Sarah
Locklin
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Stephen Izant called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairperson Izant.
3. ROLL CALL
Senior Office Assistant Holly Honma announced a quorum.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by: Commissioner Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Flaherty
To approve the order of the agenda.
Ayes (5): Chairperson Izant, Vice Chairperson Flaherty, Commissioner Hoffman,
Commissioner McNally, and Commissioner Hirsh
Motion Carried
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
In-person public comments:
Page 25 of 466
2
None
Virtual public comments:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Moved by: Commissioner Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Flaherty
To approve the consent calendar.
Ayes (5): Chairperson Izant, Vice Chairperson Flaherty, Commissioner Hoffman,
Commissioner McNally, and Commissioner Hirsh
Motion Carried
6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2026 - 26-CDD-020
(Administrative Assistant Nancy Blinzler)
Moved by: Commissioner Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Flaherty
To approve the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
January 20, 2026.
Motion Carried
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7.a LOCATION: 74 PIER AVENUE - 25-CDD-169
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO
MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP25-13/APE25-004) FOR ROBERT'S LIQUOR LOCATED
AT 74 PIER AVENUE IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE.
CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
(Assistant Planner Johnny Case & Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne
Calderon)
Assistant Planner Johnny Case provided a presentation.
Vice-Chairperson Flaherty provided comments.
Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided information.
Chairperson Izant opened the Public Hearing.
Page 26 of 466
3
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Chairperson Izant provided comments.
Applicant Patrick Boboko provided comments.
Chief Landon Phillips provided comments.
Interim City Attorney Sarah Locklin provided comments.
Chairperson Izant closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairperson Flaherty provided comments.
Commissioner Hoffman provided comments.
Commissioner Hirsh motioned to accept staff's recommendation with the
modifications of providing a clean resolution and including the original
CUP as an attachment.
Moved by: Commissioner Hirsh
Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Flaherty
To determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 1 categorical
exemption as defined in Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
adopt a resolution to modify the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP25- 13/APE25-004) at the existing liquor store (Robert’s Liquor)
located at 74 Pier Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (C-2) Zone and to
accept staff's recommendation with the modifications of providing a clean
resolution and including the original CUP as an attachment.
Ayes (5): Chairperson Izant, Vice Chairperson Flaherty, Commissioner
Hoffman, Commissioner McNally, and Commissioner Hirsh
Motion Carried
8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided comments.
Assistant Planner Dede Tran provided a presentation.
Commissioner Hoffman asked various questions.
Assistant Planner Dede Tran provided information.
Vice-Chairperson Flaherty asked various questions.
Commissioner Hirsh asked various questions.
Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided information.
Assistant Planner Dede Tran provided information.
Page 27 of 466
4
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided comments.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Vice-Chairperson Flaherty asked various questions.
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided information.
Commissioner McNally provided comments.
Chairperson Izant provided comments.
Vice-Chairperson Flaherty asked various questions.
Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided information.
Chairperson Izant asked questions.
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided information.
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future
agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken.
10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 26-CDD-
018
(Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza)
Moved by: Commissioner Hoffman
Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Flaherty
To receive and file the March 17, 2026, Planning Commission tentative
future agenda.
Ayes (5): Chairperson Izant, Vice Chairperson Flaherty, Commissioner
Hoffman, Commissioner McNally, and Commissioner Hirsh
Motion Carried
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Page 28 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 13
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-027
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
LOCATION: 725 5TH STREET
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04)
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) ON THE ROOF OF AN
EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET
CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3 categorical exemption, as
defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction or conversion
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission:
1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3 categorical exemption, as
defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction or
conversion; and
2. Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP25-04) to construct
and operate an unmanned 588.5 square-foot wireless telecommunication facility
(Verizon Wireless) located on the roof of an existing building at 725 5th Street in
the Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) (Attachment 1).
Executive Summary:
The following is a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would
permit the construction and operation of an unmanned 588.5-square-foot wireless
telecommunications facility (WTF) operated by Verizon Wireless on top of the existing
roof of 725 5th Street located in SPA-7. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act and approve the requested CUP with conditions of approval.
Background:
The project is proposed to be located on the roof of an existing site located on the north
side of 5th Street, one block west of Pacific Coast Highway, outside of the Coastal Zone.
To the north and east of the subject property are commercial buildings, to the south and
west are residential properties (Attachment 3 and Attachment 4). The site is developed
Page 29 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 13
with a two-story multi-tenant commercial building addressed as 725 5th Street in Specific
Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) (Attachment 2). The City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa)
designates the property as Service Commercial (SC) with a Housing Element Overlay
Zoning designation.
Municipal Code:
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.38.300 Plan Area No. 7 permitted
uses subsection A states, “Commercial permitted uses shall be the same as those
permitted in C-3 General Commercial Zone as contained in Section 17.26.040, and
nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.52.” HBMC Section
17.26.030 C-1, C-2, and C-3 land use regulations require a conditional use permit for
wireless communications facilities in the C-3 (and C-1 and C-2) zones. HBMC Section
17.40.170 contains the City’s primary regulations for the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities outside of the public right-of-way and regulates conditions
and standards that apply to the siting of a facility. HBMC Section 17.40.170(A)(7) requires
that the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed site results in fewer or
less severe environmental impacts than any feasible alternative site.
HBMC Section 17.38.320 Plan sets the commercial development standards for Specific
Plan Area No. 7. Since the subject site is already built and the project would be adding
to the existing roof, the relevant development standard is HBMC Section 17.38.320(C)(3):
which requires, “A minimum of eight feet plus two feet for each additional story.” The
project proposes a ten-foot setback from the new WTF enclosure to the property line,
meeting the minimum requirement.
Additional Requirements for WTF Approval - Federal Telecommunications Act of
1996:
Local authority to approve or deny a WTF application by any state or local government is
subject to limitations established by federal law. Therefore, in addition to the City’s local
regulatory process for approval of a WTF, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
(“Telecom Act”) requires that any decision to deny a request to place, construct, or modify
a WTF must be supported by substantial evidence contained in written record (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7); see excerpt, Attachment 5). To be considered “substantial,” the written
evidence must reasonably support denial based on failure to satisfy local regulations.1
Substantial evidence would generally be considered written studies, documentation, or
technical analysis directly regarding the proposed project, indicating it does not comply
with applicable local, state, or federal laws. Also under the Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is
prohibited from considering the environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions
(including health effects) of the proposed facility if the WTF will operate in compliance
with federal regulations. Therefore, if a WTF project complies with federal RF emissions
regulations, cities may not consider personal beliefs or other opinions about health effects
1 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, abrogated on other
grounds by T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell (2015) 574 U.S. 293
Page 30 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 13
from RF emissions of wireless telecommunication facilities during review of proposed
projects (Attachment 6). To be considered “substantial,” the written evidence must
reasonably support denial based on failure to satisfy local regulations 2. Substantial
evidence would generally be considered written studies, documentation, or technical
analysis directly regarding the proposed project indicating it does not comply with
applicable local, state, or federal laws. Also under the Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is
prohibited from considering the environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions
(including health effects) of the proposed facility if the applicant has demonstrated that
the WTF will operate in compliance with federal regulations. Therefore, if a WTF project
applicant has demonstrated compliance with federal RF emissions regulations, direct or
indirect concerns over the perceived health effects of RF emissions may not serve as
substantial evidence to support the denial of an application (Attachment 6).
Site Information Table:
The following table describes the existing site characteristics.
Site Information
General Plan Service Commercial (SC)
Zoning Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) with Housing Element Overlay
Zone
Lot Size 16,200
Existing Square Footage 8,775 square feet
Surrounding Zoning
North: SPA-7
East: SPA-7
South: Two Family Residential Zone (R-2)
West: R-2
Surrounding Uses
North: Commercial
East: Commercial
South: Residential
West: Residential
Project Description
The proposed wireless facility installation consists of nine (9) Panel Antennas, (6) Radios,
(2) DC surge and (3) equipment cabinets along with additional supporting equipment, all
to be placed within a new 588.5 square-foot screened structure located on the roof of the
2 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, abrogated on other
grounds by T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell (2015) 574 U.S. 293
Page 31 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 13
existing building which will be painted and textured to match the existing split-face
concrete block building.
Following is a summary of the proposed facility:
Proposed Facility:
Location/Height: The proposed screened wireless facility would be constructed
on the roof of the existing building. The structure would be
painted and textured to match the existing building. The
screening structure measures 5’6” in height from the parapet
wall and will be positioned in the northwest corner of the building
which is centered at the intersection of the two wings of the
building and setback ten feet from the property line. The overall
size of the rooftop screening measures 26’9” by 22’ by 5’6” for a
total of 588.5 square feet and a building height of 35’.
Sector/Antenna: - 3 sectors with 3 panel antennas per sector, 6 radios and 2
raycaps
Leased Equipment
Area:
- 588.5 square feet (including antenna structure)
- 3 equipment cabinets
- 1 service light
- All equipment will be placed within the screened antenna
enclosure on the rooftop.
Additional Support
Equipment:
- Power and Fiber conduits will run from ground level to the
rooftop and across the enclosure.
Discussion:
Design and Development Standards
Staff reviewed the proposed wireless facility for compliance with Subsections 17.40.170(B)
finding the proposal is generally compliant as follows:
1. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification,
public safety, warning, or other required seals or required signage.
The facility would not bear signs or private advertising devices other than for public
safety purposes.
2. Any and all accessory equipment, or other equipment associated with the
operation of the facility, including but not limited to transmission cables, shall be
located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault in a manner that
complies with the development standards of the zoning district in which such
equipment is located. In addition, if equipment is located above ground, it shall be
visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and either (1) shrouded by
sufficient landscaping to screen the equipment from view, or (2) designed to match
the architecture of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or reasonable architectural
Page 32 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 13
theme is present, the Planning Commission may require a particular design that is
deemed by the Commission to be suitable to the subject location.
The wireless facility proposes to draw power from an existing Southern California
Edison utility pole, undergrounding the fiber conduit at the street level, then running
the conduit up the building within a rigid conduit painted to match the building and
along the roof to the proposed enclosure. All additional support equipment would
be located within the proposed enclosure behind the existing parapet wall.
3. The facility exterior shall be comprised of non-reflective material(s) and painted or
camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors.
The screening enclosure for the proposed wireless communication facility would be
painted and textured to match the existing building.
4. Any screening used in connection with a wall mounted and/or roof mounted facility
shall be compatible with the architecture, color, texture and materials of the
building or other structure to which it is mounted.
The existing building is a split-face concrete block building, and the proposed
enclosure is designed to blend in with the existing building by matching the exterior
building materials (texture and paint color).
5. The facility shall be placed to the centermost location of the roof top to screen it
from view from the street and adjacent properties.
The facility would be in the center of the L-shaped building at the elbow of the L and
setback ten feet from the property line behind an enclosure that is painted and
textured to match the existing building, thus screening the WTF from view from the
street and adjacent properties.
6. The facility shall not be permitted on residentially zoned property.
The facility is not located on a residentially zoned property. The project is located in
the Specific Plan Area 7 Zone and is within the Housing Element Overlay Zone.
Although the zoning permits residential uses, the property has a base zoning of
Service Commercial (SC).
7. The facility shall not include the use or installation of a monopole.
The facility does not involve the installation of a monopole. The proposed WTF
consists of a roof mounted installation located within an enclosure.
Staff reviewed the proposed wireless facility for compliance with Subsections 17.40.170(C)
finding the proposal is generally compliant as follows:
1. The facility shall be considered an accessory structure. If the facility is located
within two hundred (200) feet of a residential use, then the facility shall comply with
the setback requirements for such zone. In all other instances, the extent of
Page 33 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 13
compliance with the setback requirements for the zone in which the facility is
located shall be considered, in accordance with the following guidelines, by the
City in connection with its processing of any facility permit.
The facility is located within 200 feet of a residential use and therefore is subject to
residential setback requirements. The nearest residential zoning district abutting the
project to the west is R-2, and the required residential front yard setback is eight feet,
plus two feet for each additional story per HBMC Section 17.38.320 (C)(3), totaling a
setback of ten feet. The screened structure is located ten feet away from the west
property line.
Screening and Site Selection Guidelines:
Section 17.40.170(D) requires that the City consider the extent to which the proposed facility
is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed new topography, vegetation, buildings,
or other structures. As proposed, the wireless facility installation consists of nine (9) Panel
Antennas, (6) Radios, (2) DC surge and (3) equipment cabinets along with additional
supporting equipment all to be placed within a new 588-square-foot screened structure
located on the roof of the existing building.
Staff reviewed the proposed wireless facility for adherence to the Guidelines in Subsection
17.40.170(D) finding the proposal meets the below guidelines:
1. The extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment
or is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration
alternate sites that are available.
The applicant proposes to screen the facility to match the existing architectural
features of the building. Thus, the proposed facility would be architecturally
integrated into a concealed structure. The proposed screening structure is further
detailed below.
2. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing
or proposed new topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures.
The proposed antennas would be screened by a non-reflective structure on the top
of the existing roof. The proposed screening enclosure would match the existing
building materials. All existing and proposed support equipment would be located
behind the existing building parapet wall and within the proposed enclosure.
3. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and
supporting structures.
The overall footprint of the antennas and associated equipment on the building
encompasses approximately 588.5 square feet on top of an 8,775-square-foot
building that is 29.5-feet-high in the Pacific Coast Highway character area. The
height of the structure would sit at the 35-foot height requirement of the SPA-7
Zone. Based on these factors, the facility is not out of scale for the surrounding
areas.
Page 34 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 13
4. The availability of suitable alternative locations for the facility.
As part of the application, the applicant submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage
Solution Report (Attachment 7), which asserts that the project site was the most
feasible location analyzed that would meet the FCC’s RF requirements, comply with
zoning, meet Verizon’s coverage goals, and has a willing property owner to permit
the facility’s deployment. Verizon’s report notes that there are no other towers or
suitable tall structures available in their targeted search area where Verizon Wireless
would like to improve network coverage. Verizon contends that their coverage goals
cannot be covered by existing or future sites located outside the City given height
and other development restrictions, and the lack of suitable sites outside the city
boundaries available to host a wireless facility.
5. Preference shall be given to facilities located on publicly owned structures, co-
location and shared sites.
The building is privately owned. The applicant is not proposing to co-locate or
share the site but has submitted a colocation letter noting they do not oppose
colocation as feasible (Attachment 8). The applicant notes that there are no other
towers or suitable tall structures available in their targeted search area where Verizon
Wireless would like to improve network coverage, which would include potential
publicly owned structures, collocation locations or existing shared sites.
6. Preference shall be given to sites which are not located along primary street
frontage, front yard areas or adjacent to residential uses.
The site is located adjacent to both arterial and residential streets; however, the
proposed facility will be completely screened from view from 5th Street behind a
screened structure on the roof which will be painted and textured to match the
existing split-face concrete block building
7. Whenever possible, wireless communication facilities should be located on
existing buildings, existing poles, or other existing support structures.
The facility would be located on an existing building, thereby avoiding the need to
install a new support structure.
Facility Height, Location and Other Issues:
Section 17.46.210(C) addresses facility height, location, and other issues. Staff reviewed
the proposed wireless facility for compliance with Subsections 17.46.210(C) finding the
proposal is generally compliant with the following, all of which have been incorporated as
conditions if the project is approved:
1. Except as herein provided, no such device shall be allowed to exceed the height
limit applicable in the zone in which the device is located. The height limit in any
particular zone shall apply whether or not the device is placed on the roof or in the
rear yard. For the purposes of this chapter, all such devices placed upon a roof
Page 35 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 13
shall be combined for measurement. The surface area of the device shall be
measured at its maximum projection above the height limit.
The top of the proposed antennas is at a height of thirty-four feet six inches with
the top of the proposed enclosure at thirty five feet. The maximum height of the
SPA-7 zone is thirty five feet, thus the proposed WTF is within the maximum
allowed height for the applicable zone it is located in.
2. Said devices shall be allowed to exceed the height limit only to the extent that the
surface area of the device on its widest side shall not exceed twelve (12) square
feet of surface area over the height limit, but in no event to exceed fifteen (15) feet
above the highest point of the building. The surface area measurement shall only
include measurement of the surface area of the device that exceeds the applicable
height limit. It shall not include the surface area of the device below the height limit.
For a device placed on the rooftop of an existing building nonconforming to the
height limit, the surface area measurement shall only include measurement of the
surface area of the device that exceeds the height of the existing roof or parapet
wall, whichever is greater.
The proposed WTF will not exceed the maximum allowable height for the
applicable zone.
3. Such devices shall be located and designed to reduce visual impact from
surrounding properties and from public streets and shall be screened in a manner
compatible with existing architecture and/or landscaping. However, no screening
shall be required which blocks the ability of any such device to receive signals.
Based on a determination by the community development director or his designee,
screening of a type and construction compatible with the architecture of the
building in question may be required.
The applicant proposes to screen the facility to match the existing architectural
features of the building. Thus, the proposed facility would be architecturally
integrated into a concealed structure. All existing and proposed support equipment
would be located behind the existing building parapet wall and within the proposed
enclosure.
4. All devices regulated under this section and the construction and installation
thereof shall conform to applicable city building code, zoning code, and electrical
code regulations and requirements.
The proposed Resolution will require that building permits be obtained, including
electrical permits which ensure conformance to regulations. This Conditional Use
Permit process conforms with the applicable zoning regulations. Although the City
is limited in regulating the placement of WTF due to RF emissions if RF emissions
have been complied with, the applicant has submitted Attachment 6, pages 4 and
5 (Figures 2.1 and Figure 3) to demonstrate the RF emissions as they impact the
adjacent residential homes.
Page 36 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 13
The RF Report (Attachment 6), Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report,
states that “Power density decreases significantly with distance from any antenna.
The antennas to be employed at this site are highly directional by design and the
orientation in azimuth and mounting elevation, as documented, serves to reduce
the potential to exceed MPE limits at any location other than directly in front of the
antennas. For accessible areas at ground level and incident at adjacent structures,
the maximum predicted RF power density level resulting from all operations is
depicted in Figure 2. The proposed operations will not expose members of the
public to hazardous levels of RF energy at ground level or in adjacent buildings”.
Staff recommends that the approval be conditioned to implement all safety
recommendations stated in Attachment 6.
5. Such devices shall meet all manufacturer’s specifications, and all antennas and
screens shall be fire-resistive and of corrosive resistant material, and shall be
erected in a secure, wind resistant manner. They shall also be maintained in good
condition.
Condition Number 10 of the proposed Resolution requires conformance with this
standard.
6. Every such device shall be adequately grounded for protection against a direct
strike of lightning.
Condition Number 11 of the proposed Resolution requires conformance with this
standard.
7. No building permit shall be issued until there is filed with the city a site plan and
building elevations showing conformance with this section. For the purposes of this
section, a building permit shall be required for all satellite dishes and for other
antennas or aerials which exceed ten (10) feet in height above the existing roof
line when measured from the base of the antenna or aerial.
Attachment 3 contains the site plan and building elevations for the project and the
proposed Resolution requires that the development and continued use of the
project shall be in conformance with the plans received and reviewed by the
Planning Commission, and that building permits be obtained. Additionally, the
proposed antennas do not exceed ten feet in height above the existing roof line.
Conditional Use Permit:
Additionally, a Conditional Use Permit may only be approved or conditionally approved
when positive findings can be made for all of the findings pursuant to HBMC Code §
17.56.050:
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with
all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the
Page 37 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 13
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
The proposed project is for the construction and operation of an unmanned
WTF building located at 725 5th Street. The project proposes to construct a
588.5-square-foot enclosed WTF on the roof of the existing commercial building
with 3 sectors with 3 panel antennas per sector, six (6) radios, two (2) raycaps,
and three (3] equipment cabinets in SPA-7. HBMC Section 17.38.300 Plan
Area No. 7 permitted uses subsection A states, “Commercial permitted uses
shall be the same as those permitted in C-3 General Commercial Zone as
contained in Section 17.26.040, and nonconforming uses shall be subject to
the provisions of Chapter 17.52.” HBMC Section 17.26.030 C-1, C-2, and C-3
land use regulations require a conditional use permit for wireless
communications facilities in the C-3 (and C-1 and C-2) zones. HBMC Section
17.40.170 contains the City’s primary regulations for the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities outside of the public right-of-way and regulates
conditions and standards that apply to the siting of a facility. The proposed use
complies with all applicable provisions of the HBMC.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies of the
General Plan:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 1. Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained.
Policies:
1.1 Infrastructure systems plan. Establish and adopt an integrated,
holistic systems approach to guide infrastructure development,
improvement, maintenance, and resilience.
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.
Goal 7. A reliable and efficient telecommunications network available to
every resident, business, and institution.
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.
Page 38 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 13
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.
7.5 Access for all. Encourage the installation and availability of facilities
that provide free telecommunication access at key activity and business
centers throughout the community.
C. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding
properties or improvements.
Local authority to approve or deny a WTF application by any state or local
government is subject to limitations established by federal law. Therefore, in
addition to the City’s local regulatory process for approval of a WTF, the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Telecom Act”) requires that any decision to
deny a request to place, construct, or modify a WTF must be supported by
substantial evidence contained in written record (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7). Also
under the Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is prohibited from considering the
environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions (including health
effects) of the proposed facility if the WTF will operate in compliance with
federal regulations. The applicant submitted a Radio Frequency Emissions
Compliance Report to demonstrate compliance with federal law. Additionally,
Condition of Approval 9 requires the applicant to modify or remove its wireless
facility or obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures on the
adjacent property if required to maintain compliance with any laws applicable
to human exposure to RF emissions. The proposed use will not be adverse to
the public health, safety, or general welfare, nor be detrimental to surrounding
properties or improvements.
D. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed
activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable
future land uses and circulation in the vicinity.
The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed WTF
is compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and
circulation in the vicinity. The 588.5 square foot WTF is located on the roof of
an existing commercial building and within an enclosure painted and textured
to match the existing building.
E. The site is physically suitable for the type of the use being proposed,
including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
The project site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed. The
project site is developed with an existing commercial building and the WTF will
be setback ten from the property line. Utilities will be supplied underground from
an adjacent power pole and from a meter on site.
Page 39 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 13
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency
with the City’s General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals
and Policies of the General Plan:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 1. Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained.
Policies:
1.1 Infrastructure systems plan. Establish and adopt an integrated, holistic
systems approach to guide infrastructure development, improvement,
maintenance, and resilience.
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.
Goal 7. A reliable and efficient telecommunications network available to every
resident, business, and institution.
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.
7.5 Access for all. Encourage the installation and availability of facilities that
provide free telecommunication access at key activity and business centers
throughout the community.
Environmental Determination:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act as defined in Section 15303, Class 3 Exemption, New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures, because the proposal pertains to an existing structure and involves only
minor alterations to the existing wireless facility. Class 3 exemptions include the
installation of small new equipment and facilities, such as the proposed wireless
antennas. While this may include a variety of potential impacts, federal regulations
preempt the City from considering impacts from radio-frequency emissions.
Public Notification:
For the March 17, 202 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 572 public hearing notices
were mailed to the applicant, and occupants and property owners of properties within a
500-foot radius on March 5, 2026. A legal ad was published on March 5, 2026, in the
Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, a notice was posted on-
Page 40 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 13
site a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC
17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 9. As of the writing
of the report, staff has received public comments in response to the notice, and which are
included as Attachment 10.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 26-XX
2. Location-Radius Map
3. Project Plans
4. Project Photo Simulations
5. Telecom Act 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) Excerpt
6. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report
7. Gap Identification and Coverage Solution Report
8. Colocation Letter
9. Public Notification Package
10. March 9-10 Emailed Public Comments
Respectfully Submitted by: DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 41 of 466
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) ON
THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET, AND
DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as
follows:
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the applicant, Verizon Wireless, filed an application for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-04) for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility (WTF) building (the “Project”) located at 725 5th Street (the “site”). The
project proposes to construct a 588.5-square-foot enclosed WTF on the roof of the existing
commercial building with 3 sectors with 3 panel antennas per sector, six (6) radios, two (2) raycaps,
and three (3] equipment cabinets; and
WHEREAS, the City has established minimum conditions and standards which apply to WTF
pursuant to Section 17.040.170 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”), in addition to any
other deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure compatibility with existing or future uses in the
vicinity, which may be required. WTF applications are subject to review by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
subject application on March 17, 2026, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral,
was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act as defined in section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Class 3 exemptions include the installation of small new equipment and facilities, such as the
proposed wireless antennas. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the
exemption and these exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that override or negate the
City’s ability to use a categorical exemption. Specifically, these exceptions to the exemptions are:
The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an
officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern;
Page 42 of 466
The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time,
is significant;
The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;
The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock
outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;
The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site;
None of the exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions apply. The project is not located in
particularly sensitive environment, nor will the location of the project impact an environmental
resource of hazardous or critical concern. The project will not result in a significant cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic
resources within a state scenic highway. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site and will
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The existing
home is not a significant landmark in the City nor is it considered a potential historic resource.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby
further makes the following findings pursuant to Section 17.40.170(B) of the HBMC substantiating
that the proposed the facility will be compatible with existing and future uses in the vicinity and not
be materially detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone:
1. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, public
safety, warning, or other required seals or required signage.
The facility would not bear signs or private advertising devices other than for public safety
purposes.
2. Any and all accessory equipment, or other equipment associated with the operation of the
facility, including but not limited to transmission cables, shall be located within a building,
enclosure, or underground vault in a manner that complies with the development standards
of the zoning district in which such equipment is located. In addition, if equipment is
located above ground, it shall be visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and
either (1) shrouded by sufficient landscaping to screen the equipment from view, or (2)
designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or reasonable
architectural theme is present, the Planning Commission may require a particular design
that is deemed by the Commission to be suitable to the subject location;
The wireless facility proposes to draw power from an existing Southern California Edison utility pole,
undergrounding the fiber conduit at the street level, then running the conduit up the building within
a rigid conduit painted to match the building and along the roof to the proposed enclosure. All
additional support equipment would be located within the proposed enclosure behind the
existing parapet wall.
Page 43 of 466
3. The facility exterior shall be comprised of non-reflective material(s) and painted or
camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors; and
The screening enclosure for the proposed wireless communication facility would be painted and
textured to match the existing building.
4. Any screening used in connection with a wall mounted and/or roof mounted facility shall
be compatible with the architecture, color, texture and materials of the building or other
structure to which it is mounted; and
The existing building is a split-face concrete block building, and the proposed enclosure is
designed to blend in with the existing building by matching the exterior building materials (texture
and paint color).
5. The facility shall be placed to the centermost location of the roof top to screen it from
view from the street and adjacent properties.
The facility would be placed to the northwest corner of the roof top for the signal to propagate and
the proposed antennas would be screened. The facility would be located close to the center of the
building at the elbow of the L-shaped building and setback ten feet from the property line. The
proposal results in a design that is architecturally compatible with the existing building. Alternative
placement of the WTF could result in less aesthetically compatible architectural blend.
6. The facility shall not be permitted on residentially zoned property.
The facility is not located on a residentially zoned property. The project is located in the Specific Plan
Area 7 Zone(SPA-7) and is within the Housing Element Overlay Zone. Although the zoning permits
residential uses, the property has a base zoning of Service Commercial (SC).
7. The facility shall not include the use or installation of a monopole.
The facility does not involve the installation of a monopole. The proposed WTF consists of a roof
mounted installation located within an enclosure.
SECTION 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission
hereby further makes the following findings pursuant to Section 17.56.050 of the HBMC:
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with all other
applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code.
The proposed project is for the construction and operation of an unmanned WTF building
located at 725 5th Street. The project proposes to construct a 588.5-square-foot enclosed WTF
on the roof of the existing commercial building with 3 sectors with 3 panel antennas per sector,
six (6) radios, two (2) raycaps, and three (3] equipment cabinets in SPA-7. HBMC Section
17.38.300 Plan Area No. 7 permitted uses subsection A states, “Commercial permitted uses
shall be the same as those permitted in C-3 General Commercial Zone as contained in
Section 17.26.040, and nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter
17.52.” HBMC Section 17.26.030 C-1, C-2, and C-3 land use regulations require a conditional
use permit for wireless communications facilities in the C-3 (and C-1 and C-2) zones. HBMC
Section 17.40.170 contains the City’s primary regulations for the siting of wireless
Page 44 of 466
telecommunications facilities outside of the public right-of-way and regulates conditions and
standards that apply to the siting of a facility. The proposed use complies with all applicable
provisions of the HBMC.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies of the General Plan:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 1. Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained.
Policies:
1.1 Infrastructure systems plan. Establish and adopt an integrated, holistic systems
approach to guide infrastructure development, improvement, maintenance, and resilience.
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.
Goal 7. A reliable and efficient telecommunications network available to every resident,
business, and institution.
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.
7.5 Access for all. Encourage the installation and availability of facilities that provide
free telecommunication access at key activity and business centers throughout the
community.
C. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.
Local authority to approve or deny a WTF application by any state or local government is
subject to limitations established by federal law. Therefore, in addition to the City’s local
regulatory process for approval of a WTF, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
(“Telecom Act”) requires that any decision to deny a request to place, construct, or modify a
WTF must be supported by substantial evidence contained in written record (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7). Also under the Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is prohibited from considering the
environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions (including health effects) of the
Page 45 of 466
proposed facility if the WTF will operate in compliance with federal regulations. The applicant
submitted a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report to demonstrate compliance with
federal law. Additionally, Condition of Approval 9 requires the applicant to modify or remove
its wireless facility or obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures on the
adjacent property if required to maintain compliance with any laws applicable to human
exposure to RF emissions. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety,
or general welfare, nor be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.
D. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation
in the vicinity.
The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed WTF is compatible
with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity.
The 588.5 square foot WTF is located on the roof of an existing commercial building and within
an enclosure painted and textured to match the existing building.
E. The site is physically suitable for the type of the use being proposed, including access,
utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
The project site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed. The project site is
developed with an existing commercial building and the WTF will be setback ten from the
property line. Utilities will be supplied underground from an adjacent power pole and from a
meter on site.
SECTION 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby
further finds, determines, and declares the following factual findings:
1. The applicant proposes to install three (3) sectors with three (3) panel antennas per sector, six
(6) radios, two (2) raycaps, and three (3) equipment cabinets and related equipment concealed
in a screened structure located in a 588.5 square foot lease area on the roof of the existing
building.
2. The facility is located on the north side of 5th Street, one block from Pacific Coast Highway on
an existing multi-tenant commercial building at 725 5th Street. The closest residential uses are
located immediately to the south and west of the multi-tenant commercial building. General
commercial uses are located to the north and east of the subject site.
3. The applicant has furnished required materials per Section 17.40.170(A), explained site
selection, service area, nature of proposed facilities, provided letter for willingness to allow for
future co-location, and Radio Frequency Radiation evaluation report dated February 20, 2026
demonstrating the facility meets FCC regulations and standards for construction.
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject
Conditional Use Permit (CUP25-02) for the project located at 725 5th Street as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolution 26-XX, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
Page 46 of 466
1. The details of the project application and supplemental materials, including all safety measures
as contained in the Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report for Wireless by Waterford
dated 02/20/26 are incorporated as Conditions of Approval unless modified herein. Any
changes to, or relocation of, antennas or other equipment associated with the wireless
telecommunications facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Antenna upgrade, repair and replacement with devices of equivalent or lesser number,
dimensions, height in the same locations, may be considered to be routine maintenance or minor,
provided visual impacts are not increased, and may be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director.
2. The 588.5 square foot roof top screening structure contains three (3) sectors with three (3) panel antennas per sector, six (6) radios, two (2) raycaps and three (3) equipment cabinets shall be fully concealed within the screened structure located on the roof of the existing building. The exterior of all screening walls shall be comprised of non-reflective material(s) and painted and textured to match the existing building. 3. All conduits and cables shall be screened from view or painted and textured to match the existing building. 4. This approval applies to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility only. Any other wireless telecommunications facility companies or affiliates must obtain separate Conditional Use Permit approval for co-location of additional wireless telecommunications facilities. 5. A Radio Frequency (RF) Environmental Evaluation Report shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director substantiating that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility meets FCC regulations and standards for construction, maintenance and operations within ten (10) days after installation of the facility and before the Building permit is finaled. 6. No exterior lighting, signs, logos or other commercially identifying graphics shall be installed on the wireless communication facility (excluding those required by law) in connection with the equipment enclosure use.
7. The installation and operation of the facility shall comply with all applicable requirements of
the Building and Fire Department requirements, and applicable building, zoning, and electrical
code regulations and requirements of the Municipal Code, and all State and Federal
requirements. To the extent applicable, every such device shall be adequately grounded for
protection against a direct strike of lightning.
8. Future removal of the wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following:
a. The applicant shall provide notification to the Community Development Director upon
cessation of operations on the site. The applicant shall remove all obsolete or unused
facilities from the site within six (6) months of termination of its lease, cessation of
operations, or expiration of its permit, subject to the determination of the director of
community development. Should the owner fail to effect such removal, the property
owner shall be responsible for the removal of the equipment.
Page 47 of 466
b. A new permit shall be required if the site is to be used again for the same purpose as
permitted under the original permit, if a consecutive period of six (6) months has lapsed
since cessation of operations.
c. Any FCC licensed wireless communications carrier that is buying, leasing, or considering a
transfer of ownership of an already approved facility shall submit a letter of notification of
intent to the community development director.
9. Compliance with Applicable Laws/RF Emissions Exposure Limits. The permittee shall maintain
compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other
rules that carry the force of law (“Laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the
wireless facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this permit,
including any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. This permit is not granting
the permittee any rights to make any portion of the adjacent properties inaccessible to the
general public or to hinder future lawful development of adjacent properties as a mitigation
measure to ensure the wireless facility will comply with Laws applicable to human exposure to
RF emissions, absent agreement from the adjacent land owner. The permittee understands
that if site conditions change in the future due to lawful development on adjacent property,
the permittee may need to modify or remove its wireless facility or obtain adjacent property
owner consent to mitigation measures on the adjacent property if required to maintain
compliance with any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. If the Community
Development Director finds good cause to believe that the wireless facility is not in compliance
with any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions, the Director may require the
permittee to submit a written report, signed by an RF engineer under penalty of perjury, that:
(1) the installation is operated in compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 324 (use of minimum power);
and (2) the installation complies with all applicable FCC rules and regulations for human
exposure to RF emissions and will not cause members of the general public to be exposed to
RF levels that exceed the maximum permission exposure levels deemed safe by the FCC. The
applicant shall submit the requested written RF report within sixty calendar days of notification
in writing by the Director. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this
obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in
these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s
obligations to maintain compliance with all Laws.
10. If a review of this Conditional Use Permit occurs, the Planning Commission may amend the
above conditions and/or impose any new conditions deemed necessary to mitigate
detrimental impacts on the environment or neighborhood arising from use of the premise. 11. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided.
General Conditions
Page 48 of 466
1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted
plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 17, 2026, in
accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve
minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC or requirements of this
approval.
2. The project shall fully comply with all requirements of the Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) Zone as
applicable of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to:
a. Height, including all required roof-mounted equipment, shall fully comply with the
35-foot height limit. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time
of the building plan review, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
b. Architectural treatments and accessory facilities shall be as shown on building
elevations, site, and floor plans.
3. The project shall comply with all requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach Building Division,
Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the HBMC.
4. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee, Verizon Wireless, and
the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department signed affidavits stating that they are aware of, and
agree to accept, all the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded,
and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject
conditions or impose any new conditions deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on
the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the
conditions of this permit and any law, statute, ordinance, or other regulation applicable to any
development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any
development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.
7. To the extent permitted by law, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City
of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified
parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by any party against the
indemnified parties to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project
authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s
fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend
any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any
court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim
or action brought
Page 49 of 466
against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in
an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of
the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this
condition.
8. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval
is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and
enforceable.
Planning
9. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for plan review to
the Community Development Department. These conditions shall be indexed on the cover
sheet and referenced on the site plan.
10. All devices associated with the project shall meet all manufacturer’s specifications, and all
antennas and screens shall be fire-resistive and of corrosive resistant material, and shall be
erected in a secure, wind resistant manner. They shall also be maintained in good condition.
11. Every such device shall be adequately grounded for protection against a direct strike of
lightning.
12. Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable
standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following
provisions of District Rule 403:
· All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during
excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust
emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much
as 50 percent.
· The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by
grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.
· All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods
of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
· All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate
Page 50 of 466
means to prevent spillage and dust.
· All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as
required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust.
· General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize
exhaust emissions.
· Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off.
13. 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.
14. The project shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, limiting
the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.
15. Construction projects within the city shall install odor-reducing equipment in accordance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138.
16. 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.
17. 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.
Page 51 of 466
18. Pedestrian and adjacent property protection plans will be required for review and approval.
Public Works
The following conditions of approval shall be satisfied, subject to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director or designee.
19. No new walls or foundation footings will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public
right-of-way.
20. A Residential Encroachment Permit is required for non-conforming structures located over or
within the public right-of-way.
21. If public improvements are required, the following items (Items 3-8) must be completed. Prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit, an approved set of civil engineering plans, prepared by
a licensed civil engineer and approved by Public Works, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department. These plans must address grading, undergrounding of all utilities,
pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet
flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other necessary improvements to comply
with the Municipal Code and Public Works specifications.
22. Civil engineering plans must include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm
drain main lines on the street.
23. Project construction must protect both private and public property in compliance with
Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work within the public right-of-way shall commence
unless all necessary permits are obtained from the Public Works Department, including, if
applicable, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit.
24. Sewer manhole rim/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check.
25. A sewer lateral video must be submitted with the plan check submittal if the developer plans
to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required following the review of
the sewer lateral video.
26. The project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations
(HBMC Ch. 8.44). Required Low Impact Development (LID) Standards must be implemented,
and necessary calculations and documentation (e.g., Appendix D and E of the Storm Water
LID Guidelines) must be submitted at the time of grading and plan check, along with an
erosion control plan.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to
the decision of the Planning Commission, after exhaustion of any available administrative remedies,
must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. The Hermosa Beach City
Council may on its own initiative review all actions of the Planning Commission. If the City Council
does not initiate review of this decision as set forth in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section
2.52.040, this decision will become final.
Page 52 of 466
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on the 17t h day of March, 2026.
Page 53 of 466
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution PC 26-XX is a true and complete record of the action taken
by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of
March 17, 2026.
Stephen Izant, Chair Alison Becker, Secretary
Date
Page 54 of 466
4th St Ar
dmor
eAve7th St
6th St
2nd St
5th StPacif
ic
Coast HwyCypress AveOcean View Ave
1 0 t h S t
Grav
ley Ct
Alley
Cochi
seAveSunset DrCochiseAve8 t h S t Ocean Dr4th St
9th St
Culpe
r Ct
7th St
Loma DrBayview
D
r ArdmoreAve4th StBard St7th St
3rd St
4th St Pine St
6th St
8th Pl
Monterey Blvd
2nd St
3rd St
4th StValleyDrZoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2026
725 5th St
APN: 4188-030-001
Zone: SPA-7-HE Specific Plan Area 7
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-04)
Description
Legend
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
R-P Residential-Professional
RPD Residential Planned Development
R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Downtown Commercial
C-3 General Commercial
M-1 Light Manufacturing
OS Open Space
OS-1 Restricted Open Space
OS-2 Restricted Open Space
OS-O Open Space Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park
SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential)
SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial)
-HE Housing Element Overlay
500' Notification Radius
Page 55 of 466
700
814 824832840906916612
600 905917923926934831839918850817620903531544
541902
549
535822
837833500
526
560
835845417
439
826
440
430
428
422
834
400
442
829344818821819836300246
210
204820
150
142701651633621609720710704654640622610653647635713605617616626642648611601
619
725723721709707602631643628192 155712708555507505405
425
501491571567563543539528534516546553554504
506
508
510
509
511
513
231537305559557551527325326
525523550530 243
233
229
217
211
2016566466306
1
8 624
65571762760
8
228 666727750746
333
303736726718672662
322
623 629645657737307
68234
2 6367116
0
3540632 650658683677665641625649514747
702676670660644638615639659669436
421706
403
637705673429
729652604 6346th St
8th St
6th St
Ar
dmor
eAv
e5th StValleyDr
Pacific Coast
Hwy
2nd St Gravley
C
t
Alley
Cochi
seAveCochise Ave2nd St
3rd St
4th St
4th St
7th St
3rd St Ocean V
iew Ave
7th St
4th St
715
500' RADIUS MAP r725 5th St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Page 56 of 466
NORTHNOT TOSCALET-1TITLE SHEETISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA&E VENDOR:A&E COORDINATOR:VERIZON WIRELESS SIGNATURE BLOCKDISCIPLINE:SIGNATURE:DATE:RE:RE VENDOR:UTILITY VENDOR:RF:EE:CE:CODE COMPLIANCEDRIVING DIRECTIONSPROPERTY INFORMATION:SITE NAME:SITE ADDRESS:JURISDICTION:VICINITY MAPSHEETDESCRIPTIONREVGENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTESZONING DRAWINGSDO NOT SCALE DRAWINGSCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ONTHE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESAME.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERCURRENT ZONING:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:AREA OF CONSTRUCTION:V-B26'-8" X 26'-9" (714.5 SQ FT)APN:4188-030-001SPA- 7CONSTRUCTION INFORMATIONOCCUPANCY TYPE:S-1APPLICANT/LESSEEPROPERTY OWNER:PROJECT SUMMARY·2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE·2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODEADA COMPLIANCE:FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMANHABITATION. MACHINERY SPACES ARE EXEMPTFROM ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PER THE CBCSECTION 11B-203.5.TRANSPORT:THIS PROJECT IS A VERIZON WIRELESS UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION WIRELESSFACILITY. IT WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:·INSTALLATION OF A ~588.5 SQ. FT. VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITYWITH NEW ZERO FOOTPRINT EQUIPMENT·INSTALLATION OF (9) VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS (6) AT A 32'-6" AND (3) AT A33'-4" CENTERLINES MOUNTED ON A NEW FRP SCREENING·INSTALLATION OF (1) 4' VERIZON WIRELESS PARABOLIC ANTENNA·INSTALLATION OF (6) VERIZON WIRELESS REMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)·INSTALLATION OF (2) VERIZON WIRELESS TOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXES·INSTALLATION OF (6) VERIZON WIRELESS POWER 6308 UNITS ((2) PER SECTOR)·INSTALLATION OF (12) VERIZON WIRELESS BATTERY 6313 UNITS ((4) PER SECTOR)·INSTALLATION OF (1) VERIZON WIRELESS GPS ANTENNA·HYBRIFLEX CABLE RUNS FROM RADIOS TO ANTENNAS·NEW FIBER CONDUIT RUN TO CABINETS·NEW 200A DEDICATED ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO METER·INSTALLATION OF (1) NEW GEN PLUG·INSTALLATION OF A VERIZON WIRELESS INTEGRATED LOAD CENTER·INSTALLATION OF A VERIZON WIRELESS FIBER CABINET·INSTALLATION OF A VERIZON WIRELESS FIRE EXTINGUISHER·INSTALLATION OF (1) VERIZON WIRELESS WORKLIGHT ON A TIMERHAVEMEYER725 5TH STREETHERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254CITY OF HERMOSAVERIZON WIRELESS15505 SAND CANYON AVENUEIRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618OFFICE: (949) 286-70005555A-1T-1SITE PLAN TITLE SHEETA-2A-4PROPOSED AND EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONS PROPOSED AND EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONS 5A-3SITE DETAIL, ANTENNA & CABLE SCHEDULE AND ANTENNA LAYOUTOVERALL HEIGHT 35'-0"Callbefore you dig.below.Know what'sHAVEMEYERPROJECT TEAMSURVEYOR:ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:DGS CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES LLC9811 W. CHARLESTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 2539LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89117CONTACT: DEREK G. STEFUREACPHONE: (702) 885-1552OWNER: ADDRESS:CONTACT:TELEPHONE:FISHER ANDREW W & ELIZABETH FISHERPO BOX 268REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277ANDY FISHER(310) 927-1862CELLSITE CONCEPTS16885 VIA DEL CAMPO CT., SUITE318, SAN DIEGO, CA 92127CONTACT: SEV FRANCISCOOFFICE PHONES: 858.432-4112 /858.432-4257 EX. 103TO:SITE ADDRESSFROM: VERIZON OFFICEFROM 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618: HEAD NORTHEASTTOWARD VALLEY OAK DR 135 FT; TURN LEFT TOWARD VALLEY OAK DR 256 FT; TURN LEFTAT THE 1ST CROSS STREET ONTO VALLEY OAK DR 0.3 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO BARRANCAPKWY 0.8 MI; USE THE LEFT 2 LANES TO TURN LEFT AT THE 2ND CROSS STREET ONTOJEFFREY RD 0.8 MI; TURN RIGHT TO MERGE ONTO I-405 N 0.3 MI; MERGE ONTO I-405 N 6.3MI; KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK 4.4 MI; MERGE ONTO I-405 3.2 MI; SLIGHT LEFT TOLL ROAD 5.0MI; KEEP RIGHT TOLL ROAD 0.6 MI; MERGE ONTO I-405 N 9.1 MI; CONTINUE ONTO I-405 N 7.7MI; TAKE EXIT 40 FOR ARTESIA BLVD TOWARD CA-91 0.2 MI; USE ANY LANE TO TURN RIGHTONTO CA-91 W/ARTESIA BLVD, CONTINUE TO FOLLOW ARTESIA BLVD PASS BY WELLSFARGO BANK (ON THE LEFT IN 0.6 MI) 0.9 MI; USE THE 2ND FROM THE LEFT LANE TO TURNLEFT ONTO KINGSDALE AVE 0.1 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO GRANT AVE 1.5 MI; TURN LEFT ONTOAVIATION BLVD 0.8 MI; TURN LEFT ONTO CA-1 S 0.3 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO 5TH ST,DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLS-15CIVIL ENGINEER:SITE ACQUISITION /PLANNING:NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE, STE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005CONTACT: BEN FOUSTPHONE: (702) 367-7705FAX: (702) 367-8733NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE, STE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005CONTACT: GARRETT HAWTHORNEPHONE: (702) 367-7705FAX: (702) 367-87335A-6PROPOSED AND EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONS PROPOSED AND EXISTING EAST ELEVATIONS A-55Page 57 of 466
VICINITY MAPSI5&APNSITE ADDRESSTITLE REPORTFLOODZONEBASIS OF BEARINGBENCHMARKNEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge09/11/25MONUMENTLEGENDSCOORDINATESLEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE B (EXCEPTIONS)5 FEET WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE WALK PATH CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION:12 FEET WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ROUTE CENTERLINEDESCRIPTION:ARDMORE AVENUEPACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY5TH STREET6TH STREETAPN4188-030-001APN4188-030-046APN4188-030-046APN4188-030-012LS-1Page 58 of 466
EEFFE E E FFFFFFFFFEEEEEFFFFFFEEEEEFFFFFFFFEEEFFEE5TH ST1A2EXISTINGBUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS12' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVEVEHICULAR PATH OF ACCESSPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOINT OF ACCESSPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSNON-EXCLUSIVE PARKING SPACEEXISTING
LOWERROOFTOPEXISTING UPPERROOFTOPEXISTING BLOCK WALL WITHWROUGHT IRON FENCEEXISTINGPARKING AREAEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTING CURBAND GUTTERAPN: 4188-030-001ZONED: SPA- 7APN: 4188-030-046ZONED: SPA- 7APN: 4188-030-012ZONED: SPA- 7APN: 4188-030-011ZONED: SPA- 7EXISTINGPARKING AREAPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT ALONGUPPER ROOFTOP (~80')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER CONDUIT ALONG UPPERROOFTOP (~110')SITE PLANISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25NORTH
1SITE PLANLEASE AREALEGENDEASEMENTOHPXXXXXXXXXXPROPOSED CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING 5' CONTOUREXISTING 1' CONTOURCENTERLINEPROPERTY LINESECTION LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCEOVERHEAD POWERRIGHT-OF-WAYO.R.EXISTING BLOCK WALLFIRE HYDRANTOFFICIAL RECORDPOWER POLEPARKING LOT AREA LIGHTPROPOSED BLOCK WALLPROPOSED WROUGHT IRON FENCE24" X 36" SCALE1" = 15'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 30'( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0151530607.5A-1PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSUNDERGROUND FIBER ROUTE (~70')EXISTING UTILITY POLE #782131EAND PROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS FIBER SOURCE(TOTAL FIBER ROUTE ~155')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS5' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE WALKPATH OF ACCESS TO THE DOORPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT ALONGUPPER ROOFTOP (~80')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER CONDUIT ALONG UPPERROOFTOP (~110')EXISTING WROUGHTIRON GATEEXISTING CURBAND GUTTEREXISTING BLOCKWALL WITH WROUGHTIRON FENCEPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWALL MOUNTED 200A METERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSGEN PLUG 3' ABOVE GRADEPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER RISER CONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT TO PENETRATEEXISTING PARAPETEXISTING PARAPETEXISTING UTILITYPULBOXEXISTING UTILITY WALLMOUNTED CONDUITPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS WALL MOUNTEDPOWER CONDUIT ABOVEEXISTING CONDUIT (~3')EXISTING METER BANK ANDPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS POWER SOURCE(TOTAL POWER ROUTE ~110')ENLARGED VIEW11" X 17" SCALE: 1" = 10'24" X 36" SCALE: 1" = 5'-A3-A4-A5-A6PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS22'-0" X 26'-9" LEASE AREA(~588.5 SQ. FT.)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSHANDHOLE IN ROWPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER RISER CONDUIT ON WALLEXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETEXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETPage 59 of 466
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEANTENNA LAYOUTANTENNA AND CABLE SCHEDULE3NONESCALE:2SITE DETAIL1LEASE AREALEGENDEASEMENTOHPXXXXXXXXXXPROPOSED CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING 5' CONTOUREXISTING 1' CONTOURCENTERLINEPROPERTY LINESECTION LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCEOVERHEAD POWERRIGHT-OF-WAYO.R.EXISTING BLOCK WALLFIRE HYDRANTOFFICIAL RECORDPOWER POLEPARKING LOT AREA LIGHTPROPOSED BLOCK WALLPROPOSED WROUGHT IRON FENCE24" X 36" SCALE1" = 2'-6"11" X 17" SCALE1" = 5'SITE DETAIL, ANTENNA &CABLE SCHEDULE ANDANTENNA LAYOUTISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25A-224" X 36" SCALE1" = 2'-6"11" X 17" SCALE1" = 5'240° AZ.SECTOR BSECTOR A130° AZ.SECTOR C0° AZ.T.B.D. AZ.PARABOLICANTENNANORTH( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE02.52.55101.25PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS4' PARABOLIC ANTENNA(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSREMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)MOUNTED STACKED BEHINDANTENNAS ((2) PER SECTOR)(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSTOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXESMOUNTED ON NEW PIPE MOUNTEXISTING PARAPET20'-8"4'-7"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING UPPERROOFTOPPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS22'-0" X 26'-9" LEASE AREA(~588.5 SQ. FT.)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT ALONGUPPER ROOFTOP (~80')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSACCESS LADDER WITH SHEETMETAL LOCKABLE COVERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRPSCREENING ENCLOSURE PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER CONDUIT ALONG UPPERROOFTOP (~110')(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPANEL ANTENNAS AT A 32'-6"CENTERLINE ON NEW PIPE MOUNTS((2) PER SECTOR)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSACCESS HATCHEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPET26'-9"10'-11"4'-0"22'-0"EXISTING SKYLIGHT(3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPANEL ANTENNAS AT A 33'-4"CENTERLINE ON NEW PIPE MOUNTS((1) PER SECTOR)(9) PROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS WALK PADS4'-9"PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSCMC-14 UNIT WITH ROUTERUNITS INSIDE STRUT MOUNTEDTO EXISTING PENTHOUSE WALL(1) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER 6308 UNIT STRUTMOUNTED TO EXISTINGPENTHOUSE WALL(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSBATTERY 6313 UNITS STRUT MOUNTEDTO EXISTING PENTHOUSE WALL(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSRP6339 UNITS STRUT MOUNTEDTO EXISTING PENTHOUSE WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSCIENA AND 30" X 30" X 12" TELCOBOX BELOW STRUT MOUNTED TOEXISTING PENTHOUSE WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS200A ELECTRICAL PANEL STRUTMOUNTED TO EXISTINGPENTHOUSE WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWORKLIGHT WITH A TIMERSTRUT MOUNTED TO EXISTINGPENTHOUSE WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIRE EXTINGUISHERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSGPS ANTENNA STRUT MOUNTEDTO EXISTING PENTHOUSE WALLANTENNASECTORAZIMUTH# OFANTENNAS# OFRRUSCENTERLINECABLELENGTHCABLE TYPECABLE SIZECOLOR CODEHYBRIDJUMPERJUMPERCOMMENTSSECTOR A130°32(2) AT 32'-6"(1) AT 33'-4"~30'(3) 1-5/8"HYBRIFLEXFED FROMRRUsRED/GREENRED/RED5'15'SECTOR B240°32(2) AT 32'-6"(1) AT 33'-4"~40'FED FROMRRUsBLUE/GREENBLUE/RED5'15'SECTOR C0°32(2) AT 32'-6"(1) AT 33'-4"~10'FED FROMRRUsYELLOW/GREENYELLOW/RED5'15'MICROWAVET.B.D.1.T.B.D.T.B.D.COAX.-..GPSN/A5...COAX1/2"GRAY..NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY CABLE LENGTHS PRIOR TO ORDERING, FABRICATION, OR INSTALLATION OF CABLES.7'-3"6"(TYP.)6"(TYP.)6"(TYP.)6"(TYP.)EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETPage 60 of 466
EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 15'-6"
EXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"
TOP OF PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRP ENCLOSURE AT 35'-0"EXISTING PARAPET5'-6"2'-6"
TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS AT 34'-6"
(3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 33'-4" CENTERLINE
PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSACCESS LADDER WITH FRONTAND SIDE PANEL SECURITYGAUGE SHEET METALLOCKABLE COVERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWALL MOUNTED 200A METER(BEYOND)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSGEN PLUG 3' ABOVE GRADEPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS POWER RISERCONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT TO PENETRATEEXISTING PARAPETEXISTING METER BANK ANDPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS POWER SOURCE(TOTAL POWER ROUTE ~110')NOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITY21PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'PROPOSED AND EXISTINGSOUTH ELEVATIONSISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25A-3EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS4' PARABOLIC ANTENNA(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSTOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXESMOUNTED ON NEW PIPE MOUNTPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSSTRUT MOUNTED 200AINTEGRATED LOADCENTER,GPS ANTENNA,WORKLIGHT WITH A TIMER,3A:40B:C FIRE EXTINGUISHERAND FIBER CABINETPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRPSCREENING ENCLOSURE PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR B(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSREMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)MOUNTED STACKED BEHINDANTENNAS ((2) PER SECTOR)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWEATHER HEADPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR AEXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 15'-6"
EXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"EXISTING PARAPETEXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETNOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"PROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS FIBER RISERCONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSHANDHOLE IN ROW(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 32'-6" CENTERLINEEXISTING METER BANK2'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPET2'-6"Page 61 of 466
21PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'PROPOSED AND EXISTINGNORTH ELEVATIONSISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25A-4EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 15'-6"EXISTING PARAPET5'-6"2'-6"PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSACCESS LADDER WITH FRONTAND SIDE PANEL SECURITYGAUGE SHEET METALLOCKABLE COVERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWALL MOUNTED 200A METERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSGEN PLUG 3' ABOVE GRADEPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS POWER RISERCONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER CONDUIT TO PENETRATEEXISTING PARAPETEXISTING METER BANK ANDPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER SOURCE (BEYOND)(TOTAL POWER ROUTE ~110')NOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSREMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)MOUNTED STACKED BEHINDANTENNAS ((2) PER SECTOR)PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR CPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS4' PARABOLIC ANTENNA(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSTOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXESMOUNTED ON NEW PIPE MOUNTPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSSTRUT MOUNTED 200AINTEGRATED LOAD CENTER, GPSANTENNA, WORKLIGHT WITH ATIMER, 3A:40B:C FIREEXTINGUISHER AND FIBER CABINETPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRPSCREENING ENCLOSURE PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR BEXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)EXISTINGLOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 15'-6"EXISTING PARAPETNOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTINGLOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"EXISTING METERBANKEXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"
TOP OF PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRP ENCLOSURE AT 35'-0"
TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS AT 34'-6"
(3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 33'-4" CENTERLINE
(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 32'-6" CENTERLINE 2'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPET2'-6"Page 62 of 466
FFFFFFFFFFFPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER RISER CONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSPOWER AND FIBER CONDUIT TOPENETRATE EXISTING PARAPET21PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'PROPOSED AND EXISTINGWEST ELEVATIONSISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90 ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100 ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25A-5NOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTING SIGN5'-6"PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSWALL MOUNTED 200A METERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSGEN PLUG 3' ABOVE GRADEEXISTING UTILITY PULBOXEXISTING UTILITY WALLMOUNTED CONDUITPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS WALL MOUNTEDPOWER CONDUIT ABOVEEXISTING CONDUIT (~3')EXISTING METER BANK ANDPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS POWER SOURCE(TOTAL POWER ROUTE ~110')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSSTRUT MOUNTED 200AINTEGRATED LOAD CENTER, GPSANTENNA, WORKLIGHT WITH ATIMER, 3A:40B:C FIREEXTINGUISHER AND FIBER CABINETPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS4' PARABOLIC ANTENNA(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSREMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)MOUNTED STACKED BEHINDANTENNAS ((2) PER SECTOR)(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSTOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXESMOUNTED ON NEW PIPE MOUNTPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRPSCREENING ENCLOSURE PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR CPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR BEXISTING WEST ELEVATIONNOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTING UTILITY PULBOXEXISTING UTILITY WALLMOUNTED CONDUITEXISTING UTILITYPOLE #782131EPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSHANDHOLE IN ROWPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER RISER CONDUIT ON WALLPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSUNDERGROUND FIBER ROUTE (~70')EXISTING UTILITY POLE #782131EAND PROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS FIBER SOURCE(TOTAL FIBER ROUTE ~155')EXISTING METER BANKEXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"TOP OF PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRP ENCLOSURE AT 35'-0"TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS AT 34'-6"(3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 33'-4" CENTERLINE EXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPET(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 32'-6" CENTERLINE EXISTING 1'-9" PARAPET2'-6"2'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETPage 63 of 466
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF21EXISTING EAST ELEVATION24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'24" X 36" SCALE1" = 5'11" X 17" SCALE1" = 10'PROPOSED AND EXISTINGEAST ELEVATIONSISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OFDRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS. ANY USE OR DISCLOSUREOTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO VERIZON WIRELESSIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.DATEBYREV.DESCRIPTION5REVISION:0R.S.90% ZONING11/05/24SHEET TITLE:HAVEMEYER
PROJECT ID: 17122232 1D.C.100% ZONING11/25/24NEXTEDGE NETWORKS1355 WINDWARD CONCOURSE SUITE 410ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 30005NextEdge2J.D.ZERO FOOTPRINT DESIGN07/22/253J.D.PER DRM COMMENTS09/05/254R.C.PER DRM COMMENTS10/10/255R.S.UPDATED PER LATEST RFDS11/06/25A-6EXISTING SIGNNOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYEXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"
TOP OF EXISTING
PARAPET AT 14'-0"
EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING SIGNNOTE:EXISTING WROUGHT IRONGATE AND FENCE NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITY5'-6"2'-6"
EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-7"
TOP OF EXISTING
PARAPET AT 14'-0"
EXISTING
LOWER ROOF TOP AT 13'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 15'-6"PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSACCESS LADDER WITH SHEETMETAL LOCKABLE COVERPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS4' PARABOLIC ANTENNA(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSREMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)MOUNTED STACKED BEHINDANTENNAS ((2) PER SECTOR)(2) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSTOWER MOUNTED JUNCTION BOXESMOUNTED ON NEW PIPE MOUNTPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRPSCREENING ENCLOSURE PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR APROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA SECTOR BPROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS ACCESS HATCHPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS STRUTMOUNTED 200A INTEGRATED LOADCENTER, GPS ANTENNA, WORKLIGHTWITH A TIMER, 3A:40B:C FIREEXTINGUISHER AND FIBER CABINETEXISTING UTILITYPOLE #782131EPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER CONDUIT TO PENETRATEEXISTING PARAPETPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSFIBER RISER CONDUIT ON WALLEXISTING UTILITY POLE #782131EAND PROPOSED VERIZONWIRELESS FIBER SOURCE(TOTAL FIBER ROUTE ~155')PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSHANDHOLE IN ROWPROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSUNDERGROUND FIBER ROUTE (~70')EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPETEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETEXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"EXISTING 2'-6" PARAPET2'-6"EXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETEXISTING UPPER ROOF TOP AT 27'-0"
TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET AT 29'-6"
TOP OF PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FRP ENCLOSURE AT 35'-0"
TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS AT 34'-6"
(3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 33'-4" CENTERLINE
(6) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS AT A 32'-6" CENTERLINE
2'-6"EXISTING 1'-9" PARAPETEXISTING 1'-9" PARAPET1'-9"1'-9"Page 64 of 466
Redlines Done By: Restie 11/26/24
Page 65 of 466
Page 66 of 466
Page 67 of 466
Attachment 3
Excerpt Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Telecom Act”)
47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY
(A)General authority
Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of
a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B)Limitations
(i)The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—
(I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
(II)
shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii)
A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization
to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of
time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account
the nature and scope of such request.
(iii)
Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported
by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv)
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
(v)
Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may,
within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.
Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any
instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for
relief.
(C)Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed
wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii)
Page 68 of 466
the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal
wireless services; and
(iii)
the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications services using
duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the
provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v) of this title).
Page 69 of 466
Page 1
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Compliance Statement
Based on information provided by Verizon and predictive modeling, the HAVEMEYER installation proposed
by Verizon will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits of 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b)(3) and
1.1310. RF alerting signage and restricting access to the antenna to authorized personnel that have completed
RF safety training is required for Occupational environment compliance. The proposed operation will not
expose members of the General Public to hazardous levels of RF energy at ground level or in adjacent
buildings.
Certification
I, Tim Alexander, am the reviewer and approver of this
report and am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules
and Regulations of both the Federal Communications
Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation, specifically in
accordance with FCC’s OET Bulletin 65. I have
reviewed this Radio Frequency Exposure Assessment
report and believe it to be both true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge.
General Summary
The compliance framework is derived from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and
Regulations for preventing human exposure in excess of the applicable Maximum Permissible Exposure
(“MPE”) limits. At any location at this site, the power density resulting from each transmitter may be expressed
as a percentage of the frequency-specific limits and added to determine if 100% of the exposure limit has been
exceeded. The FCC Rules define two tiers of permissible exposure differentiated by the situation in which the
exposure takes place and/or the status of the individuals who are subject to exposure. General Population /
Uncontrolled exposure limits apply to those situations in which persons may not be aware of the presence of
electromagnetic energy, where exposure is not employment-related, or where persons cannot exercise control
over their exposure. Occupational / Controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed
as a consequence of their employment, have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure, and can
exercise control over their exposure. Based on the criteria for these classifications, the FCC General
Population limit is considered to be a level that is safe for continuous exposure time. The FCC General
Population limit is 5 times more restrictive than the Occupational limits.
Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report for Verizon Wireless
Site Name: HAVEMEYER Site Structure Type: Rooftop
Address: 725 5th St Latitude: 33.858814
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Longitude: -118.392383
Report Date: 02/20/2026 Project: NSB
5(*,67(5('35 2 )(66,21$/(1*,1((5(/(&75,&$/1R(67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
Exp, 31 MAR 2028
SIGNED, 25 FEB 2026
Page 70 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025
Page 2
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Table 1: FCC Limits
Frequency
(MHz)
Limits for General Population/ Uncontrolled Exposure Limits for Occupational/ Controlled Exposure
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
(minutes)
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
(minutes)
30-300 0.2 30 1 6
300-1500 f/1500 30 f/300 6
1500-100,000 1.0 30 5.0 6
f=Frequency (MHz)
In situations where the predicted MPE exceeds the General Population threshold in an accessible area as a
result of emissions from multiple transmitters, FCC licensees that contribute greater than 5% of the aggregate
MPE share responsibility for mitigation.
Based on the computational guidelines set forth in FCC OET Bulletin 65, Waterford Consultants, LLC has
developed software to predict the overall Maximum Permissible Exposure possible at any location given the
spatial orientation and operating parameters of multiple RF sources. The power density in the Far Field of an
RF source is specified by OET-65 Equation 5 as follows:
ܵ = ாூோ
ସ⋅గ⋅ோమ (mW/cmଶ)
Where EIRP is the Effective Radiated Power relative to an isotropic antenna and R is the distance between
the antenna and point of study. Additionally, consideration is given to the manufacturers’ horizontal and
vertical antenna patterns as well as radiation reflection. At any location, the predicted power density in the
Far Field is the spatial average of points within a 0 to 6-foot vertical profile that a person would occupy. Near
field power density is based on OET-65 Equation 20 stated as
ܵ =൬180
ߠௐ
൰⋅100 ⋅ܲ
ߨ⋅ܴ⋅ℎ (mW/cmଶ)
Where Pin is the power input to the antenna, TBW is the horizontal pattern beamwidth and h is the aperture
length.
Some antennas employ beamforming technology where RF energy allocated to each customer device is
dynamically directed toward their location. In the analysis presented herein, predicted exposure levels are
based on all beams at full utilization (i.e. full power) simultaneously focused in any direction. As this condition
is unlikely to occur, the actual power density levels at ground and at adjacent structures are expected to be
less that the levels reported below. These theoretical results represent maximum-case predictions as all RF
emitters are assumed to be operating at maximum duty cycle.
For any area in excess of 100% General Population MPE, access controls with appropriate RF alerting signage
must be put in place and maintained to restrict access to authorized personnel. Signage must be posted to be
visible upon approach from any direction to provide notification of potential conditions within these areas.
Subject to other site security requirements, occupational personnel should be trained in RF safety and
equipped with personal protective equipment (e.g. RF personal monitor) designed for safe work in the vicinity
of RF emitters. Controls such as physical barriers to entry imposed by locked doors, hatches and ladders or
other access control mechanisms may be supplemented by alarms that alert the individual and notify site
management of a breach in access control. Waterford Consultants, LLC recommends that any work activity
in these designated areas or in front of any transmitting antennas be coordinated with all wireless tenants.
Page 71 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025
Page 3
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Analysis
Scope:
x NSTALLATION OF A ~588.5 SQ. FT. VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
x INSTALLATION OF (12) VERIZON WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS (6) AT A 31'-6", (3) AT A 33'
AND (3) 34'-2" CENTERLINES MOUNTED ON A NEW FRP SCREENING
x INSTALLATION OF (1) 4' VERIZON WIRELESS PARABOLIC ANTENNA
x INSTALLATION OF (12) VERIZON WIRELESS REMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRUs)
The antennas will be mounted inside a Rooftop with centerlines at (31.5’, 34.2’ and 33.3’) above ground level.
Proposed antenna operating parameters are listed in Appendix A. Other appurtenances such as GPS
antennas, RRUs and hybrid cable below the antennas are not sources of RF emissions. No other antennas
are known to be operating in the vicinity of this site.
Figure 1: Antenna Locations
Power density decreases significantly with distance from any antenna. The antennas to be employed at this
site are highly directional by design and the orientation in azimuth and mounting elevation, as documented,
serves to reduce the potential to exceed MPE limits at any location other than directly in front of the antennas.
For accessible areas at ground level and incident at adjacent structures, the maximum predicted RF power
density level resulting from all operations is depicted in Figure 2. The proposed operations will not expose
members of the public to hazardous levels of RF energy at ground level or in adjacent buildings
Page 72 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025
Page 4
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Figure 2.1: Predicted MPE as Percentage of FCC General Population Limits
Page 73 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025
Page 5
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Figure 3 shows predicted MPE levels near the antennas. Waterford Consultants, LLC recommends a posting
RF advisory signage (NOC and Guidelines) need to be posted at any Access Point to the Upper and Lower
Roofs, (Notice) signs need to be posted on the Barrier on the Lower Roof and (Caution) need to be posted on
the Barrier on the Upper Roof to be visible upon approach to inform personnel accessing this area of potential
hazards when working around antennas. This recommendation is depicted in Figure 4. Any work activity in
front of transmitting antennas should be coordinated with Verizon.
Figure 3: Predicted MPE at Antenna Elevation as Percentage of FCC General Population Limits
Page 74 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025
Page 6
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Compliance Requirement Diagram
Recommendations
- NOC and Guidelines
signs need to be
posted at any Access
Point to the Upper and
Lower Roofs.
- Notice signs need to
be posted on the
Barrier on the Lower
Roof.
- Caution signs need
to be posted on the
Barrier on the Upper
Roof.
Materials
(1) NOC Sign
(1) Guidelines Sign
(4) Caution Signs
(3) Notice Signs
21’ Barrier
10’ Barrier
48’ Barrier
Figure 4: Mitigation Recommendations
Page 75 of 466
HAVEMEYER – NSB-02/20/2025 Page 7 7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Appendix A: Operating Parameters Considered in this Analysis ID Sub ID Carrier NAME Antenna Model MDT (°) Az (°) Freq Band EDT (°) HBW (°) VBW (°) Paths Transmit Power (W) Total Power (W) Gain (dBd) ERP (W) Ground z Height A1 VZW SON_AIR6419 0 130 3700 SON 11 25 64 5 320.00 23.45 70818.96 33.3 A2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 A2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 A2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 1900 SON 69 12 4 80 285.20 15.77 10768.38 31.5 A3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 A3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 A3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 2100 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 A3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 130 2100_3 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 A4 VZW KRE105281-1 0 130 3600 8 64 33 4 5 20.00 9.36 172.60 34.2 B1 VZW SON_AIR6419 0 240 3700 SON 11 25 64 1.25 80.00 23.45 28327.58 33.3 B2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 B2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 B2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 1900 SON 69 12 4 80 285.20 15.77 10768.38 31.5 B3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 B3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 B3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 2100 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 B3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 240 2100_3 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 B4 VZW KRE105281-1 0 240 3600 8 64 33 4 5 20.00 9.36 172.60 34.2 C1 VZW SON_AIR6419 0 0 3700 SON 11 25 64 2 128.00 23.45 70818.96 33.3 C2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 C2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 C2 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 1900 SON 69 12 4 80 285.20 15.77 10768.38 31.5 C3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 700 SON 65 27 2 60 106.95 12.33 1828.86 31.5 C3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 850 SON 60 25 2 60 106.95 12.70 1991.50 31.5 C3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 2100 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 C3 VZW SON_NHH-65B-R2B 0 0 2100_3 SON 64 12 4 40 142.60 16.48 6340.44 31.5 C4 VZW KRE105281-1 0 0 3600 8 64 33 4 5 20.00 9.36 172.60 34.2 Page 76 of 466
NextEdge
4850 W. Oquendo Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Phone: 802.999.0856
Gap identification and coverage solution
Application has been made to the Planning Commission for a permit to construct a new wireless facility on an
existing rooftop. As mentioned in the application materials, no other towers or suitable tall structures are
available in the targeted search area where Verizon Wireless needs a new site to close a significant gap in its
network coverage. The gap in coverage is within the city of Hermosa Beach city boundary and cannot be
covered by existing or future sites located outside the city of Hermosa Beach given height and other
development restrictions, and the lack of suitable sites outside the city boundaries available to host a wireless
facility.
The height of the antennas above the ground has a direct impact on the distance the wireless signal will travel
horizontally from the antenna. The higher the antenna above the ground, the farther the signal will travel. The
height of the proposed antennas are 32feet 6 inches (center of the antenna) above ground level. For this
location, it would be better if the antennas were higher. However, the maximum building height within the
development standards for the C-3 zone is 35 feet, HBMC Section 17.26.050 E 3. The proposed height of the
new antennas will not extend higher than 35 feet above ground level.
The significant gap is illustrated on the attached coverage map page titled Verizon Coverage without
Havemeyer. The gap extends from 14th St, south on PCH to 1st street and from the Pacific Ocean on the west to
Harper Avenue on the east side of the gap. The projected coverage of the facility at 725 5th street will not span
the entire gap in the network and there will be areas that still lack coverage, but the majority of the gap will be
covered from this location and proposed antenna height. The maps below show details of the gap in purple on
the map. If the antennas are raised to a higher elevation above the ground, the areas that lack coverage would
be reduced if not eliminated. The height of the antennas is limited by the city’s development standards to a
maximum of 35 feet.
Page 77 of 466
Hermosa Beach Verizon Map
2
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or
distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Macro Sites
Small Cells
Page 78 of 466
Overview Map
2
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or
distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Page 79 of 466
Verizon Coverage without HAVEMEYER
3
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or
distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Page 80 of 466
Verizon Coverage with HAVEMEYER
4
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or
distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Page 81 of 466
Verizon Coverage HAVEMEYER ONLY
5
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or
distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Page 82 of 466
Havemeyer
2000 ft
N➤➤N
estimated signficant
gap out line
estimated
coverage area of
proposed site
Page 83 of 466
venzon
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue.
Irvine, CA 92618
November 4, 2024
Re: New (or Replacement) Verizon Wireless Facility
To Whom It May Concern:
I write to you on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding our new (or replacement) wireless facility
application. Verizon Wireless declines to provide a list, location map or any other descriptive
information regarding our existing facilities due to proprietary and public safety/security
reasons. Wireless connectivity has become critical infrastructure and requiring such disclosure
could compromise sensitive information regarding Verizon’s network. Additionally, disclosing the
exact locations of existing facilities could propose security risks as it may expose site locations to
those who may intend to sabotage them or access the sites without authorization. Protecting this
information is essential for maintaining the integrity and security of the Verizon network, ensuring
uninterrupted service for both customers and emergency services by safeguarding critical
telecommunications infrastructure.
The existing site location information requested is not relevant to the permit review and findings, as it
bears no relation to the coverage / capacity needs at the location identified in our submitted
application. Moreover, the city should already have the requested information in its permit records.
Requiring wireless providers to divulge proprietary details about their existing facilities could unduly
burden them and jeopardize the security of their networks. By focusing on the specifics of the
proposed site and its compliance with local regulations, the permit review process can efficiently
evaluate the impact and ensure the deployment of necessary infrastructure without compromising
sensitive information.
Verizon Wireless and our designated vendor look forward to working with you to process the
application.
Yours sincerelyr-^
Daisy M. Uy Kimpang
Associate Director - Network Real Estate
Network Engineering and Operations
Page 84 of 466
NextEdge
4850 W. Oquendo Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Phone: 802.999.0856
December 24, 2025
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
ATTN: Director of Community Development
Dear Director,
Verizon Wireless is proposing a wireless facility on an existing rooftop not owned by Verizon Wireless.
Verizon Wireless does not have specific authority to grant other carriers’ permission to collocate their
equipment on the existing rooftop. However, Verizon Wireless does not oppose colocation by other carriers on
the rooftop if feasible, provided the other carrier does not interfere with Verizon’s use.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Regards
Ben Foust
NextEdge
Authorized Representative for Verizon Wireless
Page 85 of 466
Public Notification Package 725 5th Street Wireless Telecommunications Facility (CUP25-04)
Page 86 of 466
Page 87 of 466
Page 88 of 466
Page 89 of 466
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chairperson of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission has called a public hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below. 1. A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02) TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE WALL SIGNS PER BUSINESS ENTITY, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING 129,736-SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 11 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, 2. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA25-02) TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING LOTS, MAKING THEM NEARLY EQUAL IN SIZE AND A VARIANCE (VAR5-03) TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTED LOTS TO EACH BE LESS THAN THE 4,000-QUARE-FOOT MINIMUM AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 5 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15305 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. 3. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED 588.5-SQUARE- FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7). CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR CLASS 3 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and is being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website.
Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/March 5, 2026/HD26-015
City ofHermosa Beach
Page 90 of 466
Community Development Department
Planning Division Attn: DT City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 725 5th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Numbers: 4188-030-001
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the request described below.
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED 588.5-SQUARE- FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF
AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7). CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR CLASS 3 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-
0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS - Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09
Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860
Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860
eComment - Submit an eComment by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community
Development at planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the
City will endeavor to ensure remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. To guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 91 of 466
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the
United States, over the age of 18 years; that on the 5th day of March , 2026, that I
deposited 572 Notices in the United States Post Office, a letter of notice, a copy of
which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following
persons at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice in that
said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of
the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles as being owners of property within 500 feet
and all residential occupants within 500’ of the property described as:
APN: 4188-030-001
Subject: 725 5th ST
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
Page 92 of 466
700
814 824832840906916612
600 905917923926934831839918850817620903531544
541902
549
535822
837833500
526
560
835845417
439
826
440
430
428
422
834
400
442
829344818821819836300246
210
204820
150
142701651633621609720710704654640622610653647635713605617616626642648611601
619
725723721709707602631643628192 155712708555507505405
425
501491571567563543539528534516546553554504
506
508
510
509
511
513
231537305559557551527325326
525523550530 243
233
229
217
211
2016566466306
1
8 624
65571762760
8
228 666727750746
333
303736726718672662
322
623 629645657737307
68234
2 6367116
0
3540632 650658683677665641625649514747
702676670660644638615639659669436
421706
403
637705673429
729652604 6346th St
8th St
6th St
Ar
dmor
eAv
e5th StValleyDr
Pacific Coast
Hwy
2nd St Gravley
C
t
Alley
Cochi
seAveCochise Ave2nd St
3rd St
4th St
4th St
7th St
3rd St Ocean V
iew Ave
7th St
4th St
715
500' RADIUS MAP r725 5th St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Page 93 of 466
4th St Ar
dmor
eAve7th St
6th St
2nd St
5th StPacif
ic
Coast HwyCypress AveOcean View Ave
1 0 t h S t
Grav
ley Ct
Alley
Cochi
seAveSunset DrCochiseAve8 t h S t Ocean Dr4th St
9th St
Culpe
r Ct
7th St
Loma DrBayview
D
r ArdmoreAve4th StBard St7th St
3rd St
4th St Pine St
6th St
8th Pl
Monterey Blvd
2nd St
3rd St
4th StValleyDrZoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2026
725 5th St
APN: 4188-030-001
Zone: SPA-7-HE Specific Plan Area 7
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-04)
Description
Legend
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
R-P Residential-Professional
RPD Residential Planned Development
R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Downtown Commercial
C-3 General Commercial
M-1 Light Manufacturing
OS Open Space
OS-1 Restricted Open Space
OS-2 Restricted Open Space
OS-O Open Space Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park
SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential)
SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial)
-HE Housing Element Overlay
500' Notification Radius
Page 94 of 466
From:Jeannette Horibe
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Opposing cell antennas on 725 5th St
Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 7:26:11 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I am opposed to having the cell antennas on 725 5th St.. Although I don’t live close to 5th St, we have neighbors
who are have little ones or who are elderly and are worried about their health and how it will affect their quality of
life.
Please think of them before putting something that could affect them.
Jeannette Horibe
Sent from my iPhone
Page 95 of 466
Page 96 of 466
Alex SolaHermosa Beach Resident
Page 97 of 466
Page 98 of 466
and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 squarefeet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunications
towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near celltowers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiplecases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes near
telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influenceresidential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residential
density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economicconsequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilities
solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World HealthOrganization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,
particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated thatless impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The Planning
Commission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures
• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 99 of 466
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of thisrooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,
potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that thePlanning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or
2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impactassessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of their
neighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protectsthese qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for the
March 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
SincerelyKathleen B Jucar
Page 100 of 466
From:Trey F
To:Planning Commission; Planning
Subject:March 17, 2026 Planning Commission – Agenda Item CUP25-04 – Public Comment Opposing Verizon Wireless
Facility at 725 5th Street
Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 9:47:42 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 – Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility at
725 5th Street
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed installation of the Verizon wireless telecommunications facility on the
roof of the building at 725 5th Street.
I live one street away from the proposed site and my residence is on the second floor, placing me in relatively close
proximity and likely line-of-sight to the antennas. Because of this proximity, I have significant concerns regarding
potential health, safety, and neighborhood impacts.
First, there remains ongoing scientific debate about the long-term health effects of chronic exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cellular infrastructure, particularly with the increasing deployment of
newer technologies such as 5G. While federal exposure guidelines exist, many researchers and public health
advocates have raised concerns that current limits were developed decades ago and primarily address short-term
thermal exposure rather than long-term cumulative biological effects.
A number of peer-reviewed studies and international reviews have suggested possible associations between long-
term RF exposure and biological impacts including sleep disruption, oxidative stress, and neurological effects.
Organizations such as the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm have classified RF electromagnetic
fields as a “possible carcinogen.” Given that the science is still evolving, many communities have chosen to apply a
precautionary approach when placing transmitters close to homes.
Second, the proposed installation appears to be located in the immediate vicinity of residential buildings. Residents
living nearby—including those on upper floors such as myself—may experience higher direct exposure compared
with ground-level passersby. Installing this type of facility so close to homes raises reasonable concerns about
continuous exposure over many years.
Third, the facility may negatively affect neighborhood character and property values. Rooftop telecommunications
infrastructure can introduce visual clutter and industrial equipment into otherwise residential areas. Many
homeowners are understandably concerned that living near visible cell infrastructure could reduce desirability for
future buyers or renters.
Finally, I would encourage the Commission to carefully evaluate whether alternative locations exist that would
create greater distance from residential dwellings while still meeting wireless coverage needs. Locating such
infrastructure in commercial zones, on taller non-residential structures, or in less densely populated areas would
significantly reduce the potential impact on nearby residents.
Wireless connectivity is important, but it should be balanced with community health, neighborhood character, and
Page 101 of 466
the concerns of the residents who live closest to these facilities.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for
the proposed telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street or require the applicant to pursue a location that is fartherfrom surrounding residences.
Thank you for considering the concerns of nearby residents.
Sincerely,
James FlickResident, Hermosa Beach
Page 102 of 466
Page 103 of 466
Page 104 of 466
in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cellarrays.
Rodrigues 2021 published in the International Journal of Environmental Research andPublic Health found higher exposure to cell arrays linked to higher mortality from all
cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer.Meo 2018 published in American Journal of Men’s Health linked higher cell tower
exposures to delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attentionin school adolescents
Yakymenko 2011 published in Exp Oncology found increased of cancer incidence.Meo 2015 published in Environmental Research and Public Health found higher
exposures linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes.López 2021 published in Environmental Research linked higher exposures to more
severe headaches and decreased sleepLevitt 2010 published in Environmental Reviews analyzed 100 studies and found ~80%
showed biological effects near towers. (PDF)Yakymenko 2015 published in Electromagnetic Biology Medicine reviewed 100 studies
and showed oxidative effects of low-intensity RF radiation.Buchner 2011 published in Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaf and detailed in Oncology
Letters followed people in a German town after a cell tower was erected and foundstress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline significantly increased over the first 6
months after the antenna activation and decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18months.
Dode 2011 published in Science of the Total Environment 10 year study on cell phoneantennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil
found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500meters or less from cell phone towers.
Khurana 2011 published in International Journal of Occupational and EnvironmentalHealth reviewed epidemiological studies and found in 80% of the studies, people living
<500 m from base stations had an increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms andcancer.
Two published case reports document illness that developed after 5G antennas wereinstalled. In “The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need
for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation” (Hardell and Nilsson 2023), a man andwoman developed microwave syndrome symptoms (e.g., neurological symptoms,
tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, and blood pressurevariability) after a 5G base station was installed on the roof above their apartment.
Similarly, in “Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly afterInstallation of 5G on the Roof above their Office” two men developed symptoms after
5G antennas were activated on the roof of their workplace. The symptoms disappearedin both men within a couple of weeks (case 1) or immediately (case 2) after leaving the
office.
Surveys of people living near cell tower antennas in France, Spain, Iraq, India, Germany,
Egypt, Poland have found significantly higher reports of health issues including sleep issues,fatigue and headaches (See Santini et al. 2003, López 2021, Alazawi 2011, Pachuau and
Pachuaua 2016, Eger et al. 2004, Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2007, Bortkiewicz et al., 2004).
“There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellularphone base stations causes negative health effects (Siddoo-Atwal, 2018; Singh et al., 2018;
Faisal, et al., 2018), including both i) neuropsychiatric complaints such as headache,
Page 105 of 466
concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, fatigue,and sleep disturbance (Navarro et al., 2003; Hutter et al., 2006; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007);
and ii) increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station(Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Havas, 2017).”
Fortunately, many school districts are finally taking action to protect children and manycities are also enacting sensible protections.
Here is a sampling of school boards nationwide that no longer allow cell towers or cell towerantennas on or near schools:
Los Angeles CA School District: Resolutions opposing cell towers on school property
and a “cautionary level” for radiofrequency radiation 10,000 times lower than FCClimits.
Palo Alto CA Unified School District: Resolution No. 2018-19.19 supports the City1,500 setback and opposes cell tower “on or in close proximity to schools to ensure
individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential negative effectsassociated with radiation exposure”
West Linn-Wilsonville Oregon School Board prohibits cell towers on school property.Vancouver School Board: Resolution prohibiting cell antennas within 1,000 feet of
school property.Montgomery County: Maryland Schools policy does not allow cell towers on
elementary schools.Prince George’s County: Maryland School Board decided not to renew a cell tower
construction master leasing agreement that had allowed over 60 schools to be marketedas cell tower sites.
Portland Oregon Schools: ended new leases for cell towers.Temecula Valley Unified School District trustees passed a ban on new cell phone
towers on school property and barring the district from renewing existing tower leases.
In addition, Many Cities and Towns Have Laws To Restrict Cell Tower Antennas near Homes
(and Schools). This is just a small sampling of American cities with such restrictions. Theproposed 725 5th Street antennas would be far closer to the family immediately nextdoor with two small children.
Encinitas, CA – No antennas within 500 feet from residential dwelling unit, Noantennas within 500 feet of daycare facility or school
Shelburne, MA – no wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500feet of homes and no new wireless antennas in residential zones.
Copeck , NY – no wireless facility may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools,churches, or other buildings containing dwelling units.
Sallisaw, OK – no commercial wireless telecommunications towers within 1,500 ofhomes.
Calabasas, CA – no “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet ofhomes and schools.
Bedford, NH – No wireless antennas within 750 feet from nearest residentially-zonedproperty.
Scarsdale, NY – No wireless facilities within 500 feet from homes, schools, parks, andhouses of worship.
Page 106 of 466
Davis, CA – no freestanding wireless facilities within 500 feet of residential zone andschools.
Westlake Village, CA – no facilities within 500 feet of homes.Randolph, MA – no wireless antennas within 500 feet of homes and businesses.
Petaluma, CA – no “small cell” antennas within 500 feet of homes.Suisin City, CA – no “small cell” antennas within 500 feet of homes.
Contra Costa County, CA – no new high-visibility facilities or towers within 300 feet ofresidential zones.
North Hempstead NY– No installations within 350 feet of a school.
Sadly, some communities only find out the very real risks after the fact.
Read this news report from CBS News about Ripon, California where the Sprint cell towerswere installed, but later removed without litigation as a precautionary measure after cases of
cancer in children came to light.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/
In short, our community’s health and wellbeing should be the absolute priority wherethe science is not entirely settled.
Thank you for your time reviewing this information and considering my concerns about theproposed antennas.
Kelly Kress
HB Resident
Page 107 of 466
Page 108 of 466
Page 109 of 466
Page 110 of 466
• Introduce mechanical structures inconsistent with surrounding architecture
• Become visible from nearby residential windows, streets, and public viewpoints
Hermosa Beach’s planning framework emphasizes preservation of neighborhood
character and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound
approaching 600 square feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could
conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to
telecommunications towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and
property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near
cell towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documentedmultiple cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for
homes near telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and
residential density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent
significant economic consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications
facilities solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits.
However, planning bodies may still consider community welfare and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group
2B)”. While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary
approach, particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
Page 111 of 466
Page 112 of 466
Page 113 of 466
Page 114 of 466
and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 squarefeet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunications
towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near celltowers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiplecases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes near
telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influenceresidential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residential
density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economicconsequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilities
solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World HealthOrganization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,
particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated thatless impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The Planning
Commission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures
• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 115 of 466
Page 116 of 466
Page 117 of 466
feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunicationstowers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near cell
towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiple
cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes neartelecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residentialdensity in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economic
consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilitiessolely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,
planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionaryprinciples when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.
While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated that
less impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The PlanningCommission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area
• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of this
Page 118 of 466
rooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that the
Planning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impact
assessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of theirneighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protects
these qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for theMarch 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Lynn Chow
Page 119 of 466
Page 120 of 466
Page 121 of 466
Page 122 of 466
the concerns of the residents who live closest to these facilities.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for
the proposed telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street or require the applicant to pursue a location that is fartherfrom surrounding residences.
Thank you for considering the concerns of nearby residents.
Sincerely,
James FlickResident, Hermosa Beach
Page 123 of 466
March 9, 2026
To: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Please no cell tower at 725 5th Street. I live at . Please do
not approve a cell tower at 725 5th Street. I live at , a very
densely populated residential area where many families live in close
proximity to one another. Installing a cell tower in the middle of our
neighborhood would directly impact the people who live here every day.
This area is made up of homes and families, many of whom live practically on
top of one another due to the density of the neighborhood. A structure like
this does not belong in the center of our residential community. Please
consider placing this type of infrastructure in a more appropriate
commercial or less densely populated location.
Thank you for taking the concerns of local residents into account.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Krause
Page 124 of 466
Page 125 of 466
Hermosa Beach’s planning framework emphasizes preservation of neighborhood characterand coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 square
feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunicationstowers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near cell
towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiple
cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes neartelecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residentialdensity in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economic
consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilitiessolely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,
planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionaryprinciples when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.
While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated that
less impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The PlanningCommission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area
• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 126 of 466
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of this
rooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that the
Planning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impact
assessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of theirneighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protects
these qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for theMarch 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Adam Heiman
Hermosa Resident
Page 127 of 466
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Georgia Tesla
Planning Enrique Vassallo
Proposed cell towers on 5th Street Tuesday, March 10, 2026 12:30:06 PM
I You don't often get email from . I earp why tbjs js important
My husband and I live on the same block as the proposed cell towers at 725 5thStreet. Potential health risks caused by living near these antennas include emission ofelectromagnetic radiation, increased cancer risk, headaches, sleep issues, genetic damage,changes to reproductive system, memo1y deficits and impacts on the nervous system. Thereare also Increased fire risks.
Better alternatives exist such as the mall where Pavillions is located which has greaterconcentration of business rather than residences.
There will be obstruction of views and eye sore resulting in reduced property value. Pleasefind an alternative location for the towers. We sti·ongly oppose the towers.
-and Emique Vassallo
Sent from my iPhone
Page 128 of 466
From:Jeannette Horibe
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Opposing cell antennas on 725 5th St
Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 7:26:11 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I am opposed to having the cell antennas on 725 5th St.. Although I don’t live close to 5th St, we have neighbors
who are have little ones or who are elderly and are worried about their health and how it will affect their quality of
life.
Please think of them before putting something that could affect them.
Jeannette Horibe
Sent from my iPhone
Page 129 of 466
Page 130 of 466
Alex SolaHermosa Beach Resident
Page 131 of 466
Page 132 of 466
and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 squarefeet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunications
towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near celltowers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiplecases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes near
telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influenceresidential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residential
density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economicconsequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilities
solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World HealthOrganization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,
particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated thatless impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The Planning
Commission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures
• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 133 of 466
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of thisrooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,
potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that thePlanning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or
2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impactassessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of their
neighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protectsthese qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for the
March 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
SincerelyKathleen B Jucar
Page 134 of 466
From:Trey F
To:Planning Commission; Planning
Subject:March 17, 2026 Planning Commission – Agenda Item CUP25-04 – Public Comment Opposing Verizon Wireless
Facility at 725 5th Street
Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 9:47:42 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 – Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility at
725 5th Street
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed installation of the Verizon wireless telecommunications facility on the
roof of the building at 725 5th Street.
I live one street away from the proposed site and my residence is on the second floor, placing me in relatively close
proximity and likely line-of-sight to the antennas. Because of this proximity, I have significant concerns regarding
potential health, safety, and neighborhood impacts.
First, there remains ongoing scientific debate about the long-term health effects of chronic exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cellular infrastructure, particularly with the increasing deployment of
newer technologies such as 5G. While federal exposure guidelines exist, many researchers and public health
advocates have raised concerns that current limits were developed decades ago and primarily address short-term
thermal exposure rather than long-term cumulative biological effects.
A number of peer-reviewed studies and international reviews have suggested possible associations between long-
term RF exposure and biological impacts including sleep disruption, oxidative stress, and neurological effects.
Organizations such as the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm have classified RF electromagnetic
fields as a “possible carcinogen.” Given that the science is still evolving, many communities have chosen to apply a
precautionary approach when placing transmitters close to homes.
Second, the proposed installation appears to be located in the immediate vicinity of residential buildings. Residents
living nearby—including those on upper floors such as myself—may experience higher direct exposure compared
with ground-level passersby. Installing this type of facility so close to homes raises reasonable concerns about
continuous exposure over many years.
Third, the facility may negatively affect neighborhood character and property values. Rooftop telecommunications
infrastructure can introduce visual clutter and industrial equipment into otherwise residential areas. Many
homeowners are understandably concerned that living near visible cell infrastructure could reduce desirability for
future buyers or renters.
Finally, I would encourage the Commission to carefully evaluate whether alternative locations exist that would
create greater distance from residential dwellings while still meeting wireless coverage needs. Locating such
infrastructure in commercial zones, on taller non-residential structures, or in less densely populated areas would
significantly reduce the potential impact on nearby residents.
Wireless connectivity is important, but it should be balanced with community health, neighborhood character, and
Page 135 of 466
the concerns of the residents who live closest to these facilities.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for
the proposed telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street or require the applicant to pursue a location that is fartherfrom surrounding residences.
Thank you for considering the concerns of nearby residents.
Sincerely,
James FlickResident, Hermosa Beach
Page 136 of 466
Page 137 of 466
Page 138 of 466
in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cellarrays.
Rodrigues 2021 published in the International Journal of Environmental Research andPublic Health found higher exposure to cell arrays linked to higher mortality from all
cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer.Meo 2018 published in American Journal of Men’s Health linked higher cell tower
exposures to delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attentionin school adolescents
Yakymenko 2011 published in Exp Oncology found increased of cancer incidence.Meo 2015 published in Environmental Research and Public Health found higher
exposures linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes.López 2021 published in Environmental Research linked higher exposures to more
severe headaches and decreased sleepLevitt 2010 published in Environmental Reviews analyzed 100 studies and found ~80%
showed biological effects near towers. (PDF)Yakymenko 2015 published in Electromagnetic Biology Medicine reviewed 100 studies
and showed oxidative effects of low-intensity RF radiation.Buchner 2011 published in Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaf and detailed in Oncology
Letters followed people in a German town after a cell tower was erected and foundstress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline significantly increased over the first 6
months after the antenna activation and decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18months.
Dode 2011 published in Science of the Total Environment 10 year study on cell phoneantennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil
found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500meters or less from cell phone towers.
Khurana 2011 published in International Journal of Occupational and EnvironmentalHealth reviewed epidemiological studies and found in 80% of the studies, people living
<500 m from base stations had an increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms andcancer.
Two published case reports document illness that developed after 5G antennas wereinstalled. In “The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need
for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation” (Hardell and Nilsson 2023), a man andwoman developed microwave syndrome symptoms (e.g., neurological symptoms,
tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, and blood pressurevariability) after a 5G base station was installed on the roof above their apartment.
Similarly, in “Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly afterInstallation of 5G on the Roof above their Office” two men developed symptoms after
5G antennas were activated on the roof of their workplace. The symptoms disappearedin both men within a couple of weeks (case 1) or immediately (case 2) after leaving the
office.
Surveys of people living near cell tower antennas in France, Spain, Iraq, India, Germany,
Egypt, Poland have found significantly higher reports of health issues including sleep issues,fatigue and headaches (See Santini et al. 2003, López 2021, Alazawi 2011, Pachuau and
Pachuaua 2016, Eger et al. 2004, Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2007, Bortkiewicz et al., 2004).
“There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellularphone base stations causes negative health effects (Siddoo-Atwal, 2018; Singh et al., 2018;
Faisal, et al., 2018), including both i) neuropsychiatric complaints such as headache,
Page 139 of 466
concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, fatigue,and sleep disturbance (Navarro et al., 2003; Hutter et al., 2006; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007);
and ii) increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station(Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Havas, 2017).”
Fortunately, many school districts are finally taking action to protect children and manycities are also enacting sensible protections.
Here is a sampling of school boards nationwide that no longer allow cell towers or cell towerantennas on or near schools:
Los Angeles CA School District: Resolutions opposing cell towers on school property
and a “cautionary level” for radiofrequency radiation 10,000 times lower than FCClimits.
Palo Alto CA Unified School District: Resolution No. 2018-19.19 supports the City1,500 setback and opposes cell tower “on or in close proximity to schools to ensure
individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential negative effectsassociated with radiation exposure”
West Linn-Wilsonville Oregon School Board prohibits cell towers on school property.Vancouver School Board: Resolution prohibiting cell antennas within 1,000 feet of
school property.Montgomery County: Maryland Schools policy does not allow cell towers on
elementary schools.Prince George’s County: Maryland School Board decided not to renew a cell tower
construction master leasing agreement that had allowed over 60 schools to be marketedas cell tower sites.
Portland Oregon Schools: ended new leases for cell towers.Temecula Valley Unified School District trustees passed a ban on new cell phone
towers on school property and barring the district from renewing existing tower leases.
In addition, Many Cities and Towns Have Laws To Restrict Cell Tower Antennas near Homes
(and Schools). This is just a small sampling of American cities with such restrictions. Theproposed 725 5th Street antennas would be far closer to the family immediately nextdoor with two small children.
Encinitas, CA – No antennas within 500 feet from residential dwelling unit, Noantennas within 500 feet of daycare facility or school
Shelburne, MA – no wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500feet of homes and no new wireless antennas in residential zones.
Copeck , NY – no wireless facility may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools,churches, or other buildings containing dwelling units.
Sallisaw, OK – no commercial wireless telecommunications towers within 1,500 ofhomes.
Calabasas, CA – no “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet ofhomes and schools.
Bedford, NH – No wireless antennas within 750 feet from nearest residentially-zonedproperty.
Scarsdale, NY – No wireless facilities within 500 feet from homes, schools, parks, andhouses of worship.
Page 140 of 466
Davis, CA – no freestanding wireless facilities within 500 feet of residential zone andschools.
Westlake Village, CA – no facilities within 500 feet of homes.Randolph, MA – no wireless antennas within 500 feet of homes and businesses.
Petaluma, CA – no “small cell” antennas within 500 feet of homes.Suisin City, CA – no “small cell” antennas within 500 feet of homes.
Contra Costa County, CA – no new high-visibility facilities or towers within 300 feet ofresidential zones.
North Hempstead NY– No installations within 350 feet of a school.
Sadly, some communities only find out the very real risks after the fact.
Read this news report from CBS News about Ripon, California where the Sprint cell towerswere installed, but later removed without litigation as a precautionary measure after cases of
cancer in children came to light.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/
In short, our community’s health and wellbeing should be the absolute priority wherethe science is not entirely settled.
Thank you for your time reviewing this information and considering my concerns about theproposed antennas.
Kelly Kress
HB Resident
Page 141 of 466
Page 142 of 466
Page 143 of 466
Page 144 of 466
• Introduce mechanical structures inconsistent with surrounding architecture
• Become visible from nearby residential windows, streets, and public viewpoints
Hermosa Beach’s planning framework emphasizes preservation of neighborhood
character and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound
approaching 600 square feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could
conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to
telecommunications towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and
property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near
cell towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documentedmultiple cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for
homes near telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and
residential density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent
significant economic consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications
facilities solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits.
However, planning bodies may still consider community welfare and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group
2B)”. While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary
approach, particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
Page 145 of 466
Page 146 of 466
Page 147 of 466
Page 148 of 466
and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 squarefeet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunications
towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near celltowers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiplecases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes near
telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influenceresidential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residential
density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economicconsequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilities
solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World HealthOrganization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,
particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated thatless impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The Planning
Commission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures
• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 149 of 466
Page 150 of 466
Page 151 of 466
feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunicationstowers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near cell
towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiple
cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes neartelecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residentialdensity in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economic
consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilitiessolely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,
planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionaryprinciples when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.
While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated that
less impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The PlanningCommission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area
• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of this
Page 152 of 466
rooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that the
Planning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impact
assessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of theirneighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protects
these qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for theMarch 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Lynn Chow
Page 153 of 466
Page 154 of 466
Page 155 of 466
Page 156 of 466
the concerns of the residents who live closest to these facilities.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for
the proposed telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street or require the applicant to pursue a location that is fartherfrom surrounding residences.
Thank you for considering the concerns of nearby residents.
Sincerely,
James FlickResident, Hermosa Beach
Page 157 of 466
March 9, 2026
To: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Please no cell tower at 725 5th Street. I live at . Please do
not approve a cell tower at 725 5th Street. I live at , a very
densely populated residential area where many families live in close
proximity to one another. Installing a cell tower in the middle of our
neighborhood would directly impact the people who live here every day.
This area is made up of homes and families, many of whom live practically on
top of one another due to the density of the neighborhood. A structure like
this does not belong in the center of our residential community. Please
consider placing this type of infrastructure in a more appropriate
commercial or less densely populated location.
Thank you for taking the concerns of local residents into account.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Krause
Page 158 of 466
Page 159 of 466
Hermosa Beach’s planning framework emphasizes preservation of neighborhood characterand coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 square
feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunicationstowers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
• The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near cell
towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.• A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiple
cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes neartelecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residentialdensity in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economic
consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilitiessolely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,
planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionaryprinciples when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”.
While research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach,particularly in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated that
less impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The PlanningCommission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area
• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Page 160 of 466
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of this
rooftop facility may be premature.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that the
Planning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impact
assessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of theirneighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protects
these qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for theMarch 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Adam Heiman
Hermosa Resident
Page 161 of 466
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Georgia Tesla
Planning Enrique Vassallo
Proposed cell towers on 5th Street Tuesday, March 10, 2026 12:30:06 PM
I You don't often get email from . I earp why tbjs js important
My husband and I live on the same block as the proposed cell towers at 725 5thStreet. Potential health risks caused by living near these antennas include emission ofelectromagnetic radiation, increased cancer risk, headaches, sleep issues, genetic damage,changes to reproductive system, memo1y deficits and impacts on the nervous system. Thereare also Increased fire risks.
Better alternatives exist such as the mall where Pavillions is located which has greaterconcentration of business rather than residences.
There will be obstruction of views and eye sore resulting in reduced property value. Pleasefind an alternative location for the towers. We sti·ongly oppose the towers.
-and Emique Vassallo
Sent from my iPhone
Page 162 of 466
From:Elisabeth Brubaker
To:Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;Kate Hirsh
Subject:Re: Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility 725 5th Street,
Hermosa Beach
Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 1:20:11 PM
Attachments:_Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 .pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from @ . Learn why this isimportant
Date: March 16, 2026
To
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I respectfully submit the following comments requesting that the Conditional Use Permit
CUP25 04, which proposes the installation of a Verizon Wireless telecommunications
facility on the roof of the building located at 725 5th Street be denied.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to modern communities, the
proposed installation raises significant concerns regarding compliance with the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code, land use compatibility, and the adequacy of the site selection
analysis provided in the application materials.
Based on review of the agenda packet and applicable municipal code provisions, the
following issues warrant careful consideration by the Planning Commission before any
approval of this project.
Compatibility With Surrounding Residential Uses
The staff report acknowledges that residential properties are located immediately to the
south and west of the proposed facility. The proposed installation consists of a substantial
rooftop telecommunications compound including nine panel antennas, six radios, and
multiple equipment cabinets contained within a 588.5 square foot enclosure.
Although the equipment is proposed to be screened, the overall scale and mass of the
Page 163 of 466
rooftop installation raises legitimate compatibility concerns given the extremely close
proximity to nearby homes and families. There is less than seven feet between the building
and the adjacent residential structure.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 governing Conditional Use Permits
requires the Planning Commission to determine that the proposed use will not be
detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements and that the design, location, size,
and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with surrounding land
uses.
Specifically:
Section 17.56.050(C) requires a finding that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements.
Section 17.56.050(D) requires a finding that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with existing and reasonably
foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference
shall be given to wireless facilities not located adjacent to residential uses. In this case the
proposed facility is directly adjacent to residential homes and within extremely close
proximity to existing residential structures.
Given the scale of the installation and its location immediately adjacent to residential
properties, it is unclear whether the required findings of compatibility and lack of detriment
can reasonably be made.
Height and Visual Impact
The project proposes a rooftop telecommunications enclosure measuring approximately
588.5 square feet and approximately 5 feet 6 inches in height above the parapet, resulting
in a total building height of approximately 35 feet.
This height represents the maximum height permitted within the SPA 7 zoning district.
While the installation may technically remain within the numerical height limit, the addition
of a large rooftop telecommunications compound significantly alters the visual massing and
profile of the building.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be
located and designed to reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public
streets.
Page 164 of 466
In addition, Section 17.40.170(B)(3) requires wireless facilities to utilize non reflective
materials and architectural treatments that blend with surrounding structures.
Section 17.40.170(D)(1) and (2) require the City to evaluate whether the facility is
architecturally integrated into a concealing structure and whether the facility is effectively
screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed structures.
The Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether a rooftop telecommunications
compound of this scale located immediately adjacent to residential homes appropriately
minimizes visual impacts and maintains compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
There is also a discrepancy within the applicant’s submitted materials regarding the height
calculations. The packet indicates the building height is approximately 30 feet while the
proposed enclosure height is approximately 5 feet 6 inches. These figures suggest the
possibility that the total structure height could exceed the 35 foot height limit applicable to
the SPA 7 zone.
At a minimum, the City should independently verify the building height, parapet height, and
total enclosure height before making any finding that the project complies with the
applicable height limitations.
Adequacy of Alternative Site Analysis
Federal telecommunications law requires wireless providers to demonstrate both the
existence of a significant gap in service and that the proposed facility represents the least
intrusive means of addressing that gap.
The agenda packet indicates that Verizon submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage
Solution Report asserting that the subject site represents the most feasible location and
that no other suitable structures were available.
However, the packet does not appear to include a detailed comparative analysis of
alternative sites or locations that were evaluated and rejected.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations when reviewing wireless telecommunications
facilities.
Without a meaningful evaluation of alternative commercial sites, publicly owned structures,
co location opportunities, or distributed small cell deployments, it is difficult to conclude that
the proposed rooftop installation represents the least intrusive solution available.
Reliance on Applicant Provided Technical Studies
Page 165 of 466
The technical analyses included in the application, including radio frequency compliance
evaluations and coverage gap analyses, appear to have been prepared by consultants
retained by the applicant. There is a discrepancy found on the elevation measurements
used from the adjacent home. It is important to note that the adjacent home is on a hill and
therefore an elevation measurement must be taken from the average grade. The applicant
did not comply with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17.04.040.
The agenda packet does not indicate that the City conducted or commissioned an
independent technical review of these studies.
Given the scale of the installation and its proximity to residential homes, independent
technical evaluation may be appropriate to ensure that the Planning Commission has
sufficient evidence to support the findings required under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Sections 17.56.050 and 17.40.170.
Long Term Site Suitability
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution acknowledge that future
development on adjacent properties could require modification or removal of the wireless
facility in order to maintain compliance with applicable radio frequency exposure
regulations.
Condition 9 specifically states that the permit does not grant Verizon any right to hinder
future lawful development of adjacent properties and that if site conditions change due to
lawful development on adjacent property, Verizon may need to modify or remove its
wireless facility or obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures.
This is a critical point.
The City is being asked to determine that the site is physically suitable and compatible
while simultaneously acknowledging that future lawful development on adjacent property
could force modification or elimination of the facility.
This issue is particularly significant because the enclosure is already proposed at the
maximum 35 foot height limit for the SPA 7 zone. The project is not being proposed with a
meaningful margin for future flexibility.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050(E) requires that the site be physically
suitable for the type of use proposed. If the facility may require modification or removal as
surrounding properties develop, it raises legitimate questions regarding the long term
suitability of this location.
This issue is especially relevant as I am the resident at 683 5th Street and am currently
working with my architect and structural engineer to prepare plans for a second story
Page 166 of 466
addition. I intend to submit the application to the City as soon as the architectural and
structural plans are completed and expect to submit the application no later than March 31,
2026.
If the City reviews my recent permits at this location, it will find that substantial structural
improvements have already been completed to support future vertical construction,
including underpins, shear walls, and steel beams.
CEQA Exemption Concerns
The staff report recommends that the project be categorically exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 3 exemption for
small structures.
However the project involves construction of a substantial rooftop telecommunications
compound measuring approximately 588.5 square feet containing multiple antennas radios
and supporting equipment and located immediately adjacent to residential homes.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that categorical exemptions do not apply where
unusual circumstances exist or where the project may result in a significant environmental
impact due to its location scale or surrounding conditions.
Given the size of the facility its immediate proximity to residential properties and the
potential visual land use and compatibility impacts associated with a large rooftop
telecommunications compound the applicability of the categorical exemption warrants
closer review.
Where unusual circumstances exist or where the project may create a reasonable
possibility of significant environmental impact CEQA requires that the categorical
exemption not be used and that appropriate environmental review be conducted.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any reports on the noise decibel readings that
will be created by the mechanical cooling systems.
Community Concerns
In addition to these planning and code considerations, a community petition regarding this
proposal has already gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the
majority of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code.
While petitions do not determine land use decisions, they demonstrate that many residents
believe the project warrants additional scrutiny given its immediate proximity to residential
homes.
Page 167 of 466
Conclusion
Reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to the community. However, the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code requires that such infrastructure be carefully located and
designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and to minimize
unnecessary impacts. The municipal code clearly establishes a hierarchy of preferred siting
criteria for wireless facilities, including avoiding adjacency to residential properties. The
applicant has proposed a large macro installation directly next to homes without
demonstrating that less intrusive alternatives were fully evaluated.
Given the size of the proposed rooftop compound, its close proximity to residential homes,
the fact that the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum allowable height, and the
acknowledgment that future development on adjacent properties may require modification
or removal of the facility, the Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether the
required Conditional Use Permit findings under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections
17.56.050, 17.40.170, and 17.46.210 can be satisfied.
At a minimum, additional analysis of alternative locations and independent review of the
applicant’s technical submissions would help ensure that the Commission’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and consistent with both municipal code requirements
and federal telecommunications laws.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Liz Brubaker
-
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 168 of 466
From:Robby Brubaker
To:Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;Kate Hirsh
Subject:Public Comment Submission – CUP25-04 Verizon Wireless Facility at 725 5th Street
Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 3:21:00 PM
Attachments:Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 .pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from @ . Learn why this isimportant
Dear Planning Commission and Community Development Staff,
Please find attached my formal written comments regarding Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for the proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
I respectfully request that this letter be included in the official record for the PlanningCommission’s review and consideration prior to the hearing.
The attached document outlines several concerns related to municipal code compliance,compatibility with surrounding residential properties, the adequacy of the alternative site
analysis, and the long-term suitability of this location for the proposed installation.
Thank you for confirming receipt of this submission and for including it in the meeting record.
Sincerely,Robert Brubaker
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Page 169 of 466
Date: March 16, 2026
To:
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully review and deny the
proposed Conditional Use Permit, CUP25 04, for the installation of a Verizon Wireless
telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
While reliable wireless infrastructure is important for modern communities, the proposed
installation raises several significant concerns related to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,
land use compatibility, and the adequacy of the site selection analysis provided in the
application materials.
Based on a review of the agenda packet and applicable municipal code provisions, the following
issues warrant careful consideration.
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Residential Uses
The staff report acknowledges that residential properties are located immediately to the south
and west of the proposed facility. The proposed installation consists of a substantial rooftop
telecommunications compound including nine panel antennas, six radios, and multiple
equipment cabinets contained within a 588.5 square foot enclosure.
Although the equipment is proposed to be screened, the overall scale and mass of the rooftop
installation raises legitimate compatibility concerns given the close proximity to nearby homes
and families. There is less than 7 feet between the building and the adjacent home.
Under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 governing Conditional Use Permits,
the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements and that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the use are compatible with surrounding land uses. More specifically, Section
17.56.050(C) requires a finding that the use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements,
and Section 17.56.050(D) requires a finding that the design, location, size, and operating
Page 170 of 466
characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably
foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference
shall be given to sites not located adjacent to residential uses. The staff report also
acknowledges that the site is within 200 feet of residential use and that the screened structure is
only 10 feet from the west property line. Given the size of the proposed installation and its
location directly adjacent to residential uses, it is unclear whether these required findings can
reasonably be made.
2. Height and Visual Impact Considerations
The proposed telecommunications facility would extend the building height to the maximum
allowable height of approximately 35 feet in the applicable zone. The packet states that the
screening structure measures 5 feet 6 inches in height from the parapet wall, totals 588.5
square feet, and results in a building height of 35 feet. It also states that the top of the proposed
enclosure is at 35 feet, which is the maximum height permitted in SPA 7.
While the installation may technically remain within the permitted height limit, the addition of a
large rooftop compound containing multiple antennas and equipment structures substantially
alters the visual massing of the building.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be located
and designed to reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public streets. Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(B)(3) further requires that the facility exterior be
comprised of non reflective materials and be painted or camouflaged to blend with surrounding
materials and colors. Section 17.40.170(D)(1) and (2) require the City to consider the extent to
which the facility is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure and the extent to which
it is actually screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed structures.
The Commission should carefully evaluate whether the size and visibility of this rooftop
compound is appropriate in a location immediately adjacent to residential properties to the east
and south of the project that will lose their existing ocean views.
Lastly, there is a discrepancy listed in the data provided by the applicant showing the height of
the building is 30 feet and the height of the proposed cell tower is 5 feet 6 inches. This would
exceed the height limit restricted by SPA 7 zoning height limits. At a minimum, the City should
independently verify the roof height, parapet height, and full enclosure height before making any
finding that the proposal complies with the SPA 7 height limit. The fact that the proposed
enclosure is already at the maximum 35 foot limit is particularly important because the
applicant’s own approval conditions acknowledge that future development on adjacent
properties could require modification or removal of the facility to remain compliant. Therefore,
when the adjacent property is developed it will not meet FCC compliance requirements and the
structure is already at its height limit.
3. Adequacy of Alternative Site Analysis
Page 171 of 466
Federal telecommunications law requires that applicants demonstrate both the existence of a
significant gap in wireless service and that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive
means of addressing that gap.
The agenda packet indicates that Verizon submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage Solution
Report asserting that the subject site represents the most feasible location and that no other
suitable structures were available. However, the packet does not appear to include a detailed
comparative analysis of alternative sites or locations that were evaluated and rejected. The staff
report states only that Verizon asserts the site was the most feasible location analyzed and that
no other towers or suitable tall structures are available in the targeted search area.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations. A statement from the applicant that no other sites
are available does not constitute a comprehensive alternative site analysis. In the absence of a
clear analysis demonstrating why alternative commercial locations, publicly owned structures,
co location opportunities, or distributed small cell deployments could not address the claimed
coverage gap, it is difficult to conclude that this rooftop installation represents the least intrusive
solution available.
4. Reliance on Applicant Provided Technical Studies
The technical analyses included in the application, including the radio frequency compliance
evaluation and coverage gap analysis, appear to have been prepared by consultants retained
by the applicant. It does not appear that the City has conducted or commissioned independent
technical review to verify these conclusions.
Given the scale of the proposed installation and its proximity to residential homes, additional
independent evaluation may be appropriate to ensure that the Planning Commission has
sufficient evidence to support the findings required under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,
including Section 17.56.050 and the wireless facility standards under Section 17.40.170.
One very important detail to examine is the applicant’s measurement of the adjacent homes.
These homes are on a hill and according to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, elevation
measurements should be taken from average grade. The applicant failed to provide correct data
showing the elevation of the RF zone from average grade and also did not provide any data
from the adjacent home if the structure were to build a second story at the 30 foot compliant
height limit with a rooftop deck where people can stand 5 to 6 feet over the roof line.
5. Long Term Site Suitability
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution acknowledge that future development
on adjacent properties could require modification or removal of the wireless facility in order to
maintain compliance with applicable radio frequency exposure regulations. Specifically,
Condition 9 states that the permit does not grant Verizon any right to make adjacent properties
inaccessible to the public or to hinder future lawful development of adjacent properties as a
mitigation measure, and it further states that if site conditions change in the future due to lawful
Page 172 of 466
development on adjacent property, Verizon may need to modify or remove its wireless facility, or
obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures on the adjacent property, in
order to maintain compliance with laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions.
This is a critical point. The City is simultaneously being asked to find that this site is physically
suitable and compatible, while the applicant’s own conditions acknowledge that lawful future
development on adjacent property may force modification or elimination of the facility. That issue
is even more significant here because the enclosure is already proposed at the absolute 35 foot
height limit for SPA 7. The project is not being proposed with a meaningful margin for future
flexibility. Instead, it is being proposed at its maximum height in a location immediately adjacent
to residential properties, while the approval itself acknowledges that future neighboring
development may create compliance conflicts.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050(E) requires that the site be physically
suitable for the type of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of
physical constraints. If the installation may create future conflicts with adjacent development, it
raises legitimate questions about whether this location is appropriate for telecommunications
infrastructure of this scale.
This condition indicates that the facility’s compliance assumptions depend on the current
configuration of surrounding properties and may change if neighboring sites are redeveloped in
the future. This raises additional questions regarding the long term suitability of this location for
a telecommunications installation of this scale.
This is especially important as I am the resident at 683 5th Street and am currently working with
my architect and structural engineer to provide me the plans so I can submit them to the city
within the next few weeks so I can start the construction on my second story. I have already
submitted a building permit application to the City in order to initiate this process, however the
City responded that the application could not be accepted because additional architectural and
structural documents were required before a permit number could be opened. This confirms that
the City is already aware that development of the second story is being actively pursued.
I would like it to be recorded that the intent to build this second story has already been formally
communicated to the City through the permit application process. The proposed second story
represents Phase 2 of improvements to my home. Phase 1 of this project involved substantial
structural work that was previously approved by the City and completed specifically to prepare
the existing structure for a future vertical addition. These improvements included structural
reinforcement such as underpins, shear walls, and steel beams designed to support the
additional load of a second story.
I will be submitting a complete permit application including architectural and structural plans as
soon as they become available, which is expected no later than March 31st 2026.
If you take a moment to review my recent permits at this location, you can find the structural
construction that was completed on my home to ensure the current structure already has the
Page 173 of 466
structural integrity for my build up. All of this data should be taken into consideration when
confirming the details of this proposed telecommunications project.
6. Community Concerns
In addition to these planning and code considerations, a community petition regarding this
proposal has already gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the
majority of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code. While public petitions do not
determine land use decisions, they do demonstrate that many residents believe the project
warrants additional scrutiny given its location within a residential adjacent area.
7. Additional Municipal Code Concerns Regarding Site Selection and Design
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(5) states that preference shall be given
to publicly owned structures, co location, and shared sites. The current record does not
demonstrate that those preferred siting options were meaningfully pursued.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(7) provides that whenever possible,
wireless communication facilities should be located on existing buildings, existing poles, or other
existing support structures. However, use of an existing building does not by itself resolve the
separate requirements regarding compatibility, scale, screening, and residential adjacency.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(3) requires consideration of the total size
of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. A
rooftop telecommunications enclosure of nearly 600 square feet on a building of roughly 2,000
square feet represents a substantial structural addition that may materially affect the building’s
massing and rooftop profile in relation to nearby residential properties.
Conclusion
Reliable telecommunications infrastructure is essential, and residents recognize the importance
of strong wireless service throughout the community. However, the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code requires that such infrastructure be carefully located and designed to ensure compatibility
with surrounding neighborhoods and to minimize unnecessary impacts.
Given the size of the proposed rooftop compound, its close proximity to residential homes, the
fact that the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum 35 foot height limit, and the
applicant’s own acknowledgment that future lawful development on adjacent properties may
require the facility to be modified or removed, the Commission should carefully evaluate
whether the required Conditional Use Permit findings can be satisfied under Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Sections 17.56.050, 17.40.170, and 17.46.210.
At a minimum, additional analysis of alternative locations, independent review of the applicant’s
technical submissions, and independent verification of the building and enclosure height
measurements would help ensure that the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial
Page 174 of 466
evidence and consistent with both municipal code requirements and federal telecommunications
law.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Brubaker
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 175 of 466
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
jennifer d
Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;
Kate Hirsh
Comment for 7.a. March 17, 2026 Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 Proposed Verizon Wireless
Telecommunications Facility 725 5th Street
Monday, March 16, 2026 4:13:13 PM
_Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 [1].pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this isimportant
Date: March 16, 2026
To:Hermosa Beach Planning CommissionCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Hermosa Beach1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility725 5th Street
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I submit my comments below in opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04, an installation of aVerizon Wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of the building located at 725 5th Street.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to modern communities, this proposal
raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the project record, compatibility with surroundingresidential properties, and compliance with applicable standards under the Hermosa BeachMunicipal Code, TCA and CEQA. Based on the current record, the findings necessary to approvethis Conditional Use Permit do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.
Most notably, the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D) and CEQA should be carefullyconsidered.
Hermosa Beach Muni Code §17.40.170(D) has not been followed because:
1.Alternate sites were not considered or evaluated. §17.40.170(D)(4) and (5)
2.Alternate sites are available (industrial) and Verizon has refused to disclose their ownalternative existing sites for co-location. 17.40.170(D)(4)
3.Preference given to public facilities is not met. 17.40.170(D)(5)
4.This site is residential and is not preferred. 17.40.170(D)(6)
5.The building is not a preferred type of facility 17.40.170(D)(5)
Lack of Meaningful Alternative Site Analysis
Page 176 of 466
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider theavailability of suitable alternative locations when reviewing wireless telecommunications facilities.Without independent verification of the alleged coverage gap or independent technical
The agenda packet states that Verizon evaluated alternative sites, yet it does not provide a detailed
list, map, or comparison of locations that were analyzed and rejected. Instead, the staff report statesonly that Verizon’s report asserts the project site was the most feasible location analyzed and that noother towers or suitable tall structures are available.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider alternate sites that
are available. A statement from the applicant that other sites are unavailable does not constitute acomprehensive alternative site analysis. The record does not appear to show whether the applicantmeaningfully evaluated other commercial buildings within the coverage area, publicly ownedstructures, co location opportunities, existing wireless facilities, utility structures, distributed antenna
systems, or smaller installations.
Moreover, Verizon simply refused to provide their current locations (See Attachment 7 letter DatedNov 2024) for analysis of co-location sites.
Without a meaningful evaluation of alternatives, the Planning Commission cannot reasonably
determine whether the proposed site satisfies the site selection criteria required by §17.40.170(D)(4)or whether it represents the least intrusive available location.
Proximity to Residential Properties
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference shall be given to sites not
located adjacent to residential uses. Yet the proposed site is immediately adjacent to residentialproperties. The staff report primarily addresses visibility from 5th Street but does not meaningfullyanalyze compatibility with adjacent residential properties located within a very short distance of theproposed installation. The report admits residential uses are located immediately adjacent to thesubject property and that the proposed telecommunications equipment enclosure will be locatedapproximately ten feet from the west property line, a residential address.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(C) also requires that a Conditional Use Permit mayonly be approved if the proposed use will not be detrimental to surrounding properties orimprovements. Given the extremely close proximity of the proposed telecommunications facility toneighboring residences, the Commission should carefully evaluate whether this required finding canreasonably be made.
Preference for Co Location and Publicly Owned Structures
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(5) states that preference shall be given to facilitieslocated on publicly owned structures, co location, and shared sites. The staff report acknowledgesthat the building is privately owned and that the applicant is not proposing to co locate or share thesite, relying instead on a letter stating only that Verizon does not oppose co location if feasible.
The record does not demonstrate that the applicant meaningfully pursued the preferred siting optionsidentified in the municipal code. The report’s statement that co location would be acceptable iffeasible is not the same as evidence that publicly owned structures, shared sites, or existinginfrastructure were actively investigated and found unsuitable.
Improper Reliance on CEQA Categorical Exemption
The staff report recommends that the project be categorically exempt from environmental review
Page 177 of 466
under the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 3 exemption for small structures.However, the project involves a substantial rooftop telecommunications compound and associatedinfrastructure.
Under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, categorical exemptions may not apply where unusualcircumstances exist or where the project may result in significant impacts due to its location orscale. Given the size of the facility and its proximity to residential homes, further evaluation may bewarranted to determine whether the proposed exemption is appropriate.
The City proposes to approve the project using a CEQA categorical exemption.
However, CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions when unusual circumstances may createsignificant environmental effects.The project includes several unusual circumstances:
a large telecommunications compound (588.5 sq ft)
tower height approximately 35+ feetextreme proximity to residences (10 feet)
placement in a mixed-use residential coastal neighborhoodvisual impact concerns
Under Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, these circumstances requireenvironmental review rather than categorical exemption. There has been a disregard of the
unusual circumstances that create significant environmental effects.Evidence currently exists and it is a crucial point in the decision making for Commission and City. There is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that significant impacts may occur based onthe following unusual circumstances:
1. the size of the large telecommunications compound;2. the height does not comply with the code;
3. the extreme proximity to residences;4. the placement in a mixed use residential neighborhood which is against the city’s own
mandated guidelines; and5. the visual impact has not been considered.
In the Ocean View Estates case, the court stated, “The documents were in existence prior to theDistrict's decision to issue the MND. They provide substantial evidence to support a fair argumentthat significant impacts of contamination or dam failure may occur. But the MND does not discuss
or even identify the impacts.” Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Montecito Water District(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396. Similarly there has been a clear failure to discuss or identify requiredevidence.
TCA Considerations
Hermosa Beach need not be concerned with Verizon’s potential assertion that it is violating the TCA(Telecommunications Act) if Hermosa shows that the coverage gap is not significant (here, onlyabout 5-8 blocks) and that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive means of addressingthat gap.
Failure to Demonstrate a Verified Coverage Gap
The staff report relies heavily on Verizon’s Gap Identification and Coverage Solution Report tojustify the need for the proposed facility. However, that report appears to have been prepared solelyby consultants retained by the applicant, and the agenda packet does not appear to include any
independent engineering verification of the claimed coverage gap. Examples of missing data:
Page 178 of 466
propagation maps showing existing and predicted signal strength, drive test data measuring real-world signal performance, dropped-call data or network reliability metrics, and coverage modelingreports prepared by radiofrequency engineers, and comparisons of signal strength before and afterinstallation of the proposed facility.
Questionable Determination of Least Intrusive Means
The report states that no other towers or suitable tall structures are available in the targeted searcharea and that the majority of the claimed gap would be covered from this location, but thosestatements appear to come entirely from the applicant’s own materials.
The project proposes a significant telecommunications installation consisting of nine panel antennas,six radios, surge equipment, and three equipment cabinets within a new 588.5 square foot rooftopscreened structure.
This configuration resembles a macro wireless facility rather than a minor rooftop installation. Under
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(D), the Planning Commission must determine that thedesign, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with existingand reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
Without a detailed comparison of alternative sites and technologies, including smaller scale or
distributed solutions, the Commission lacks substantial evidence to determine whether this proposalis in fact the least intrusive option.
The alternative site evaluation and Code§ 17.40.170 (D) requirements, discussed supra, are alsoapplicable in this analysis.
Use of an Existing Building Does Not Resolve Compatibility Concerns
The staff report notes that the facility would be located on an existing building, thereby avoiding theneed to install a new support structure.
While placement on an existing structure can reduce impacts in some circumstances, Hermosa BeachMunicipal Code §17.40.170(D)(7) does not eliminate the need to comply with the code’s separaterequirements regarding screening, visual compatibility, alternative site evaluation, and residentialadjacency. The fact that the facility is proposed on an existing building does not by itself establishthat the project is compatible with surrounding uses or that the selected site is appropriate.
Other Considerations Fall Short
Size and Visual Impact of the Facility
The proposed installation includes a rooftop enclosure, multiple antennas, and associatedtelecommunications equipment that will bring the structure to the maximum allowable height of
approximately 35 feet.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be located and designedto reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public streets. In addition, §17.40.170(B)(3) requires wireless facilities to utilize non reflective materials and architectural treatments that
blend with surrounding structures.
Although the applicant proposes screening, the Planning Commission must still evaluate whether arooftop telecommunications compound of this scale adequately minimizes visual impacts andremains compatible with adjacent residential properties that will be losing their existing views and
Page 179 of 466
also confirm that the height restrictions are being upheld.
Future Compliance Issues Acknowledged
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution note that future development on nearbyproperties could require modification of the facility in order to maintain compliance with RF
exposure standards. This acknowledgment suggests that the long term compatibility of the site maydepend on surrounding development conditions.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(E) requires that the Planning Commission determinethat the site is physically suitable for the proposed use. If the installation may create future conflicts
with adjacent development, it raises legitimate questions about whether this location is appropriatefor telecommunications infrastructure of this scale.
Lack of Analysis of Modern Small Cell Alternatives
Modern wireless networks increasingly rely on distributed small cell systems, microcells, and pole
mounted nodes that reduce the need for large rooftop telecommunications compounds. The agendapacket does not appear to include any analysis of whether a distributed small cell network couldaddress the alleged coverage gap with less impact on surrounding properties.
Because §17.40.170(D) is intended to minimize visual and land use impacts through appropriate
siting and design, the absence of analysis regarding smaller scale alternatives further limits theCommission’s ability to determine whether the proposed facility represents the least intrusivesolution.
Architectural Integration and Visual Compatibility
The staff report concludes that the project would be architecturally integrated because the proposedscreening structure would match the existing architectural features and building materials.
However, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(1) requires consideration of the extent towhich the proposed facility truly blends into the surrounding environment or is architecturallyintegrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternate sites that are available.
Here, the proposal includes nine antennas, multiple radios and related equipment, three equipmentcabinets, and a new 588.5 square foot rooftop enclosure. Even if finished with similar materials, astructure of this size materially alters the rooftop profile and building massing. The current recorddoes not appear to contain substantial evidence establishing that this large rooftop compound is trulyintegrated with the surrounding environment rather than merely concealed within a large newenclosure.
Screening and Camouflage
The staff report states that the antennas would be screened by a non reflective structure on top of theexisting roof and that support equipment would be located behind the parapet wall and within theproposed enclosure.
However, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(2) requires the City to consider the extentto which the facility is actually screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed buildings orstructures. Screening does not eliminate visual impact where the screened enclosure itself becomesthe dominant visible element. A newly constructed rooftop telecommunications enclosure is not thesame as preexisting architectural screening.
Page 180 of 466
Size of the Facility Relative to the Building and Surroundings
The staff report concludes that the facility is not out of scale because its footprint is approximately588.5 square feet on a building that is estimated to be no more than approximately 2,000 square feetin size and approximately 29.5 feet in height, with the overall structure reaching the 35 foot height
limit of the SPA 7 zone. The SPA 7 zoning requires that the City conduct an independentmeasurement of the height and footprint of the enclosure because this project appears to beextremely close to exceeding the height restrictions required to meet municipal code.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(3) requires consideration of the total size of the
proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. When the rooftopenclosure itself represents a very large portion of the total building footprint, the relative scale of theinstallation becomes significantly more pronounced. A rooftop telecommunications enclosure ofnearly 600 square feet on a building of roughly 2,000 square feet represents a substantial structural
addition that may materially affect the building’s massing and rooftop profile in relation to nearbyresidential properties.
Conclusion
Although the staff report concludes that the project satisfies the screening and site selection criteria
of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D), the record does not appear to contain substantialevidence demonstrating that alternative sites were meaningfully evaluated, that preference wasactually given to public or co location sites, that preference was given to sites not adjacent toresidential uses, that the facility is truly integrated with the surrounding environment, or that therooftop enclosure will not create significant visual impacts on nearby residences.
For these reasons, the current record does not appear to demonstrate that the proposed facilityrepresents the least intrusive means of addressing a verified coverage gap, nor does it clearlydemonstrate compliance with the Conditional Use Permit findings required under Hermosa BeachMunicipal Code §17.56.050.
The TCA and CEQA must be carefully considered in this case. A request for full CEQAenvironmental review and analysis of alternative sites is completed before approval.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue this item and require amore comprehensive analysis of alternative locations, preferred siting options, and less intrusivetechnologies before approving the Conditional Use Permit.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer DuffyAdjacent Property OwnerHermosa Beach Resident
Page 181 of 466
Date: March 16, 2026
To:
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I submit my comments below in opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04, an installation of a
Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of the building located at 725 5th Street.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to modern communities, this proposal
raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the project record, compatibility with surrounding
residential properties, and compliance with applicable standards under the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code, TCA and CEQA. Based on the current record, the findings necessary to approve this Conditional
Use Permit do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.
Most notably, the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D) and CEQA should be carefully
considered.
Hermosa Beach Muni Code §17.40.170(D) has not been followed because:
1. Alternate sites were not considered or evaluated §17.40.170(D)(4) and (5)
2. Alternate sites are available (industrial) and Verizon hasrefused to disclose their own
alternative existing sites for co-location. 17.40.170(D)(4)
3. Preference given to public facilities is not met. 17.40.170(D)(5)
4. This site is residential and is not preferred. 17.40.170(D)(6)
5. The building is not a preferred type of facility 17.40.170(D)(5)
Lack of Meaningful Alternative Site Analysis
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations when reviewing wireless telecommunications facilities.
The agenda packet states that Verizon evaluated alternative sites, yet it does not provide a detailed list,
map, or comparison of locations that were analyzed and rejected. Instead, the staff report states only that
Verizon’s report asserts the project site was the most feasible location analyzed and that no other towers
or suitable tall structures are available.
Page 182 of 466
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider alternate sites that are
available. A statement from the applicant that other sites are unavailable does not constitute a
comprehensive alternative site analysis. The record does not appear to show whether the applicant
meaningfully evaluated other commercial buildings within the coverage area, publicly owned structures,
co location opportunities, existing wireless facilities, utility structures, distributed antenna systems, or
smaller installations.
Moreover, Verizon simply refused to provide their current locations (See Attachement 7 letter Dated Nov
2024) for analysis of co-location sites.
Without a meaningful evaluation of alternatives, the Planning Commission cannot reasonably determine
whether the proposed site satisfies the site selection criteria required by §17.40.170(D)(4) or whether it
represents the least intrusive available location.
Proximity to Residential Properties
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference shall be given to sites not
located adjacent to residential uses. Yet the proposed site is immediately adjacent to residential properties.
The staff report primarily addresses visibility from 5th Street but does not meaningfully analyze
compatibility with adjacent residential properties located within a very short distance of the proposed
installation. The report admits residential uses are located immediately adjacent to the subject property
and that the proposed telecommunications equipment enclosure will be located approximately ten feet
from the west property line, a residential address.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(C) also requires that a Conditional Use Permit may only be
approved if the proposed use will not be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. Given
the extremely close proximity of the proposed telecommunications facility to neighboring residences, the
Commission should carefully evaluate whether this required finding can reasonably be made.
Preference for Co Location and Publicly Owned Structures
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(5) states that preference shall be given to facilities
located on publicly owned structures, co location, and shared sites. The staff report acknowledges that the
building is privately owned and that the applicant is not proposing to co locate or share the site, relying
instead on a letter stating only that Verizon does not oppose co location if feasible.
The record does not demonstrate that the applicant meaningfully pursued the preferred siting options
identified in the municipal code. The report’s statement that co location would be acceptable if feasible is
not the same as evidence that publicly owned structures, shared sites, or existing infrastructure were
actively investigated and found unsuitable.
Improper Reliance on CEQA Categorical Exemption
Page 183 of 466
The staff report recommends that the project be categorically exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 3 exemption for small structures. However, the
project involves a substantial rooftop telecommunications compound and associated infrastructure.
Under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, categorical exemptions may not apply where unusual circumstances
exist or where the project may result in significant impacts due to its location or scale. Given the size of
the facility and its proximity to residential homes, further evaluation may be warranted to determine
whether the proposed exemption is appropriate.
The City proposes to approve the project using a CEQA categorical exemption.
However, CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions when unusual circumstances may create significant
environmental effects.
The project includes several unusual circumstances:
• a large telecommunications compound (588.5 sq ft)
• tower height approximately 35+ feet
• extreme proximity to residences (10 feet)
• placement in a mixed-use residential coastal neighborhood
• visual impact concerns
Under Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, these circumstances require environmental
review rather than categorical exemption. There has been a disregard of the unusual circumstances that
create significant environmental effects.
Evidence currently exists and it is a crucial point in the decision making for Commission and City. There
is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that significant impacts may occur based on the
following unusual circumstances:
1. the size of the large telecommunications compound;
2. the height does not comply with the code;
3. the extreme proximity to residences;
4. the placement in a mixed use residential neighborhood which is against the city’s own
mandated guidelines; and
5. the visual impact has not been considered.
In the Ocean View Estates case, the court stated, “The documents were in existence prior to the District's
decision to issue the MND. They provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that significant
impacts of contamination or dam failure may occur. But the MND does not discuss or even identify the
impacts.” Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th
396. Similarly there has been a clear failure to discuss or idenify required evidence.
TCA Considerations
Page 184 of 466
Hermosa Beach need not be concerned with Verizon’s potential assertion that it is violating the TCA
(Telecommunications Act) if Hermosa shows that the coverage gap is not significant (here, only about 5-8
blocks) and that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive means of addressing that gap.
Failure to Demonstrate a Verified Coverage Gap
The staff report relies heavily on Verizon’s Gap Identification and Coverage Solution Report to justify the
need for the proposed facility. However, that report appears to have been prepared solely by consultants
retained by the applicant, and the agenda packet does not appear to include any independent engineering
verification of the claimed coverage gap. Examples of missing data: propagation maps showing existing
and predicted signal strength, drive test data measuring real-world signal performance, dropped-call data
or network reliability metrics, and coverage modeling reports prepared by radiofrequency engineers, and
comparisons of signal strength before and after installation of the proposed facility.
Questionable Determination of Least Intrusive Means
The report states that no other towers or suitable tall structures are available in the targeted search area
and that the majority of the claimed gap would be covered from this location, but those statements appear
to come entirely from the applicant’s own materials.
The project proposes a significant telecommunications installation consisting of nine panel antennas, six
radios, surge equipment, and three equipment cabinets within a new 588.5 square foot rooftop screened
structure.
This configuration resembles a macro wireless facility rather than a minor rooftop installation. Under
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(D), the Planning Commission must determine that the
design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with existing and
reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
Without a detailed comparison of alternative sites and technologies, including smaller scale or distributed
solutions, the Commission lacks substantial evidence to determine whether this proposal is in fact the
least intrusive option.
The alternative site evaluation and Code§ 17.40.170 (D) requirements, discussed supra, are also
applicable in this analysis.
Use of an Existing Building Does Not Resolve Compatibility Concerns
The staff report notes that the facility would be located on an existing building, thereby avoiding the need
to install a new support structure.
While placement on an existing structure can reduce impacts in some circumstances, Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(7) does not eliminate the need to comply with the code’s separate
requirements regarding screening, visual compatibility, alternative site evaluation, and residential
adjacency. The fact that the facility is proposed on an existing building does not by itself establish that the
project is compatible with surrounding uses or that the selected site is appropriate.
Page 185 of 466
Other Considerations Fall Short
Size and Visual Impact of the Facility
The proposed installation includes a rooftop enclosure, multiple antennas, and associated
telecommunications equipment that will bring the structure to the maximum allowable height of
approximately 35 feet.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be located and designed to
reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public streets. In addition, §17.40.170(B)(3)
requires wireless facilities to utilize non reflective materials and architectural treatments that blend with
surrounding structures.
Although the applicant proposes screening, the Planning Commission must still evaluate whether a
rooftop telecommunications compound of this scale adequately minimizes visual impacts and remains
compatible with adjacent residential properties that will be losing their existing views and also confirm
that the height restrictions are being upheld.
Future Compliance Issues Acknowledged
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution note that future development on nearby
properties could require modification of the facility in order to maintain compliance with RF exposure
standards. This acknowledgment suggests that the long term compatibility of the site may depend on
surrounding development conditions.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.56.050(E) requires that the Planning Commission determine that the
site is physically suitable for the proposed use. If the installation may create future conflicts with adjacent
development, it raises legitimate questions about whether this location is appropriate for
telecommunications infrastructure of this scale.
Lack of Analysis of Modern Small Cell Alternatives
Modern wireless networks increasingly rely on distributed small cell systems, microcells, and pole
mounted nodes that reduce the need for large rooftop telecommunications compounds. The agenda packet
does not appear to include any analysis of whether a distributed small cell network could address the
alleged coverage gap with less impact on surrounding properties.
Because §17.40.170(D) is intended to minimize visual and land use impacts through appropriate siting
and design, the absence of analysis regarding smaller scale alternatives further limits the Commission’s
ability to determine whether the proposed facility represents the least intrusive solution.
Architectural Integration and Visual Compatibility
The staff report concludes that the project would be architecturally integrated because the proposed
screening structure would match the existing architectural features and building materials.
Page 186 of 466
However, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(1) requires consideration of the extent to
which the proposed facility truly blends into the surrounding environment or is architecturally integrated
into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternate sites that are available.
Here, the proposal includes nine antennas, multiple radios and related equipment, three equipment
cabinets, and a new 588.5 square foot rooftop enclosure. Even if finished with similar materials, a
structure of this size materially alters the rooftop profile and building massing. The current record does
not appear to contain substantial evidence establishing that this large rooftop compound is truly integrated
with the surrounding environment rather than merely concealed within a large new enclosure.
Screening and Camouflage
The staff report states that the antennas would be screened by a non reflective structure on top of the
existing roof and that support equipment would be located behind the parapet wall and within the
proposed enclosure.
However, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(2) requires the City to consider the extent to
which the facility is actually screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed buildings or structures.
Screening does not eliminate visual impact where the screened enclosure itself becomes the dominant
visible element. A newly constructed rooftop telecommunications enclosure is not the same as preexisting
architectural screening.
Size of the Facility Relative to the Building and Surroundings
The staff report concludes that the facility is not out of scale because its footprint is approximately 588.5
square feet on a building that is estimated to be no more than approximately 2,000 square feet in size and
approximately 29.5 feet in height, with the overall structure reaching the 35 foot height limit of the SPA 7
zone. The SPA 7 zoning requires that the City conduct an independent measurement of the height and
footprint of the enclosure because this project appears to be extremely close to exceeding the height
restrictions required to meet municipal code.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D)(3) requires consideration of the total size of the proposed
facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. When the rooftop enclosure
itself represents a very large portion of the total building footprint, the relative scale of the installation
becomes significantly more pronounced. A rooftop telecommunications enclosure of nearly 600 square
feet on a building of roughly 2,000 square feet represents a substantial structural addition that may
materially affect the building’s massing and rooftop profile in relation to nearby residential properties.
Conclusion
Although the staff report concludes that the project satisfies the screening and site selection criteria of
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code §17.40.170(D), the record does not appear to contain substantial
evidence demonstrating that alternative sites were meaningfully evaluated, that preference was actually
given to public or co location sites, that preference was given to sites not adjacent to residential uses, that
Page 187 of 466
the facility is truly integrated with the surrounding environment, or that the rooftop enclosure will not
create significant visual impacts on nearby residences.
For these reasons, the current record does not appear to demonstrate that the proposed facility represents
the least intrusive means of addressing a verified coverage gap, nor does it clearly demonstrate
compliance with the Conditional Use Permit findings required under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
§17.56.050.
The TCA and CEQA must be carfeully considered in this case. A request for full CEQA environmental
review and analysis of alternative sites is completed before approval.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue this item and require a more
comprehensive analysis of alternative locations, preferred siting options, and less intrusive technologies
before approving the Conditional Use Permit.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Duffy
Adjacent Property Owner
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 188 of 466
From:Elisabeth Brubaker
To:Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;Kate Hirsh
Subject:Comment for March 17th Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 Proposed Verizon Wireless
Telecommunications Facility 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:48:45 PM
Attachments:_Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 .pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this isimportant
Date: March 16, 2026
To
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I respectfully submit the following comments requesting that the Conditional Use Permit
CUP25 04, which proposes the installation of a Verizon Wireless telecommunications
facility on the roof of the building located at 725 5th Street be denied.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to modern communities, the
proposed installation raises significant concerns regarding compliance with the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code, land use compatibility, and the adequacy of the site selection
analysis provided in the application materials.
Based on review of the agenda packet and applicable municipal code provisions, the
following issues warrant careful consideration by the Planning Commission before any
approval of this project.
Compatibility With Surrounding Residential Uses
The staff report acknowledges that residential properties are located immediately to the
south and west of the proposed facility. The proposed installation consists of a substantial
rooftop telecommunications compound including nine panel antennas, six radios, and
multiple equipment cabinets contained within a 588.5 square foot enclosure.
Although the equipment is proposed to be screened, the overall scale and mass of the
Page 189 of 466
rooftop installation raises legitimate compatibility concerns given the extremely close
proximity to nearby homes and families. There is less than seven feet between the building
and the adjacent residential structure.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 governing Conditional Use Permits
requires the Planning Commission to determine that the proposed use will not be
detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements and that the design, location, size,
and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with surrounding land
uses.
Specifically:
Section 17.56.050(C) requires a finding that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements.
Section 17.56.050(D) requires a finding that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with existing and reasonably
foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference
shall be given to wireless facilities not located adjacent to residential uses. In this case the
proposed facility is directly adjacent to residential homes and within extremely close
proximity to existing residential structures.
Given the scale of the installation and its location immediately adjacent to residential
properties, it is unclear whether the required findings of compatibility and lack of detriment
can reasonably be made.
Height and Visual Impact
The project proposes a rooftop telecommunications enclosure measuring approximately
588.5 square feet and approximately 5 feet 6 inches in height above the parapet, resulting
in a total building height of approximately 35 feet.
This height represents the maximum height permitted within the SPA 7 zoning district.
While the installation may technically remain within the numerical height limit, the addition
of a large rooftop telecommunications compound significantly alters the visual massing and
profile of the building.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be
located and designed to reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public
streets.
Page 190 of 466
In addition, Section 17.40.170(B)(3) requires wireless facilities to utilize non reflective
materials and architectural treatments that blend with surrounding structures.
Section 17.40.170(D)(1) and (2) require the City to evaluate whether the facility is
architecturally integrated into a concealing structure and whether the facility is effectively
screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed structures.
The Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether a rooftop telecommunications
compound of this scale located immediately adjacent to residential homes appropriately
minimizes visual impacts and maintains compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
There is also a discrepancy within the applicant’s submitted materials regarding the height
calculations. The packet indicates the building height is approximately 30 feet while the
proposed enclosure height is approximately 5 feet 6 inches. These figures suggest the
possibility that the total structure height could exceed the 35 foot height limit applicable to
the SPA 7 zone.
At a minimum, the City should independently verify the building height, parapet height, and
total enclosure height before making any finding that the project complies with the
applicable height limitations.
Adequacy of Alternative Site Analysis
Federal telecommunications law requires wireless providers to demonstrate both the
existence of a significant gap in service and that the proposed facility represents the least
intrusive means of addressing that gap.
The agenda packet indicates that Verizon submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage
Solution Report asserting that the subject site represents the most feasible location and
that no other suitable structures were available.
However, the packet does not appear to include a detailed comparative analysis of
alternative sites or locations that were evaluated and rejected.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations when reviewing wireless telecommunications
facilities.
Without a meaningful evaluation of alternative commercial sites, publicly owned structures,
co location opportunities, or distributed small cell deployments, it is difficult to conclude that
the proposed rooftop installation represents the least intrusive solution available.
Reliance on Applicant Provided Technical Studies
Page 191 of 466
The technical analyses included in the application, including radio frequency compliance
evaluations and coverage gap analyses, appear to have been prepared by consultants
retained by the applicant. There is a discrepancy found on the elevation measurements
used from the adjacent home. It is important to note that the adjacent home is on a hill and
therefore an elevation measurement must be taken from the average grade. The applicant
did not comply with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17.04.040.
The agenda packet does not indicate that the City conducted or commissioned an
independent technical review of these studies.
Given the scale of the installation and its proximity to residential homes, independent
technical evaluation may be appropriate to ensure that the Planning Commission has
sufficient evidence to support the findings required under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Sections 17.56.050 and 17.40.170.
Long Term Site Suitability
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution acknowledge that future
development on adjacent properties could require modification or removal of the wireless
facility in order to maintain compliance with applicable radio frequency exposure
regulations.
Condition 9 specifically states that the permit does not grant Verizon any right to hinder
future lawful development of adjacent properties and that if site conditions change due to
lawful development on adjacent property, Verizon may need to modify or remove its
wireless facility or obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures.
This is a critical point.
The City is being asked to determine that the site is physically suitable and compatible
while simultaneously acknowledging that future lawful development on adjacent property
could force modification or elimination of the facility.
This issue is particularly significant because the enclosure is already proposed at the
maximum 35 foot height limit for the SPA 7 zone. The project is not being proposed with a
meaningful margin for future flexibility.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050(E) requires that the site be physically
suitable for the type of use proposed. If the facility may require modification or removal as
surrounding properties develop, it raises legitimate questions regarding the long term
suitability of this location.
This issue is especially relevant as I am the resident at 683 5th Street and am currently
working with my architect and structural engineer to prepare plans for a second story
Page 192 of 466
addition. I intend to submit the application to the City as soon as the architectural and
structural plans are completed and expect to submit the application no later than March 31,
2026.
If the City reviews my recent permits at this location, it will find that substantial structural
improvements have already been completed to support future vertical construction,
including underpins, shear walls, and steel beams.
CEQA Exemption Concerns
The staff report recommends that the project be categorically exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 3 exemption for
small structures.
However the project involves construction of a substantial rooftop telecommunications
compound measuring approximately 588.5 square feet containing multiple antennas radios
and supporting equipment and located immediately adjacent to residential homes.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that categorical exemptions do not apply where
unusual circumstances exist or where the project may result in a significant environmental
impact due to its location scale or surrounding conditions.
Given the size of the facility its immediate proximity to residential properties and the
potential visual land use and compatibility impacts associated with a large rooftop
telecommunications compound the applicability of the categorical exemption warrants
closer review.
Where unusual circumstances exist or where the project may create a reasonable
possibility of significant environmental impact CEQA requires that the categorical
exemption not be used and that appropriate environmental review be conducted.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any reports on the noise decibel readings that
will be created by the mechanical cooling systems.
Community Concerns
In addition to these planning and code considerations, a community petition regarding this
proposal has already gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the
majority of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code.
While petitions do not determine land use decisions, they demonstrate that many residents
believe the project warrants additional scrutiny given its immediate proximity to residential
homes.
Page 193 of 466
Conclusion
Reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to the community. However, the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code requires that such infrastructure be carefully located and
designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and to minimize
unnecessary impacts. The municipal code clearly establishes a hierarchy of preferred siting
criteria for wireless facilities, including avoiding adjacency to residential properties. The
applicant has proposed a large macro installation directly next to homes without
demonstrating that less intrusive alternatives were fully evaluated.
Given the size of the proposed rooftop compound, its close proximity to residential homes,
the fact that the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum allowable height, and the
acknowledgment that future development on adjacent properties may require modification
or removal of the facility, the Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether the
required Conditional Use Permit findings under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections
17.56.050, 17.40.170, and 17.46.210 can be satisfied.
At a minimum, additional analysis of alternative locations and independent review of the
applicant’s technical submissions would help ensure that the Commission’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and consistent with both municipal code requirements
and federal telecommunications laws.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Liz Brubaker
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 194 of 466
Date: March 16, 2026
To
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I respectfully submit the following comments requesting that the Conditional Use Permit CUP25
04, which proposes the installation of a Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility on the roof
of the building located at 725 5th Street be denied.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to modern communities, the
proposed installation raises significant concerns regarding compliance with the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code, land use compatibility, and the adequacy of the site selection analysis provided
in the application materials.
Based on review of the agenda packet and applicable municipal code provisions, the following
issues warrant careful consideration by the Planning Commission before any approval of this
project.
Compatibility With Surrounding Residential Uses
The staff report acknowledges that residential properties are located immediately to the south
and west of the proposed facility. The proposed installation consists of a substantial rooftop
telecommunications compound including nine panel antennas, six radios, and multiple
equipment cabinets contained within a 588.5 square foot enclosure.
Although the equipment is proposed to be screened, the overall scale and mass of the rooftop
installation raises legitimate compatibility concerns given the extremely close proximity to
nearby homes and families. There is less than seven feet between the building and the adjacent
residential structure.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 governing Conditional Use Permits requires
the Planning Commission to determine that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements and that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with surrounding land uses.
Page 195 of 466
Specifically:
Section 17.56.050(C) requires a finding that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements.
Section 17.56.050(D) requires a finding that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with existing and reasonably foreseeable
future land uses in the vicinity.
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference
shall be given to wireless facilities not located adjacent to residential uses. In this case the
proposed facility is directly adjacent to residential homes and within extremely close proximity to
existing residential structures.
Given the scale of the installation and its location immediately adjacent to residential properties,
it is unclear whether the required findings of compatibility and lack of detriment can reasonably
be made.
Height and Visual Impact
The project proposes a rooftop telecommunications enclosure measuring approximately 588.5
square feet and approximately 5 feet 6 inches in height above the parapet, resulting in a total
building height of approximately 35 feet.
This height represents the maximum height permitted within the SPA 7 zoning district.
While the installation may technically remain within the numerical height limit, the addition of a
large rooftop telecommunications compound significantly alters the visual massing and profile of
the building.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be located
and designed to reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public streets.
In addition, Section 17.40.170(B)(3) requires wireless facilities to utilize non reflective materials
and architectural treatments that blend with surrounding structures.
Section 17.40.170(D)(1) and (2) require the City to evaluate whether the facility is architecturally
integrated into a concealing structure and whether the facility is effectively screened or
camouflaged by existing or proposed structures.
The Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether a rooftop telecommunications
compound of this scale located immediately adjacent to residential homes appropriately
minimizes visual impacts and maintains compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
There is also a discrepancy within the applicant’s submitted materials regarding the height
calculations. The packet indicates the building height is approximately 30 feet while the
Page 196 of 466
proposed enclosure height is approximately 5 feet 6 inches. These figures suggest the
possibility that the total structure height could exceed the 35 foot height limit applicable to the
SPA 7 zone.
At a minimum, the City should independently verify the building height, parapet height, and total
enclosure height before making any finding that the project complies with the applicable height
limitations.
Adequacy of Alternative Site Analysis
Federal telecommunications law requires wireless providers to demonstrate both the existence
of a significant gap in service and that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive means
of addressing that gap.
The agenda packet indicates that Verizon submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage Solution
Report asserting that the subject site represents the most feasible location and that no other
suitable structures were available.
However, the packet does not appear to include a detailed comparative analysis of alternative
sites or locations that were evaluated and rejected.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations when reviewing wireless telecommunications
facilities.
Without a meaningful evaluation of alternative commercial sites, publicly owned structures, co
location opportunities, or distributed small cell deployments, it is difficult to conclude that the
proposed rooftop installation represents the least intrusive solution available.
Reliance on Applicant Provided Technical Studies
The technical analyses included in the application, including radio frequency compliance
evaluations and coverage gap analyses, appear to have been prepared by consultants retained
by the applicant. There is a discrepancy found on the elevation measurements used from the
adjacent home. It is important to note that the adjacent home is on a hill and therefore an
elevation measurement must be taken from the average grade. The applicant did not comply
with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17.04.040.
The agenda packet does not indicate that the City conducted or commissioned an independent
technical review of these studies.
Given the scale of the installation and its proximity to residential homes, independent technical
evaluation may be appropriate to ensure that the Planning Commission has sufficient evidence
to support the findings required under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.56.050 and
17.40.170.
Page 197 of 466
Long Term Site Suitability
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution acknowledge that future development
on adjacent properties could require modification or removal of the wireless facility in order to
maintain compliance with applicable radio frequency exposure regulations.
Condition 9 specifically states that the permit does not grant Verizon any right to hinder future
lawful development of adjacent properties and that if site conditions change due to lawful
development on adjacent property, Verizon may need to modify or remove its wireless facility or
obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures.
This is a critical point.
The City is being asked to determine that the site is physically suitable and compatible while
simultaneously acknowledging that future lawful development on adjacent property could force
modification or elimination of the facility.
This issue is particularly significant because the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum
35 foot height limit for the SPA 7 zone. The project is not being proposed with a meaningful
margin for future flexibility.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050(E) requires that the site be physically
suitable for the type of use proposed. If the facility may require modification or removal as
surrounding properties develop, it raises legitimate questions regarding the long term suitability
of this location.
This issue is especially relevant as I am the resident at 683 5th Street and am currently working
with my architect and structural engineer to prepare plans for a second story addition. I intend to
submit the application to the City as soon as the architectural and structural plans are
completed and expect to submit the application no later than March 31, 2026.
If the City reviews my recent permits at this location, it will find that substantial structural
improvements have already been completed to support future vertical construction, including
underpins, shear walls, and steel beams.
CEQA Exemption Concerns
The staff report recommends that the project be categorically exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 3 exemption for small structures.
However the project involves construction of a substantial rooftop telecommunications
compound measuring approximately 588.5 square feet containing multiple antennas radios and
supporting equipment and located immediately adjacent to residential homes.
Page 198 of 466
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that categorical exemptions do not apply where
unusual circumstances exist or where the project may result in a significant environmental
impact due to its location scale or surrounding conditions.
Given the size of the facility its immediate proximity to residential properties and the potential
visual land use and compatibility impacts associated with a large rooftop telecommunications
compound the applicability of the categorical exemption warrants closer review.
Where unusual circumstances exist or where the project may create a reasonable possibility of
significant environmental impact CEQA requires that the categorical exemption not be used and
that appropriate environmental review be conducted.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any reports on the noise decibel readings that will
be created by the mechanical cooling systems.
Community Concerns
In addition to these planning and code considerations, a community petition regarding this
proposal has already gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the
majority of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code.
While petitions do not determine land use decisions, they demonstrate that many residents
believe the project warrants additional scrutiny given its immediate proximity to residential
homes.
Conclusion
Reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important to the community. However, the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code requires that such infrastructure be carefully located and
designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and to minimize unnecessary
impacts. The municipal code clearly establishes a hierarchy of preferred siting criteria for
wireless facilities, including avoiding adjacency to residential properties. The applicant has
proposed a large macro installation directly next to homes without demonstrating that less
intrusive alternatives were fully evaluated.
Given the size of the proposed rooftop compound, its close proximity to residential homes, the
fact that the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum allowable height, and the
acknowledgment that future development on adjacent properties may require modification or
removal of the facility, the Planning Commission should carefully evaluate whether the required
Conditional Use Permit findings under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.56.050,
17.40.170, and 17.46.210 can be satisfied.
At a minimum, additional analysis of alternative locations and independent review of the
applicant’s technical submissions would help ensure that the Commission’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and consistent with both municipal code requirements and
federal telecommunications laws.
Page 199 of 466
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Liz Brubaker
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 200 of 466
From:Robby Brubaker
To:Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;Kate Hirsh
Subject:Comment for March 17th Hearing Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 Proposed Verizon Wireless
Telecommunications Facility 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 7:08:27 AM
Attachments:Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 .pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this isimportant
Dear Planning Commission and Community Development Staff,
Please find attached my formal written comments regarding Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 for the proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
I respectfully request that this letter be included in the official record for the PlanningCommission’s review and consideration prior to the hearing.
The attached document outlines several concerns related to municipal code compliance,compatibility with surrounding residential properties, the adequacy of the alternative site
analysis, and the long-term suitability of this location for the proposed installation.
Thank you for confirming receipt of this submission and for including it in the meeting record.
Sincerely,Robert Brubaker
Page 201 of 466
Date: March 16, 2026
To:
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04
Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully review and deny the
proposed Conditional Use Permit, CUP25 04, for the installation of a Verizon Wireless
telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
While reliable wireless infrastructure is important for modern communities, the proposed
installation raises several significant concerns related to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,
land use compatibility, and the adequacy of the site selection analysis provided in the
application materials.
Based on a review of the agenda packet and applicable municipal code provisions, the following
issues warrant careful consideration.
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Residential Uses
The staff report acknowledges that residential properties are located immediately to the south
and west of the proposed facility. The proposed installation consists of a substantial rooftop
telecommunications compound including nine panel antennas, six radios, and multiple
equipment cabinets contained within a 588.5 square foot enclosure.
Although the equipment is proposed to be screened, the overall scale and mass of the rooftop
installation raises legitimate compatibility concerns given the close proximity to nearby homes
and families. There is less than 7 feet between the building and the adjacent home.
Under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050 governing Conditional Use Permits,
the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties or improvements and that the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the use are compatible with surrounding land uses. More specifically, Section
17.56.050(C) requires a finding that the use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements,
and Section 17.56.050(D) requires a finding that the design, location, size, and operating
Page 202 of 466
characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably
foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.
In addition, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(6) states that preference
shall be given to sites not located adjacent to residential uses. The staff report also
acknowledges that the site is within 200 feet of residential use and that the screened structure is
only 10 feet from the west property line. Given the size of the proposed installation and its
location directly adjacent to residential uses, it is unclear whether these required findings can
reasonably be made.
2. Height and Visual Impact Considerations
The proposed telecommunications facility would extend the building height to the maximum
allowable height of approximately 35 feet in the applicable zone. The packet states that the
screening structure measures 5 feet 6 inches in height from the parapet wall, totals 588.5
square feet, and results in a building height of 35 feet. It also states that the top of the proposed
enclosure is at 35 feet, which is the maximum height permitted in SPA 7.
While the installation may technically remain within the permitted height limit, the addition of a
large rooftop compound containing multiple antennas and equipment structures substantially
alters the visual massing of the building.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 requires rooftop equipment to be located
and designed to reduce visual impacts from surrounding properties and public streets. Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(B)(3) further requires that the facility exterior be
comprised of non reflective materials and be painted or camouflaged to blend with surrounding
materials and colors. Section 17.40.170(D)(1) and (2) require the City to consider the extent to
which the facility is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure and the extent to which
it is actually screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed structures.
The Commission should carefully evaluate whether the size and visibility of this rooftop
compound is appropriate in a location immediately adjacent to residential properties to the east
and south of the project that will lose their existing ocean views.
Lastly, there is a discrepancy listed in the data provided by the applicant showing the height of
the building is 30 feet and the height of the proposed cell tower is 5 feet 6 inches. This would
exceed the height limit restricted by SPA 7 zoning height limits. At a minimum, the City should
independently verify the roof height, parapet height, and full enclosure height before making any
finding that the proposal complies with the SPA 7 height limit. The fact that the proposed
enclosure is already at the maximum 35 foot limit is particularly important because the
applicant’s own approval conditions acknowledge that future development on adjacent
properties could require modification or removal of the facility to remain compliant. Therefore,
when the adjacent property is developed it will not meet FCC compliance requirements and the
structure is already at its height limit.
3. Adequacy of Alternative Site Analysis
Page 203 of 466
Federal telecommunications law requires that applicants demonstrate both the existence of a
significant gap in wireless service and that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive
means of addressing that gap.
The agenda packet indicates that Verizon submitted a Gap Identification and Coverage Solution
Report asserting that the subject site represents the most feasible location and that no other
suitable structures were available. However, the packet does not appear to include a detailed
comparative analysis of alternative sites or locations that were evaluated and rejected. The staff
report states only that Verizon asserts the site was the most feasible location analyzed and that
no other towers or suitable tall structures are available in the targeted search area.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(4) requires the City to consider the
availability of suitable alternative locations. A statement from the applicant that no other sites
are available does not constitute a comprehensive alternative site analysis. In the absence of a
clear analysis demonstrating why alternative commercial locations, publicly owned structures,
co location opportunities, or distributed small cell deployments could not address the claimed
coverage gap, it is difficult to conclude that this rooftop installation represents the least intrusive
solution available.
4. Reliance on Applicant Provided Technical Studies
The technical analyses included in the application, including the radio frequency compliance
evaluation and coverage gap analysis, appear to have been prepared by consultants retained
by the applicant. It does not appear that the City has conducted or commissioned independent
technical review to verify these conclusions.
Given the scale of the proposed installation and its proximity to residential homes, additional
independent evaluation may be appropriate to ensure that the Planning Commission has
sufficient evidence to support the findings required under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,
including Section 17.56.050 and the wireless facility standards under Section 17.40.170.
One very important detail to examine is the applicant’s measurement of the adjacent homes.
These homes are on a hill and according to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, elevation
measurements should be taken from average grade. The applicant failed to provide correct data
showing the elevation of the RF zone from average grade and also did not provide any data
from the adjacent home if the structure were to build a second story at the 30 foot compliant
height limit with a rooftop deck where people can stand 5 to 6 feet over the roof line.
5. Long Term Site Suitability
The conditions of approval included in the draft resolution acknowledge that future development
on adjacent properties could require modification or removal of the wireless facility in order to
maintain compliance with applicable radio frequency exposure regulations. Specifically,
Condition 9 states that the permit does not grant Verizon any right to make adjacent properties
inaccessible to the public or to hinder future lawful development of adjacent properties as a
mitigation measure, and it further states that if site conditions change in the future due to lawful
Page 204 of 466
development on adjacent property, Verizon may need to modify or remove its wireless facility, or
obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures on the adjacent property, in
order to maintain compliance with laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions.
This is a critical point. The City is simultaneously being asked to find that this site is physically
suitable and compatible, while the applicant’s own conditions acknowledge that lawful future
development on adjacent property may force modification or elimination of the facility. That issue
is even more significant here because the enclosure is already proposed at the absolute 35 foot
height limit for SPA 7. The project is not being proposed with a meaningful margin for future
flexibility. Instead, it is being proposed at its maximum height in a location immediately adjacent
to residential properties, while the approval itself acknowledges that future neighboring
development may create compliance conflicts.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.56.050(E) requires that the site be physically
suitable for the type of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of
physical constraints. If the installation may create future conflicts with adjacent development, it
raises legitimate questions about whether this location is appropriate for telecommunications
infrastructure of this scale.
This condition indicates that the facility’s compliance assumptions depend on the current
configuration of surrounding properties and may change if neighboring sites are redeveloped in
the future. This raises additional questions regarding the long term suitability of this location for
a telecommunications installation of this scale.
This is especially important as I am the resident at 683 5th Street and am currently working with
my architect and structural engineer to provide me the plans so I can submit them to the city
within the next few weeks so I can start the construction on my second story. I have already
submitted a building permit application to the City in order to initiate this process, however the
City responded that the application could not be accepted because additional architectural and
structural documents were required before a permit number could be opened. This confirms that
the City is already aware that development of the second story is being actively pursued.
I would like it to be recorded that the intent to build this second story has already been formally
communicated to the City through the permit application process. The proposed second story
represents Phase 2 of improvements to my home. Phase 1 of this project involved substantial
structural work that was previously approved by the City and completed specifically to prepare
the existing structure for a future vertical addition. These improvements included structural
reinforcement such as underpins, shear walls, and steel beams designed to support the
additional load of a second story.
I will be submitting a complete permit application including architectural and structural plans as
soon as they become available, which is expected no later than March 31st 2026.
If you take a moment to review my recent permits at this location, you can find the structural
construction that was completed on my home to ensure the current structure already has the
Page 205 of 466
structural integrity for my build up. All of this data should be taken into consideration when
confirming the details of this proposed telecommunications project.
6. Community Concerns
In addition to these planning and code considerations, a community petition regarding this
proposal has already gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the
majority of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code. While public petitions do not
determine land use decisions, they do demonstrate that many residents believe the project
warrants additional scrutiny given its location within a residential adjacent area.
7. Additional Municipal Code Concerns Regarding Site Selection and Design
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(5) states that preference shall be given
to publicly owned structures, co location, and shared sites. The current record does not
demonstrate that those preferred siting options were meaningfully pursued.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(7) provides that whenever possible,
wireless communication facilities should be located on existing buildings, existing poles, or other
existing support structures. However, use of an existing building does not by itself resolve the
separate requirements regarding compatibility, scale, screening, and residential adjacency.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170(D)(3) requires consideration of the total size
of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. A
rooftop telecommunications enclosure of nearly 600 square feet on a building of roughly 2,000
square feet represents a substantial structural addition that may materially affect the building’s
massing and rooftop profile in relation to nearby residential properties.
Conclusion
Reliable telecommunications infrastructure is essential, and residents recognize the importance
of strong wireless service throughout the community. However, the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code requires that such infrastructure be carefully located and designed to ensure compatibility
with surrounding neighborhoods and to minimize unnecessary impacts.
Given the size of the proposed rooftop compound, its close proximity to residential homes, the
fact that the enclosure is already proposed at the maximum 35 foot height limit, and the
applicant’s own acknowledgment that future lawful development on adjacent properties may
require the facility to be modified or removed, the Commission should carefully evaluate
whether the required Conditional Use Permit findings can be satisfied under Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Sections 17.56.050, 17.40.170, and 17.46.210.
At a minimum, additional analysis of alternative locations, independent review of the applicant’s
technical submissions, and independent verification of the building and enclosure height
measurements would help ensure that the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial
Page 206 of 466
evidence and consistent with both municipal code requirements and federal telecommunications
law.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Brubaker
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 207 of 466
From:Mike Nickle
To:Planning Commission
Subject:725 5th St Telecommunications facility opposition
Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:20:12 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this isimportant
Hello,
I am completely opposed to a 588 sq foot wireless telecommunications facility on
the roof of 725 5th Street in Hermosa Beach as I live at 833 5th Street. We spend
quite a bit of money to live in Hermosa Beach and do not want to have our ocean
view obstructed by an unnecessary structure. I have Verizon wireless and do not
experience any coverage issues in Hermosa, except inside the local Pavilions
grocery store.
Other locations to consider include:
Frontier / Verizon central office located at 1st and PCH - this would be
ideal, since it is already owned by Frontier/Verizon
Hermosa Beach city maintenance yard that is one block north on 6th and
Valley Ave that appears to be a graveyard for old street signs
Pavilions location on Pier Ave as cell service is very poor there
Vacant Big Lots property on Aviation Blvd
I will be attending the public hearing on Tuesday, March 17.
Thank you,
Mike Nickle
Page 208 of 466
From:Jennifer Duffy
To:Planning
Subject:Opposition to CUP25-04 – Verizon Wireless Facility at 725 5th Street
Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 2:53:24 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Officials,
I am writing on behalf of concerned residents and myself, a Hermosa
Beach resident living very adjacent to the subject property. I write to
respectfully oppose Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04, which proposes
installation of an approximately 588.5-square-foot rooftop Verizon wireless
telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
While reliable telecommunications service is important, this proposal raises
several significant concerns:
CEQA Review: The project is proposed as categorically exempt under
CEQA. However, due to its size, visibility, and extremely close
proximity (less than seven feet) to neighboring residences, it may
qualify as an “unusual circumstance” requiring further environmental
review.
Land-Use Compatibility: The facility would introduce substantial
rooftop equipment and structures in a mixed-use area with nearby
residences, potentially conflicting with the residential scale and
character of the neighborhood.
Visual and Neighborhood Impacts: Rooftop telecommunications
compounds can significantly alter skyline views and building massing,
which is particularly important in a coastal community like Hermosa
Beach.
Potential Property Value Effects: Visible telecommunications
infrastructure near homes can affect buyer perception and
neighborhood desirability.
Page 209 of 466
Alternative Sites: Before approving such a facility in close proximity
to homes, the applicant should demonstrate that less intrusive
alternatives—such as co-location on existing infrastructure or
placement in commercial areas—have been fully evaluated.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission
deny CUP25-04 as currently proposed or require additional environmental
review and evaluation of alternative locations.
Hermosa Beach residents value the visual character, livability, and
residential quality of our community, and infrastructure projects should be
designed in a manner that protects those qualities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Close proximity neighbor to 725 5th St
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 210 of 466
From:Jennifer Duffy
To:Planning
Subject:March 17, 2026 Meeting: Opposition to CUP25-04 – Verizon Wireless Facility at 725 5th Street
Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 2:55:43 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Officials,
I am writing on behalf of concerned residents and myself, a Hermosa
Beach resident living very adjacent to the subject property. I write to
respectfully oppose Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04, which proposes
installation of an approximately 588.5-square-foot rooftop Verizon wireless
telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
While reliable telecommunications service is important, this proposal raises
several significant concerns:
CEQA Review: The project is proposed as categorically exempt under
CEQA. However, due to its size, visibility, and extremely close
proximity (less than seven feet) to neighboring residences, it may
qualify as an “unusual circumstance” requiring further environmental
review.
Land-Use Compatibility: The facility would introduce substantial
rooftop equipment and structures in a mixed-use area with nearby
residences, potentially conflicting with the residential scale and
character of the neighborhood.
Visual and Neighborhood Impacts: Rooftop telecommunications
compounds can significantly alter skyline views and building massing,
which is particularly important in a coastal community like Hermosa
Beach.
Potential Property Value Effects: Visible telecommunications
infrastructure near homes can affect buyer perception and
neighborhood desirability.
Alternative Sites: Before approving such a facility in close proximity
Page 211 of 466
to homes, the applicant should demonstrate that less intrusive
alternatives—such as co-location on existing infrastructure or
placement in commercial areas—have been fully evaluated.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission
deny CUP25-04 as currently proposed or require additional environmental
review and evaluation of alternative locations.
Hermosa Beach residents value the visual character, livability, and
residential quality of our community, and infrastructure projects should be
designed in a manner that protects those qualities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Close proximity neighbor to 725 5th St
Hermosa Beach Resident
Page 212 of 466
From:Randy Cox
To:Planning
Subject:eComment, Agenda Item, March 17, 2026, proposed wireless installation
Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:30:19 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
March 16, 2026
Community Development Dept.Planning Div. Attn: DT
eComment from Randall Cox, Hermosa Beach resident
Agenda Item, March 17, 2026
Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate Verizon telecommunications facilityat 725 5th St, Hermosa Beach
I am a Hermosa Beach resident living near the intersection of Ocean View Ave and 5th St. I am
one block east of PCH, and the proposed Verizon telecommunications facility on the roof of 7255th St is one block to the west of PCH. I have a direct and unobstructed line-of-sight from my
residence to that roof.
I am opposed to installing this wireless facility, not even as much for the possibility of impairing
my view, but for the health and safety of myself and neighboring community. For some time, Ihave been aware of the potential health risks from such large wireless equipment emitting
radiation and a constant or repeating signal.
It is a coincidence that just over a week ago, I received an email from Children's Health Defenseabout a recent Swedish scientific study of people living near newly-installed 5G towers. I think it
will be beneficial to share this short email below. Several key points are made, and there is a linkto "EMF Hazards, Safeguard Our Future" Summit, which may or not work for you. There is a
wealth of information available, and I encourage the Planning Division and concerned residents to
look into this further, before approving or moving forward with this project.
- Randal CoxHermosa Beach
(scroll down below for related email)
Shocking: What happened 50 meters from a 5G tower
From: Childrens Health Defense <team@childrenshealthdefense.org>To:
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 11:06:26 AM PSTSubject: Shocking: What happened 50 meters from a 5G tower
Shocking: What happened 50 meters from a 5G tower
Page 213 of 466
CHD Logo with Registered Mark
EMF Hazards Summit - Safeguard Our Future
A team of Swedish scientists recently published something disturbing...
As you'll discover during EMF Hazards: Safeguard Our Future, they documented
eight case studies of people living near newly-installed 5G towers. The
Page 214 of 466
results? Within days of activation, residents living within 150 feet developed
unexplained symptoms. Headaches. Sleep issues. Fatigue. Even nosebleeds.
Once these people moved away? The symptoms vanished.
But here's the truly alarming part: The radiation levels measured near these towers
were still "within safety limits" according to government guidelines.
Let that sink in: People got sick from radiation levels that our regulatory agencies
claim are "perfectly safe."
These findings are SHOCKING, and yet not a single mainstream news outlet has
reported on it. Meanwhile, 5G towers are being installed in neighborhoods across
the world. Every. Single. Day.
During EMF Hazards: Safeguard Our Future, journalist Mona Nilsson will
reveal:
Why current "safety" limits are up to 100,000 times too high
The astronomical radiation levels measured near these towers
Why some people (and even pets) got sick while others didn't
What this means for your family's safety
Simple steps to protect yourself if you live near a tower
Mona and 17 other world-renowned scientists and doctors have broken their
silence.
Our friend Nick Pineault, aka “The EMF Guy,” has decided to make their
groundbreaking insights available for no charge — but only for a limited time.
===> No-Cost Access For 48 Hours: EMF Hazards: Safeguard Our Future
You deserve to know about these findings.
Listen to the EMF Hazards Summit to learn the facts and get practical solutions to
protect yourself, and future generations.
WATCH NOW
Thank you,
The Children’s Health Defense Team
P.S. No fear or tech-shaming. Just simple, practical solutions to help you use
Page 215 of 466
technology safely and protect your loved ones. But remember: this free
access disappears just 48 hours after you sign up.
You Make It Possible
Children’s Health Defense depends on generous donations from ourcommunity. Large or small, every donation gets us closer to achieving
our goals.
Donate Now
Children’s Health Defense® is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our
mission is ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic
exposure. We will restore and protect the health of children by eliminating
environmental exposures, holding responsible parties accountable, and
establishing safeguards to prevent future harm of children's health.
Protecting Children. Exposing Harms. Seeking Justice.
ChildrensHealthDefense.org | Contact Us | Work for CHD
FIND US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
852 Franklin Ave Suite 511 | Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 US
Page 216 of 466
From:Elisabeth Brubaker
To:Planning; Planning Commission; Sarah Locklin; Stephen Izant; Michael Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Greg McNally;Kate Hirsh
Subject:Comment for March 17th Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit CUP25 04 Proposed Verizon Wireless
Telecommunications Facility 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach
Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:56:30 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Please find the community petition regarding this proposal that has already
gathered significant support from Hermosa Beach residents, with the majority
of signatures coming from within the local ZIP code (112).
While petitions do not determine land use decisions, they demonstrate that
many residents believe the project warrants additional scrutiny given its
immediate proximity to residential homes. We ask that this petition and the 205
signatures be added to the record.
Respectfully,
Liz Brubaker
Hermosa Beach Resident
Linked Here:
https://c.org/2msYZnZbns
PETITION TO OPPOSE
Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04
Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street – Hermosa Beach
To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Officials:
Page 217 of 466
We, the undersigned residents and community members, respectfully
petition the City of Hermosa Beach to deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-
04, which proposes installation of an approximately 588.5 square foot
rooftop Verizon wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.
While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important, the
proposed project raises serious concerns regarding CEQA compliance,
zoning compatibility, visual impacts, and compliance with the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code.
Families, including one with small children, are living just 7 feet away from
the proposed cell tower installation. The Planning Commission may
approve this project unless residents make their concerns known.
We are asking our community to stand together. Hermosa Beach residents
support one another and value the safety and livability of our
neighborhoods.
Please sign this petition to help prevent the installation of a large
telecommunications tower immediately adjacent to homes where young
children live.
KEY CONCERNS
1. Failure to Meet Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Guidelines
Four of the seven guidelines in Municipal Code Subsection 17.40.170(D)
appear not to be satisfied.
Concerns include:
• Alternate sites were not adequately evaluated
• Alternate sites may exist in industrial areas, but Verizon has declined to
fully disclose them
• Preference guidelines for facility placement are not satisfied
• The building is not a preferred facility type
2. RF Modeling Relies on Assumed Building Elevations
The RF compliance report relies entirely on predictive modeling based on
Page 218 of 466
assumed elevations of nearby buildings and site inputs.
Because RF exposure predictions depend on the vertical distance between
antennas and surrounding structures, inaccurate elevation assumptions
could alter predicted exposure contours and rooftop safety zones.
Before approving the project, the City should confirm that:
• RF modeling used surveyed roof elevations
• The model accurately reflects the geometry of surrounding buildings
At present, the roof heights of surrounding properties are not accurately
recorded or depicted in relation to the antenna height.
3. Failure to Demonstrate a Significant Gap in Service or the Least Intrusive
Means
Federal law does not require cities to approve every proposed wireless
facility.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)), local
governments retain authority to regulate wireless facility placement
through zoning and land use decisions.
Courts within the Ninth Circuit require wireless providers to demonstrate:
• A significant gap in wireless service, and
• That the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of closing that gap
Relevant cases include:
• MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco
• T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes
The burden of proof rests on the applicant and typically requires technical
evidence such as:
• Radiofrequency propagation maps
• Drive test data showing real world signal performance
Page 219 of 466
• Dropped call or reliability data
• Engineering analysis demonstrating how the facility resolves the gap
Courts distinguish between true coverage gaps and projects that merely
improve service quality or capacity.
In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated that:
• A significant service gap exists in the area, or
• A tower located 7 feet from homes represents the least intrusive means of
addressing the gap
Without such evidence, the City may deny the application based on zoning
compatibility, neighborhood impacts, and local planning standards.
4. Improper Reliance on a CEQA Categorical Exemption
The City proposes to approve the project using a CEQA categorical
exemption.
However, CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions when unusual
circumstances may create significant environmental effects.
This project includes several unusual circumstances:
• A large telecommunications compound (588.5 square feet)
• Tower height of approximately 35 feet or more
• Extreme proximity to residences (7 feet)
• Location within a mixed use residential coastal neighborhood
Under Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, such
circumstances may require full environmental review rather than a
categorical exemption.
5. Land Use Compatibility Concerns
The proposed facility is located within a mixed use residential
neighborhood with homes immediately adjacent to the site.
Page 220 of 466
The project introduces:
• Antennas
• Rooftop equipment enclosures
• Mechanical infrastructure
• Screening structures
• Additional building mass
This type of infrastructure is typically located in commercial or industrial
corridors, not immediately adjacent to residential homes.
Given the scale of the installation and its proximity to nearby residences,
the project appears incompatible with surrounding residential land uses.
6. Visual Impacts and Neighborhood Character
Telecommunications towers and rooftop compounds can significantly
affect:
• Skyline views
• Neighborhood character
• Building massing
These impacts are particularly important in coastal communities, where
preservation of visual character is a central planning objective.
7. Property Value and Marketability Concerns
Visible telecommunications infrastructure located directly next to homes
can affect buyer perception and property marketability.
While property value impacts alone may not determine approval, they are
relevant when evaluating compatibility with surrounding land uses under
Conditional Use Permit findings.
8. Violation of Zoning Height Limits
Hermosa Beach zoning generally limits building height to approximately 30
feet in residential zones.
Page 221 of 466
The proposed facility includes antenna structures approximately 10 feet
above the roofline, resulting in an effective structure height exceeding
typical zoning limits.
9. Failure to Meet Municipal Code Limits on Antenna Height Variances
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 allows antennas to
exceed height limits only when:
• The surface area exceeding the height limit does not exceed 12 square feet,
and
• The device does not exceed 15 feet above the building height limit
The proposed telecommunications compound is approximately 588.5
square feet, far exceeding the 12 square foot variance allowance.
10. Failure to Evaluate Less Intrusive Alternatives
Before approving a telecommunications facility immediately adjacent to
homes, the applicant should demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives
were evaluated, including:
• Co- location on existing telecommunications infrastructure
• Placement within commercial zones
• Placement within nearby industrial areas
Approval without evaluating feasible alternatives could expose the permit
to legal challenge.
11. Precautionary Planning
Although federal law limits denial based solely on RF emissions, the
extreme proximity of the proposed installation (7 feet from residences)
highlights the importance of prudent siting decisions to protect residential
quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Page 222 of 466
Before approving a large rooftop telecommunications facility immediately
adjacent to residential homes, the City should require the applicant to
demonstrate, with competent technical evidence, that:
• A significant gap in wireless service exists, and
• The proposed installation represents the least intrusive means of closing
that gap
• A full CEQA environmental review and analysis of alternative sites is
completed prior to approval
Without this evidence, approval of the proposed facility would be
inconsistent with federal telecommunications law and the land use
authority preserved to local governments.
REQUEST
For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Hermosa
Beach Planning Commission:
• Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed
Or require the following before any approval:
• Full CEQA environmental review and analysis of alternative sites
• A complete two prong analysis demonstrating a significant gap and least
intrusive means
• Compliance with municipal code height limits
• A residential compatibility evaluation
• Re evaluation of Municipal Code Subsection 17.40.170(D) guidelines
• Formal review of the concerns presented in this petition
Hermosa Beach residents value the livability, visual character, and
residential quality of our coastal community, and telecommunications
infrastructure should be deployed in a manner consistent with those values.
Respectfully submitted,
Residents of
Page 223 of 466
Hermosa Beach, California
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
LEGAL AUTHORITY SUPPORTING OPPOSITION
Proposed Verizon Wireless Facility – 725 5th Street
Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04
This document outlines the legal authority supporting opposition to the
proposed Verizon wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street in
Hermosa Beach.
1. Failure to Demonstrate a Significant Gap in Service and Failure to
Demonstrate the Least Intrusive Means
Two Part Legal Test
The Ninth Circuit requires wireless providers to demonstrate two things
before a facility may be approved:
A significant gap in wireless service exists
The proposed facility is the least intrusive means of closing that gap
This legal standard comes from:
• MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005)
• T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009)
In this CUP case the proposal involves:
• A cell tower 7 feet from homes
Page 224 of 466
• A 588 square foot rooftop compound
• A 40 foot total height structure
• Location in a mixed use residential neighborhood
• Possible commercial and industrial alternatives nearby
These facts strongly support the conclusion that less intrusive alternatives
likely exist.
Examples courts expect wireless providers to evaluate include:
• Co location on existing towers
• Mounting antennas on commercial buildings
• Placement in industrial areas
• Use of smaller distributed antennas
• Multiple micro cells instead of a tower
The applicant has not demonstrated that a significant gap in wireless
service exists or that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive
means of addressing such a gap.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, telecommunications providers must
demonstrate both the existence of a significant coverage gap and that the
proposed site is the least intrusive means of closing that gap.
The record does not demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives such as:
• Co location on existing facilities
• Placement in commercial or industrial areas
• Use of distributed antenna systems
have been fully evaluated.
Burden of Proof Lies With the Applicant
The burden of proof rests on the telecommunications provider, not the City
or the public.
Technical Evidence Typically Required to Demonstrate a Significant Gap
Page 225 of 466
Courts expect wireless providers to submit technical evidence
demonstrating the existence of a significant gap in service.
Typical evidence includes:
• Propagation maps showing existing and predicted signal strength
• Drive test data measuring real world signal performance
• Dropped call data or network reliability metrics
• Coverage modeling reports prepared by radiofrequency engineers
• Comparisons of signal strength before and after installation
Courts have rejected wireless facility approvals when this evidence is
incomplete or insufficient.
In MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit
emphasized that generalized claims of improved service are not enough.
Providers must present specific technical evidence demonstrating a true
coverage gap.
Application to the Proposed Facility at 725 5th Street
Before such a facility can be approved so close to residential homes, federal
telecommunications law requires the applicant to demonstrate:
A significant gap in wireless service exists, and
The proposed facility represents the least intrusive means of closing that
gap.
It remains unclear whether the applicant has provided sufficient technical
evidence demonstrating:
• The existence of a significant coverage gap in the surrounding area
• That co location on existing infrastructure has been fully evaluated
• That placement in nearby commercial or industrial areas is infeasible
• That smaller distributed antenna systems could address the alleged
service needs
Without such evidence, approval of the proposed facility would be
inconsistent with Ninth Circuit legal standards.
Page 226 of 466
Compatibility With Local Land Use Authority
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserves local authority to
regulate the placement and appearance of wireless facilities.
Courts consistently affirm that local governments may deny wireless
facilities based on legitimate land use concerns when the applicant fails to
satisfy the two part legal test.
See:
• Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009)
If the applicant cannot demonstrate both a significant service gap and the
least intrusive means, the City may lawfully deny the application based on:
• Zoning compatibility
• Aesthetic impacts
• Neighborhood character
2. CEQA Prohibits Use of a Categorical Exemption When Unusual
Circumstances Exist
The City proposes to rely on a categorical exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) prohibits categorical
exemptions when:
“Unusual circumstances create a reasonable possibility that the activity will
have a significant effect on the environment.”
The California Supreme Court held in:
• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015)
that when substantial evidence shows unusual circumstances may cause
environmental impacts, a categorical exemption cannot be used and
environmental review is required.
Page 227 of 466
The proposed project includes several unusual circumstances:
• A 588.5 square foot telecommunications compound
• Placement 7 feet from residential dwellings
• A tower approximately 40 feet above ground level
• Location in a mixed use residential coastal neighborhood
These factors create a reasonable possibility of significant visual and land
use impacts, requiring CEQA review.
3. Aesthetic and Visual Impacts Are Recognized Environmental Effects
CEQA specifically recognizes aesthetic impacts as environmental impacts.
CEQA requires analysis of impacts on:
• Scenic vistas
• Visual character
• Neighborhood aesthetics
See:
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15125
• CEQA Appendix G
California courts have repeatedly held that visual impacts alone can trigger
CEQA review.
See:
• Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004)
• Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Montecito Water District (2004)
A 40 foot telecommunications tower in a coastal residential neighborhood
presents exactly the type of visual impact CEQA requires agencies to
analyze.
4. Local Governments Retain Authority Over Wireless Facility Location and
Page 228 of 466
Aesthetics
Federal law preserves local zoning authority over wireless facilities.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)) states
that local governments retain authority over:
• Placement
• Construction
• Zoning compatibility
• Aesthetic impacts
Courts consistently uphold local denials based on visual and neighborhood
compatibility concerns.
Example:
• Sprint PCS Assets v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009)
Thus, the City retains discretion to deny facilities that conflict with
neighborhood character.
5. Local Zoning Height Limits Must Be Enforced
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code generally limits building height to
approximately 30 feet in residential and mixed use zones.
If the proposed wireless facility extends 10 feet above the roofline, the
structure would effectively exceed the permitted height limits.
Courts consistently uphold enforcement of local zoning standards against
telecommunications providers.
See:
• MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005)
Local governments may enforce:
• Height limits
Page 229 of 466
• Zoning compatibility
• Development standards
when reviewing wireless facility permits.
6. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Limits Height Variances for Antenna
Equipment
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 allows limited exceptions
for antennas.
Height increases above zoning limits are allowed only when:
• The surface area exceeding the height limit does not exceed 12 square feet,
and
• The device does not exceed 15 feet above the building height limit
The proposed telecommunications compound is approximately 588.5
square feet, vastly exceeding the 12 square foot allowance.
Therefore the proposed installation does not qualify for the antenna height
variance allowed under the code.
7. Accessory Equipment Must Comply With Zoning Development Standards
Under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170, wireless
communications equipment must:
• Be located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault
• Comply with development standards of the zoning district
Wireless equipment cannot bypass:
• Height limits
• Development standards
• Compatibility requirements
The proposed rooftop telecommunications compound appears inconsistent
with these standards.
Page 230 of 466
8. Cities May Require Evaluation of Less Intrusive Alternatives
Courts allow cities to require telecommunications providers to demonstrate
that less intrusive alternatives are not feasible.
See:
• T-Mobile USA v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009)
Cities may require evaluation of:
• Co location on existing towers
• Placement in commercial or industrial zones
• Alternative designs
If feasible alternatives exist, denial of the proposed site is lawful.
9. Coastal Communities Have Additional Visual Protection Obligations
Hermosa Beach lies within the California Coastal Zone.
The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30251) requires
development to:
• Protect coastal visual resources
• Preserve scenic character
• Minimize visual impacts
A highly visible telecommunications tower in a residential coastal
neighborhood raises legitimate Coastal Act concerns.
Page 231 of 466
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
(VERIZON WIRELESS) ON THE ROOF OF AN
EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET
Planning Commission Meeting –March 17, 2026
Page 232 of 466
Photo of Existing Site
Page 233 of 466
Zoning Map
Page 234 of 466
Site Information
General Plan
Service Commercial (SC)
Zoning Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7)with
Housing Element Overlay Zone
Lot Size 16,200
Existing Square Footage 8,775 square feet
Surrounding Zoning
North:SPA-7
East:SPA-7
South:Two Family
Residential Zone (R-2)
West:R-2
Surrounding Uses
North:Commercial
East:Commercial
South:Residential
West:Residential
Page 235 of 466
Background
Municipal Code:
–Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.38.300 –HBMC Section 17.26.030 C-1, C-2, and C-3 land use regulations require a conditional use permit for wireless communications facilities in the C-3 zone
–HBMC Section 17.40.170 contains the City’s primary regulations for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities
–HBMC Section 17.40.170(A)(7) requires that the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed site results in fewer or less severe environmental impacts than any feasible alternative site
Page 236 of 466
Background
Additional Requirements for WTF Approval -
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996:
–Limits of local authority
–Substantial written evidence
–Environmental effects of radio frequency (RF)
emissions
Page 237 of 466
Project Description
Proposed Facility:
Location/
Height:
The proposed screened wireless facility would
be constructed on the roof of the existing
building.The structure would be painted and
textured to match the existing building.The
screening structure measures 5’6”in height
from the parapet wall and will be positioned
in the northwest corner of the building which
is centered at the intersection of the two
wings of the building and setback ten feet
from the property line.The overall size of the
rooftop screening measures 26’9”by 22’by
5’6”for a total of 588.5 square feet and a
building height of 35’.
Sector/
Antenna:
-3 sectors with 3 panel antennas per sector,6
radios and 2 raycaps
Leased
Equipment
Area:
-588.5 square feet (including antenna
structure)
-3 equipment cabinets
-1 service light
-All equipment will be placed within the
screened antenna enclosure on the rooftop.
Additional
Support
Equipment:
-Power and Fiber conduits will run from
ground level to the rooftop and across the
enclosure.Page 238 of 466
Project Description
Page 239 of 466
Project Description-Photo Simulations
Page 240 of 466
Screening and Site Selection Guidelines
Page 241 of 466
Screening and Site Selection Guidelines
HAVEMEYER -A 300 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.85716
-
118.39063
2
HAVEMEYER -B 501 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.858873
-
118.39178
9
HAVEMEYER -C 600 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.859731
-
118.39136
4
HAVEMEYER -E 901 Aviation
Blvd
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.863441
-
118.39101
2
Page 242 of 466
Facility Height, Location and Other Issues
Page 243 of 466
Condition 9 of Proposed Resolution
9.Compliance with Applicable Laws/RF Emissions Exposure Limits.The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with
all federal,state and local statutes,regulations,orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“Laws”)applicable to the
permittee,the subject property,the wireless facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this permit,
including any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions.This permit is not granting the permittee any rights to makeanyportionoftheadjacentpropertiesinaccessibletothegeneralpublicortohinderfuturelawfuldevelopmentofadjacentpropertiesasamitigationmeasuretoensurethewirelessfacilitywillcomplywithLawsapplicabletohumanexposuretoRFemissions,absent agreement from the adjacent land owner.The permittee understands that if site conditions change in
the future due to lawful development on adjacent property,the permittee may need to modify or remove its wireless facility
or obtain adjacent property owner consent to mitigation measures on the adjacent property if required to maintain
compliance with any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions.If the Community Development Director finds goodcausetobelievethatthewirelessfacilityisnotincompliancewithanyLawsapplicabletohumanexposuretoRFemissions,the Director may require the permittee to submit a written report,signed by an RF engineer under penalty of perjury,that:(1)the installation is operated in compliance with 47 U.S.C.§324 (use of minimum power);and (2)the installation complies
with all applicable FCC rules and regulations for human exposure to RF emissions and will not cause members of the general
public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the maximum permission exposure levels deemed safe by the FCC.TheapplicantshallsubmittherequestedwrittenRFreportwithinsixtycalendardaysofnotificationinwritingbytheDirector.The
permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other
specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce,relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s
obligations to maintain compliance with all Laws.
Page 244 of 466
Conditional Use Permit: Required Findings
A.The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies
with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
B.The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan.
C.The proposed use will not be averse to the public health,safety,or
general welfare of the community,nor detrimental to surrounding
properties or improvements.
D.The design,location,size,and operating characteristics of the proposed
activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable
future land uses and circulation in the vicinity.
E.The site is physically suitable for the type of the use being proposed,
including access,utilities,and the absence of physical constraints.
Page 245 of 466
Environmental Determination
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15303,Class 3
Exemption,New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,because
the proposal pertains to an existing structure and involves only minor
alterations to the existing wireless facility commercial building.Class 3
exemptions include the installation of small new equipment and facilities,
such as the proposed wireless antennas.While this may include a variety
of potential impacts,federal regulations preempt the City from considering
impacts from radio-frequency emissions.
Page 246 of 466
Public Noticing
March 5, 2026
572 public hearing notices mailed to the business,
occupants and property owners within a 500-foot radius
Legal Ad published in the Easy Reader
Notice posted at business
Page 247 of 466
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP25-04) to construct and operate an unmanned 588.5
square-foot wireless telecommunication facility (Verizon
Wireless) located on the roof of an existing building at 725
5th Street in the Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7)
Determine the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
Page 248 of 466
Contact us.
DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
310-318-0243
Planning@hermosabeah.gov
THANK YOU!
Page 249 of 466
Screening and Site Selection Guidelines
Page 250 of 466
Screening and Site Selection Guidelines
HAVEMEYER -A 300 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.85716
-
118.39063
2
HAVEMEYER -B 501 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.858873
-
118.39178
9
HAVEMEYER -C 600 Pacific
Coast Hwy
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.859731
-
118.39136
4
HAVEMEYER -E 901 Aviation
Blvd
Hermosa
Beach CA Los Angeles 90254 33.863441
-
118.39101
2
Page 251 of 466
Facility Height, Location and Other Issues
Page 252 of 466
Page 253 of 466
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
From: R Rocchio
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:42 PM
To: citiclerk@hermosabeach.gov; Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>
Subject: Technical Public Comment Opposing CUP25-04 – Verizon Wireless Facility at 725 5th Street
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I respectfully submit the following technical comments in opposition to Conditional Use Permit
CUP25-04, which proposes the installation and operation of an unmanned 588.5-square-foot
wireless telecommunications facility (Verizon Wireless) on the roof of the existing building
located at 725 5th Street.
While telecommunications infrastructure is an important public utility, the proposed site raises
significant concerns related to land use compatibility, visual impacts, neighborhood character,
and potential economic effects on surrounding residential properties. These concerns warrant
careful review before approving the requested Conditional Use Permit.
1. Land Use Compatibility and Zoning Considerations
Conditional Use Permits are intended to ensure that uses with potentially significant impacts
are only approved when they are compatible with surrounding land uses and will not adversely
affect the public welfare. The proposed facility is located within Specific Plan Area 7, an area
characterized by mixed-use development that includes residential uses in close proximity.
Wireless telecommunications facilities placed on rooftops in residential or mixed-use
neighborhoods often introduce:
• Large equipment enclosures and screening structure
• Antennas and associated mechanical infrastructur
• Increased visual bulk on rooftops that were not designed to accommodate such installation
Page 254 of 466
Planning best practices recommend prioritizing telecommunications facilities in commercial,
industrial, or infrastructure corridors where impacts on residents are minimized. Approving a
facility in close proximity to residential units should require clear evidence that less intrusive
alternatives have been thoroughly evaluated and are infeasible.
2. Visual Impact and Community Character
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of aesthetic impacts
where projects may substantially degrade the visual character of a neighborhood.
Even when screened, rooftop telecommunications installations can:
•Alter building massing and skyline profiles
•Introduce mechanical structures inconsistent with surrounding architecture
•Become visible from nearby residential windows, streets, and public viewpoints
Hermosa Beach’s planning framework emphasizes preservation of neighborhood character
and coastal visual quality. A rooftop telecommunications compound approaching 600 square
feet represents a substantial rooftop structure that could conflict with these objectives.
3. Economic and Property Value Considerations
Peer-reviewed and market studies have documented that proximity to telecommunications
towers and antenna facilities can influence buyer perception and property marketability.
Examples include:
•The Sandy Bond Study (2013), which found that residential properties located near cell
towers experienced measurable decreases in buyer interest and market value.
•A National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy review, which documented multiple
Page 255 of 466
cases where real estate professionals reported marketing challenges for homes near
telecommunications infrastructure.
Although impacts vary by site and visibility, the perception of risk alone can influence
residential property values and buyer behavior. Given the high property values and residential
density in Hermosa Beach, even small percentage impacts represent significant economic
consequences for homeowners.
4. Health and Precautionary Planning Considerations
Federal regulations limit local governments’ ability to deny telecommunications facilities
solely on the basis of RF emissions if they comply with FCC exposure limits. However,
planning bodies may still consider community welfare, prudent siting, and precautionary
principles when evaluating land use compatibility.
Several international and public health organizations, including the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)”. While
research is ongoing, this designation supports the use of a precautionary approach, particularly
in residential areas.
Prudent planning policies in many municipalities therefore encourage:
• Maximizing distance between antennas and residential living spaces
• Locating facilities on existing infrastructure (utility corridors, industrial zones, etc.)
• Avoiding unnecessary concentration of telecommunications equipment near homes
5. Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A key question in evaluating CUP applications is whether the applicant has demonstrated that
less impactful alternative locations are unavailable or technically infeasible. The Planning
Commission should request detailed documentation addressing:
• Alternative commercial or non-residential locations within the coverage area
• Potential co-location on existing telecommunications structures
• Use of smaller distributed antenna systems (DAS) or other lower-impact technologies
Without clear evidence that reasonable alternatives were fully explored, approval of this
rooftop facility may be premature.
Page 256 of 466
Conclusion:
Based on the concerns outlined above regarding land use compatibility, visual impacts,
potential property value effects, and prudent siting practices, I respectfully request that the
Planning Commission:
1. Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed, or
2. Require the applicant to conduct a comprehensive alternatives analysis and visual impact
assessment prior to reconsideration.
Hermosa Beach residents place great value on the character, aesthetics, and livability of their
neighborhoods. Telecommunications infrastructure should be planned in a way that protects
these qualities while still meeting service needs.
Thank you for your consideration and for including this letter in the public record for the March
17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Rose Rocchio
--
Rose Rocchio
Page 257 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-030
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
LOCATION: 1244 2ND STREET
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS)
IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-1)
CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305.
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission:
1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305; and
2. Adopt a Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 25-02) and Variance (VAR25-
03) at 1244 2nd Street and Assessor’s Parcel Number 4186-027-030 (Attachment 1).
Executive Summary:
The request is to move the existing north/south property line between the parcels and rotate
it to an east/west property line to create two nearly equal lots to facilitate development of
single-family residences on each parcel.
Background:
The subject parcels are located at the southeastern end of the city west of Prospect Avenue
and are “through lots” having frontage on two streets. The lots front on 2nd Street to the north
north) and 1st Place (to the south. Both parcels are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1)
zone and have a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (LD).
The project site consists of two lots: 1244 2nd Steet (APN 4186-027-031) or “Lot A” (in the
attached exhibit) with approximately 37.5 feet of street frontage totaling 3,379.5 square feet
in size and APN 4186-027-030 (no address) “Lot B” (in the attached exhibit) with
approximately 12.5 feet of street frontage totaling 1,126.5 square feet in size. Lot A is
comprised of all of Lot 104 and the easterly 12.5 feet of Lot 103 as shown on the Assessor’s
Parcel Map (Attachment 2). The lots were formally merged into a single lot in 1988 by the
Planning Commission. Lot A is developed with a single-family residence and a detached
garage.
Page 258 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 5
Past Commission Actions
Meeting Date Description
Planning
Commission:
October 18, 1988
Planning Commission approves a lot merger of Lot 104 and the E’
12.5 Lot 103
Site Information Table:
The following table describes the site characteristics for both properties.
Site Information
General Plan (Both) Low-Density Residential (LD)
Zoning (Both) Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Existing Lot Size Lot A 3,830 square feet
Lot B 1,126.5 square feet
Surrounding Zoning (Both)
North: Single-Family Residential (R-1)
East: Single-Family Residential (R-1)
South: Single-Family Residential (R-1)
West: Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Surrounding Uses (Both)
North: Residential
East: Residential
South: Residential
West: Residential
Project Description
The applicant is seeking a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the lots and create two nearly
equal properties. The proposed north lot (Lot C) would be 50 feet wide with frontage on
2nd Street and a depth of 45.12 feet. The proposed south lot (Lot D) would be 50 feet wide,
with frontage on 1st Place, and a lot depth of 45 feet. Lot C would be six square feet larger
than Lot D at 2,256 square feet (Attachment 3).
Currently, a single-family residence is developed on existing Lot A. The applicant plans to
demolish the existing home and, if the lot line adjustment is approved, build new single-
family homes (one on each lot) for a total of two new residences with a net gain of one
residence.
Page 259 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 5
Discussion:
A Lot Line Adjustment is the process under the State Subdivision Map Act that is used to
change property lines between existing parcels. The process can be used to do a number
of things, such as: combine up to four (4) adjacent parcels into one (1) parcel, alter the
boundary between up to four (4) parcels, or reconfigure the shapes of up to four (4)
parcels. A Variance is required for this Lot Line Adjustment request due to the size of the
lots. Per Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.08.030 (I), the minimum lot
size for newly created lots shall be 4,000 square feet. Both properties are currently
substandard to this requirement and if the project is approved, both would remain
substandard. However, the newly created lots will be evenly divided in terms of square
footage and will facilitate the development of two new single-family residences.
Lot Existing Lot Size Adjusted Lot size
Lot A (APN 4186-027-031,
1244 2nd Street)
3,830.1 square feet 2,256 square feet (Lot C)
Lot B-
(APN 4186-027-030)
1,126.5 square feet 2,250 square feet (Lot D)
If approved, Lot A, which is one and a half as large as the surrounding lots and Lot B, which
is a half lot, will be reconfigured to two lots that are nearly equal in size and typical of the area.
Currently, the lots are vertically configured as through lots with frontage on Second Street. As
proposed, they will be oriented horizontally making them in interior lots with frontage on only
one street. Although this configuration would be unlike most lots on the block it would be
similar to the two lots to the east.
Findings: Pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) §17.54.020 four required
Variance findings must be made to approve, or conditionally approve, a Variance
application. The inability to make one or more of the following findings is grounds for denial
of an application.
1. Exceptional circumstances are applicable to the property involved;
Lot B is 1,126.5 square feet in size and is just 12.5 feet wide. The lot is well below
the minimum 4,000-square-foot lot size required for new lots. The lot's narrowness
is also substandard, making it nearly infeasible to develop the site without multiple
variances. The variance for the minimum lot size results in a lot width of 50 feet and
a larger lot size, which makes development more feasible.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property;
The Variance is necessary in this case to allow the reconfiguration of the lot’s
development of a single-family home on two evenly divided lots.
3. That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is located;
The Variance would not result in a net change in the non-conformity of the parcels,
as one parcel would become more conforming to the zoning ordinance, and one
would become less conforming. The Variance would result in two nearly equal lots
Page 260 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 5
that could then be developed with two single-family homes. These two lots as
proposed would be like the other lots on the block in terms of total square footage.
Lot Existing Lot Size Adjusted Lot size
Lot A-(APN 4186-
027-031, 1244 2nd
Street)
3,830.1 square feet 2,256 square feet (Lot C)
Lot B-
(APN 4186-027-
030)
1,126.5 square feet 2,250 square feet (Lot D)
4. That the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be
detrimental to, the general plan.
The granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to or conflict with the
provisions of the general plan. Consistency with relevant policies from the general
plan is provided below.
Environmental Determination:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 5 categorical exemption, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations,
as defined in section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the project consists of a
Variance and minor Lot Line Adjustment not resulting in the creation of any new parcel, in
an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent and does not result in any changes
to land use or density. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s)
apply to the project, as defined in section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The
project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment such that the project may
impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. The project would not
result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the
same place over time; the project would not have a significant effect on the environment
due to unusual circumstances; the project would not damage a scenic highway or scenic
resources within a state scenic highway; the project is not located on a hazardous waste
site; and the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource.
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Findings
Goal 2: Provide for diverse needs of
residents of all ages and abilities
The proposal is consistent with policy 2.5
as the project enhances the quality of a
residential neighborhood by supporting
development that can abide by the
development standards of the municipal
code and facilitate the development of an
additional single-family residence.
Policy 2.5 Neighborhood preservation-
Preserve and enhance the quality of
residential neighborhoods by avoiding or
abating the intrusion of disruptive non-
conforming buildings or uses
Page 261 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 5
Public Notification:
For the March 17, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, a total of 199 public hearing
notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants and property owners of properties within
a 500-foot radius on March 5, 2026. A legal ad was published on March 5,2026, in the
Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a
notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in
advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC 17.68.050. Public notification
materials are included as Attachment 4. As of the writing of the report, staff have received
no public comments.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Assessor’s Map
3. LLA Legal Descriptions and Exhibits
4. Public Notification Package
Respectfully Submitted by: DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 262 of 466
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. RES-26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(LLA 25-02) AND A VARIANCE (VAR 25-03), TO APPROVE A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-
031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
WHEREAS, an application was filed on December 23, 2025 by the applicant Amir
Esfahani, seeking approval of a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to move the existing
north/south property line between the parcels APN 4186-027-031 (address 1244 2nd
Street) and APN 4186-027-030 (no address) and rotate it to an east/west property line to
create two nearly equal lots to facilitate development of single-family residences on each
parcel (the Project); and
WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment is the process under the California Subdivision
Map Act (Government Code sections 66410 – 66499.41) that is used to change property
lines between up to four existing parcels. Lot Line Adjustments are typically subject to
administrative review and approval under the California Permit Streamlining Act
(Government Code sections 65920 – 65964.5); and
WHEREAS, the project site consists of two lots: 1244 2nd Steet (APN 4186-027-
031) or “Lot A” (in the attached exhibit) with approximately 37.5 feet of street frontage
totaling 3,379.5 square feet in size and APN 4186-027-030 (no address) or “Lot B” (in
the attached exhibit) with approximately 12.5 feet of street frontage totaling 1,126.5
square feet in size; and
WHEREAS, if approved, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would move the
existing north/south property line between the parcels and rotate it to an east/west
property line to create two nearly equal lots to facilitate development of single-family
residences on each parcel; and
WHEREAS, if approved, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would reconfigure
the lots create two nearly equal properties. The proposed north lot (Lot C) would be 50 Page 263 of 466
feet wide with frontage on 2nd Street and a depth of 45.12 feet with 2,256 square feet.
Proposed south lot (Lot D) would be 50 feet wide with frontage on 1st Place and would
have a lot depth of 45 feet with 2,250 square feet; and
WHEREAS, a Variance is required for this Lot Line Adjustment due to the
proposed sizes of the lots being substandard to the minimum lot size for newly created
lots of 4,000 square feet per Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.08.030
(I); and
WHEREAS, in considering the granting of a Variance, the Planning Commission
must make four required Variance findings pursuant to HBMC Section 17.54.020 to
approve, or conditionally approve, a Variance application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its public meeting of March 17, 2026,
considered all testimony and evidence regarding the application, both oral and written,
that was presented to the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into
this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received at its March 17, 2026 Planning
Commission meeting, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares the
following pertaining to the application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 25-02) pursuant to
the Subdivision Map Act, California Government Code section 66412(d):
Findings:
1. A tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall not be required as a condition to
the approval of a lot line adjustment if the lot line adjustment is approved by the
City (1) between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels; (2) where the land taken
from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel; and (3) where a greater number
of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created.
2. The City must limit its review and approval to a determination of whether the
parcels resulting from the adjustment will conform to the local General Plan, any Page 264 of 466
applicable specific or coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances.
3. Conditions and exactions placed on approval must be limited to those necessary
to comply with the local General Plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable
coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances to require the prepayment of real
property taxes prior to the approval of the LLA; or to facilitate the relocation of
existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. In addition, the City cannot require a
record of survey for a lot line adjustment unless otherwise required by law. The
proposed LLA moves the existing north/south property line between the parcels
and rotates it to an east/west property line to create two nearly equal lots in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone with approval of a variance to permit
substandard minimum lot sizes, which is consistent with the General Plan, zoning,
applicable coastal plan, and building regulations.
SECTION 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received at its March 17, 2026 Planning
Commission meeting, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares the
following pertaining to the application for a Variance (VAR 25-03) under Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Section 17.54.020:
Findings:
1. Exceptional circumstances are applicable to the property involved;
Lot B is 1,126.5 square feet in size and is just 12.5 feet wide. The lot is well below the minimum
4,000-square-foot lot size required for new lots. The lot's narrowness is also substandard,
making it nearly infeasible to develop the site without multiple variances. The variance for
the minimum lot size results in a lot width of 50 feet and a larger lot size, which makes
development more feasible.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property;
The Variance is necessary in this case to allow the reconfiguration of the lot’s
development of a single-family home on two evenly divided lots.
3. That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is located;
The Variance would not result in a net change in the non-conformity of the parcels,
as one parcel would become more conforming to the zoning ordinance, and one
would become less conforming. The Variance would result in two nearly equal lots Page 265 of 466
that could then be developed with two single-family homes. These two lots as
proposed would be like the other lots on the block in terms of total square footage.
Lot Existing Lot Size Adjusted Lot size Lot A-(APN 4186-027-031, 1244 2nd Street)
3,830.1 square feet 2,256 square feet (Lot C)
Lot B- (APN 4186-027-030)
1,126.5 square feet 2,250 square feet (Lot D)
4. That the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or
be detrimental to, the general plan.
The granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to or conflict with the
provisions of the general plan. Consistency with relevant policies from the general
plan is provided below for reference purposes.
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Findings
Goal 2: Provide for diverse needs of
residents of all ages and abilities
The proposal is consistent with policy 2.5
as the project enhances the quality of a
residential neighborhood by abating the
intrusion of a disruptive non-conforming
condition in which a house encroaches
into a neighboring property.
Policy 2.5 Neighborhood preservation-
Preserve and enhance the quality of
residential neighborhoods by avoiding or
abating the intrusion of disruptive non-
conforming buildings or uses
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
subject Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 25-02) to move the existing north/south property line
between the parcels and rotate it to an east/west property line to 1244 2nd Steet (APN
4186-027-031) or “Lot A” and APN 4186-027-030 (no address) “Lot B” and create two
nearly equal lots, Lot C and Lot D to in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The
approved Lot Line Adjustment shall be subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The approved Lot Line Adjustment shall be executed as described in the proposed
legal descriptions and as shown in Exhibit A attached to this Resolution, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
2. A Certificate of Compliance and legal descriptions in a form approved by the City and
compliant with the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted consistent with the exhibits Page 266 of 466
approved by the Planning Commission, approved by the Community Development
Director and City Attorney, within one (1) year of this approval.
3. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of,
and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Lot Line Adjustment shall
be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department.
4. Prepayment of all taxes as required California Government Code Section 66412 and
any fees required by the City shall be evidenced prior to recordation of the Certificate
of Compliance.
5. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance
with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance, or other regulation
applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the
permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a
violation of these conditions.
6. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or
void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the
litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and
attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action
brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real
party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own
expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the
permittee of any obligation under this condition.
SECTION 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
subject Variance (VAR 25-03) permitting substandard minimum lot sizes created by LLA
25-02. The approved Variance shall be subject to the following Conditions of Approval: Page 267 of 466
1. The approved Variance shall be executed as described in the proposed legal
descriptions and as shown in Exhibits A attached to this Resolution, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
2. No demolition permit shall be issued for the structures on the existing property
addressed as 1244 2nd Street until the Planning Division has approved plans for a new
single-family residence on either of the newly reconfigured lots (Lot C or Lot D).
3. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of,
and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Variance shall be recorded,
and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department.
4. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance
with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance, or other regulation
applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the
permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a
violation of these conditions.
5. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or
void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the
litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and
attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action
brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real
party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own
expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the
permittee of any obligation under this condition.
SECTION 6. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the
conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions Page 268 of 466
shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 Section 15305 Categorical
Exemption for Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, as the project consists of a
Variance and minor Lot Line Adjustment not resulting in the creation of any new parcel,
in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent, and does not result in any
changes to land use or density. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the Categorical
Exemptions apply. The project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment such
that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern,
nor will the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the
same type in the same place over time, or have a significant effect on the environment
due to unusual circumstances, or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a
state scenic highway. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site and will not cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge
to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council,
must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
Page 269 of 466
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 17th of March, 2026.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 26-XX is a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its
regular meeting of March 17, 2026.
Stephen Izant, Chairperson Alison Becker, Secretary
Date
Page 270 of 466
3,379.5CDExhibit APage 271 of 466
Page 272 of 466
3,379.5CDPage 273 of 466
Public Notification Package 1244 2nd Street (Lot Line Adjustment LLA25-02 and Variance VAR25-03)
Page 274 of 466
Page 275 of 466
Page 276 of 466
Page 277 of 466
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chairperson of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission has called a public hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below. 1. A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02) TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE WALL SIGNS PER BUSINESS ENTITY, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING 129,736-SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 11 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, 2. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA25-02) TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING LOTS, MAKING THEM NEARLY EQUAL IN SIZE AND A VARIANCE (VAR5-03) TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTED LOTS TO EACH BE LESS THAN THE 4,000-QUARE-FOOT MINIMUM AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 5 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15305 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. 3. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED 588.5-SQUARE- FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7). CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR CLASS 3 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and is being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website.
Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/March 5, 2026/HD26-015
City of
Hermosa Beach
Page 278 of 466
Community Development Department
Planning Division Attn: DT City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 1244 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Numbers: 4186-027-031 and 4186-027-030
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the request described below.
A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA25-02) TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING LOTS, MAKING THEM NEARLY EQUAL IN SIZE AND A VARIANCE (VAR5-03) TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTED LOTS TO EACH BE LESS THAN THE 4,000-QUARE-
FOOT MINIMUM AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 5 EXEMPTION PER
SECTION 15305 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting.
PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS - Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the
meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following:
Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09
Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860
Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860
eComment - Submit an eComment by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community Development at planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation
methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically
feasible. To guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 279 of 466
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the
United States, over the age of 18 years; that on the 5th day of March , 2026, that I
deposited 199 Notices in the United States Post Office, a letter of notice, a copy of
which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following
persons at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice in that
said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of
the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles as being owners of property within 500 feet
and all residential occupants within 500’ of the property described as:
APN: 4186-027-031
Subject: 1244 2ND ST
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-5337
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
Page 280 of 466
3rd St
4th
St
Bar
neyCt
3rd St
ProspectAve
1st St
Prospe
c
t
A
v
e
Hollowe llA v eGentrySt2nd St Massey AveReynolds Ln1st St
1st Pl 2342444403202121265325
404
408
432
436
442
416
420
340
348
330303435
441
449460
454
448
350
401
424
447
455
501
337
335
342
334
328
324
1121
309
315
310319
2241212121612221236223
217
209
2011237123512172021074107611181138112911151111110311011132113411071137113511041110
104211021116113011441202122612401244141
117
1003
12071136 12341122112611421148120612451257122312151209120511251105104120111451221161231122911141120114111091123121012141220124110
23 1106110811241140121812241230123212461250105011501010
4
300' RADIUS MAP r1244 2nd St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Page 281 of 466
A
l
l
eyBar
neyCtOcean View
Ave
3 r d StPacif
ic
Coast
Hwy
7th Pl
Gravley
Ct
Prospe
c
t
A
v
e
1st St HollowellA v eMeyer
Ct
5th St
Hopkins
Ave
3 r d S t Gentry St5 t h S t
4th St Pine
St
6th St
4th St
6th St
8th St
7th St
1st Pl
3rd St
4th St Massey Ave2nd St Reynolds Ln
1st St
1st Pl
2nd St
Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2026
1244 2nd St
APN: 4186-027-031 & 4186-027-030
Zone: R-1 Single Family Residential
Lot Line Adjustment & Variance
(LLA 25-02, VAR 25-03)
Description
Legend
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
R-P Residential-Professional
RPD Residential Planned Development
R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Downtown Commercial
C-3 General Commercial
M-1 Light Manufacturing
OS Open Space
OS-1 Restricted Open Space
OS-2 Restricted Open Space
OS-O Open Space Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park
SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential)
SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial)
-HE Housing Element Overlay
300' Notification Radius
Page 282 of 466
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031)
AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) IN
THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
(R-1)
Planning Commission Meeting –March 17, 2026
Page 283 of 466
Photo of Existing Site
Page 284 of 466
Zoning Map
Page 285 of 466
Exhibit-Existing Boundary Conditions
Page 286 of 466
Exhibit-Proposed Lot Line Adjustment
Page 287 of 466
Exhibit-Proposed Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Existing Lot Size Adjusted Lot size
Lot A (APN 4186-027-031,12442ndStreet)3,830.1 square feet 2,256 square feet (Lot C)
Lot B-(APN 4186-027-030)1,126.5 square feet 2,250 square feet (Lot D)
Page 288 of 466
Exhibit-Proposed Lot Line Adjustment
Page 289 of 466
Parcel Map
Page 290 of 466
Findings
1.Exceptional circumstances are applicable to the property
involved;
2.That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the
vicinity of the subject property;
3.That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
4.That the granting of the variance will not conflict with the
provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan.
Page 291 of 466
Environmental Determination
Determine the project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15305
Page 292 of 466
Public Noticing
March 5, 2026
199 public hearing notices mailed to the
applicant, occupants and property owners of
properties within a 500-foot radius
Legal Ad published in the Easy Reader
Notice posted at both sides of the location
Page 293 of 466
Staff Recommendation
1.Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305;and
2.Adopt a Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 25-02) and Variance (VAR25 -03) at 1244 2nd
Street and Assessor’s Parcel Number 4186-027-030
Page 294 of 466
Contact us.
DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
310-318-0243
Planning@hermosabeah.gov
THANK YOU!
Page 295 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-008
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
LOCATION: 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02), TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE WALL SIGNS
PER BUSINESS, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, AND
TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
AS A PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SHOPPING
CENTER IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE
CEQA: Determine the project qualifies for Class 11 Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15311
(Associate Planner Jake Whitney)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission:
1. Determine the Project qualifies for Class 11 Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15311;
and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Sign Variance (VAR25-02) at 1100
Pacific Coast Highway subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
The following report details the request for a Sign Variance (VAR) by Henry Pyle of Park
Pacific Realty Partners LP to allow for a maximum of three wall signs per business entity
not to exceed 35 wall signs for the subject site, and to allow an additional 10 percent
increase in the allowable maximum sign area at an existing 129,736-square-foot multi-
tenant shopping center located at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway. Staff requests the
Planning Commission review the application materials, consider the applicant’s request,
and adopt a resolution approving VAR 25-02 subject to conditions of approval.
Background:
The shopping center at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway is an existing 129,736-square-foot
multi-tenant commercial plaza in the C-3 (General Commercial) Zone (Attachment 2).
The site currently features three buildings. The largest is a two-story multi-tenant structure
anchored by Trader Joe's. In addition, there are two smaller freestanding buildings: one
houses a State Farm office, while the other is a now vacant coffee house tenant space
with a drive-through. The project site is bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the West,
Page 296 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 6
Aviation Boulevard and Greenwood Park to the South, Aubrey Park Court to the East,
and another commercial property to the North. The subject site is located outside of the
Coastal Zone. Vehicular access to the project site is availed via Pacific Coast Highway,
Aviation Boulevard, and Aubrey Park Court. The commercial property also currently
contains multiple non-conforming wall signs that exceed the maximum of one wall sign
per business limit on the property. There is also a non-conforming monument sign at the
corner of Aviation and Aubrey Court which encroaches slightly into the public right-of-way.
If approved, these non-conforming signs would be eliminated, and the applicant would be
required to conform to the attached comprehensive sign plan. The Planning Commission
also granted the subject property a Precise Development Plan on October 13, 2025, to
allow for a commercial remodel consisting of site plan modifications including parking
upgrades, accessibility upgrades, landscaping changes, an architectural new clock tower
feature, and interior tenant improvements. The meeting link, which discusses these
changes in greater detail, is provided in the table below for reference.
Site Information
General Plan Recreational Commercial (RC)
Zoning General Commercial (C-3)
Lot Size 129,736 square feet
Existing Building Square Footage 49,454 square feet
Surrounding Zoning
North: General Commercial (C-3), Two-Family
Residential (R-2), and Single Family Residential R-
1)
East: Single Family Residential (R-1), General
Commercial (C-3)
South: General Commercial (C-3), Open Space
(OS)
West: General Commercial (C-3), Public Facilities
(PF)
Surrounding Uses
North: Commercial & Residential
East: Residential & Commercial
South: Commercial & Greenwood Park
West: Commercial & Hermosa Beach
Community Center
Page 297 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 6
Past Commission Actions
Meeting Date Description
Hermosa
Improvement
Commission:
September 19, 1978
Hermosa Improvement Commission grants a variance
permitting a fourth can on the existing pole sign
Planning
Commission:
March 1, 1988
Planning Commission approves a parking plan for a 400-
square-foot addition
Planning
Commission:
July 7, 1992
Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit to
allow on-sale beer, wine, and live entertainment in conjunction
with an existing restaurant
Planning
Commission:
May 18, 1993
Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit
amendment to allow a twenty-four (24) hour operation in
conjunction with a grocery market (Ralphs) with off-sale
general alcohol
Planning
Commission:
September 16, 1997
Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit,
precise development plan, and parking plan amendment to
allow the installation of a drive-through window at an existing
coffee house in an existing center with less than the required
parking
Planning
Commission:
April 15, 2003
Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit to
allow collocation of wireless telecommunication facility.
Planning
Commission:
October 13, 2025
Planning Commission approves a Precise Development Plan
to allow new landscaping, accessibility upgrades, a parking
reconfiguration, new façade treatments, a clock tower feature
measuring 35 feet in height, and interior tenant improvements
Project Description
The applicant, Henry Pyle of Park Pacific Realty Partners LP, is requesting a Sign
Variance (VAR) from the City to allow for a maximum of three wall signs per business
entity not to exceed 35 wall signs for the subject site, and to allow an additional 10 percent
in the allowable maximum sign area at an existing 129,736-square-foot shopping center
located at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway. If approved, the variance would allow for these
alternate signage standards to apply to the subject site in compliance with the attached
comprehensive sign plan, rather than the standard one wall sign per business limitation
in accordance with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.140. Currently, the
maximum anticipated number of tenants at the shopping center would be 17 tenants. This
Page 298 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 6
would amount to just over two wall signs per business on average if the sign variance
were to be approved.
C-3 Sign Code Request
One (1) wall sign allowed per business
No more than three (3) wall signs allowed
per business but not to exceed 35 wall
signs for the entire building site.
Allowable sign area based on lineal
building frontage
10% additional signage
Discussion:
The goal of the applicant’s plan is to enhance visibility for the customers and businesses
of the shopping center. The parcels that form the shopping center collectively make up
the second largest shopping center within the city limits (after Plaza Hermosa), and it
contains access points on multiple sides of the lot, (Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation
Boulevard, and Aubrey Park Cour) which makes adequate visibility a challenge for
tenants when signage cannot be spread out to cover the various access points. The line
of sight to the tenants is further obstructed by Greenwood Park, which blocks the direct
line of sight from onlookers at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation
Boulevard.
For comparison purposes, staff reviewed other similar zoned and sized lots. The next
largest commercial parcel in the City after 1100 Pacific Coast Highway which is currently
occupied by the Lazy Acres grocery store at 2510 Pacific Coast Highway, is 27 percent
smaller (94,000 square feet) than the properties comprising 1100 Pacific Coast Highway
(129,736 square feet) yet it has 31 percent more unobstructed frontage (478 linear feet)
along Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard than 1100 Pacific Coast Highway
does along Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard (328 linear feet). This is
because the site is not encumbered by visual obstructions or has as many access points
in need of visibility in the same way as the subject site is. Greenwood Park obstructs
approximately 234 linear feet of building frontage and thus reduces the property’s
frontage by approximately 41 percent of what the frontage otherwise would be.
Meanwhile, the median parcel size for C-3 zoned properties in the City is just over 5,000
square feet, while the subject property is significantly larger, with the buildings located
farther from the right-of-way. The applicant feels that allowing for additional signage on
the subject property may help mitigate some of these challenges associated with an
unusually large, obscured site with various access points. (Attachment 3).
Sign Variance Findings
In accordance with HBMC Section 17.50.190 the Planning Commission may grant a
variance to the specific requirements of the City’s adopted regulations regarding signage
provided a demonstrated hardship exists and the proposed comprehensive sign plan will
Page 299 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 6
not adversely affect public safety or the design and appearance of the surrounding
neighborhood when the following conditions are found to exist:
A. A variance authorized is not a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity; and
The subject property is the second largest commercial property within the City
limits, consisting of 129,736 square feet and has access points from multiple
streets (Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Blvd, Aubrey Park Ct, 13th St). The
southwest portion of the center abuts Greenwood Park, which obstructs the line of
sight from the abutting areas of the public right-of-way by approximately 234 linear
feet. These circumstances are unique and present a hardship not applicable to
other similarly zoned or sized properties. The variance is necessary for the
preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the
vicinity, which is the right to effectively advertise the presence of goods and
services available within the shopping center. Without the allowance of additional
signage at such a large and prominent site, the property would be at a competitive
disadvantage relative to other smaller commercial properties (in which the median
size is 5,000 square feet where signage visibility is not as much of a challenge due
to a smaller scale, fewer access points in need of signage, and fewer visual
obstructions.
B. Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do
not apply to the other properties in the vicinity so that the strict application of this
chapter works a demonstrated hardship on the particular property; and
The subject property is the second largest commercial property within the City
limits consisting of 129,736 square feet and has access points from multiple streets
(Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Blvd, Aubrey Park Ct, 13th St). The site is also
visually obstructed by Greenwood Park, which blocks the line of sight from the
abutting areas of the public right-of-way by approximately 41 percent or 234 linear
feet. These circumstances are exceptional and present a significant hardship to
the property owner and commercial tenants to ensure that the businesses within
the plaza are sufficiently visible from the adjoining rights of way and by those who
pass by.
C. The variance will not adversely affect public safety and the design and appearance
of the signing and structures of the surrounding area.
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district. The variance
request consists of signage and would have no impact on any physical structures
or improvements beyond aesthetics. The aesthetic impacts of increased signage
would not be detrimental or overly concentrated due to the sheer size of the subject
Page 300 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 6
property and the number of various access points that the public may utilize to
access the subject property. Additionally, all non-conforming signage would be
eliminated as a condition of this variance's approval (Condition of Approval #2).
This includes the elimination of a non-confirming monument sign that encroaches
into the public right-of-way
Environmental Determination:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 11 categorical exemption, Accessory Structures as defined in section
15311 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of a variance to allow additional signage at
the subject property. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s)
apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects
of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the
environmental due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic
resources within a state scenic highway.
Public Notification:
For the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, a total of 564 public hearing
notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within
a 500-foot radius on March 5, 2026. A legal ad was published on March 6, 2026, in the
Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a
notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in
advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC Section 17.68.050. Public
notification materials are included as Attachment 5. As of the writing of the report, staff
has received no public comments.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Signage Plans
3. Applicant Narrative
4. C-3 Zoned Parcels Map
5. Public Notification Package
Respectfully Submitted by: Jake Whitney, Associate Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director
Page 301 of 466
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. RES-26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR
25-02), TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE WALL SIGNS PER
BUSINESS ENTITY, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SUBJECT
SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA AS A PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE
SIGN PLAN AT A MULTI-TENANT SHOPPING CENTER AT 1100 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE AND
DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
WHEREAS, an application was filed on December 8, 2025, by the applicant Henry
Pyle of Park Pacific Realty Partners LP, seeking approval of a Sign Variance (VAR 25-02) to
allow for a maximum of three wall signs per business entity, with a maximum of 35 wall
signs for the subject site, and to allow for an additional 10 percent increase in maximum
allowable sign area at a multi-tenant shopping center at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway in
the General Commercial (C-3) zone; and
WHEREAS, signs are regulated by the City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) pursuant
to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”) Chapter 17.50, “Signs.” Pursuant to HBMC
Section 17.50.190, the Planning Commission may grant a variance to the specific
requirements under the Chapter; and
WHEREAS, when considering the granting of a Sign Variance, the City shall
assess the review considerations pursuant to HBMC Section 17.50.190. The review
considerations are used to help inform the four required findings which must be made
pursuant to HBMC Section 17.54.020 in order to approve or conditionally approve a
Variance application; and
WHEREAS, at its public meeting of March 17, 2026, the Planning Commission
considered all testimony and evidence regarding the application, both oral and written,
that was presented to the Planning Commission.
Page 302 of 466
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into
this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received at its March 17, 2026
Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares
the following pertaining to the application for a Sign Variance (VAR 25-02) under Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.190:
Findings:
1. A variance authorized is not a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
The subject property is the largest commercial property within the City limits,
consisting of 129,736 square feet and has access points from multiple streets
(Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Blvd, Aubrey Park Ct, 13th St). The southwest
portion of the center abuts Greenwood Park, which obstructs the line of sight from
the abutting areas of the public right-of-way by approximately 234 linear feet.
These circumstances are unique and present a hardship not applicable to other
similarly zoned or sized properties. The variance is necessary for the preservation
of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity, which
is the right to effectively advertise the presence of goods and services available
within the shopping center. Without the allowance of additional signage at such a
large and prominent site, the property would be at a competitive disadvantage
relative to other smaller commercial properties (in which the median size is 5,000
square feet where signage visibility is not as much of a challenge due to a smaller
scale, fewer access points in need of signage, and fewer visual obstructions.
2. Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and
do not apply to the other properties in the vicinity so that the strict
Page 303 of 466
application of this chapter works a demonstrated hardship on the particular
property.
The subject property is the largest commercial property within the City limits
consisting of 129,736 square feet and has access points from multiple streets
(Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Blvd, Aubrey Park Ct, 13th St). The site is also
visually obstructed by Greenwood Park, which blocks the line of sight from the
abutting areas of the public right-of-way by approximately 41 percent or 234 linear
feet. These circumstances are exceptional and present a significant hardship to the
property owner and commercial tenants to ensure that the businesses within the
plaza are sufficiently visible from the adjoining rights of way and by those who pass
by.
3. The variance will not adversely affect public safety and the design and
appearance of the signing and structures of the surrounding area.
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district. The variance
request consists of signage and would have no impact on any physical structures
or improvements beyond aesthetics. The aesthetic impacts of increased signage
would not be detrimental or overly concentrated due to the sheer size of the
subject property and the number of various access points that the public may
utilize to access the subject property. Additionally, all non-conforming signage
would be eliminated as a condition of this variance's approval (Condition of
Approval #2). This includes the elimination of a non-confirming monument sign
that encroaches into the public right-of-way.
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
subject Sign Variance (VAR 25-02). The approved Sign Variance shall be subject to the
following Conditions of Approval:
1. The project shall be substantially consistent with the application submitted and
approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2026. The applicant shall
retain records of the approved plans until any subsequent modifications or
approvals are granted.
Page 304 of 466
2. All existing non-conforming signage including any signage which encroaches into
the public right-of-way shall be removed and future signage shall conform to the
plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2026.
3. The subject property shall be permitted at least one wall sign per business entity,
and shall be limited to no more than 3 wall signs per business entity, not to exceed
35 wall signs for the shopping center. Allowable sign area for each business entity
shall be limited to 110 percent of what is allowed pursuant to HBMC: 17.50.140.
The owner of the shopping plaza shall retain discretion regarding the distribution
and quantity of allowable signs consistent with this approval. Notwithstanding the
above, the subject property shall otherwise comply with the requirements of
HBMC Chapter 17.50.
4. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner, or the leasing agent.
5. The applicant shall maintain the property in conformance with all applicable City
of Hermosa Beach standards including all requirements of the General Commercial
Zone (C-3) and all regulatory agency requirements, including but not limited to:
Los Angeles County Health Department, California Disabled Access Standards
(Government Code Title 24), and Los Angeles County National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (NPDES).
6. Any changes to the interior or exterior layout which alter the primary function of
the shopping center shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission. Minor modifications that do not alter the primary function of the
shopping center may be approved by the Community Development Director.
7. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of
the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are
aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Precise
Page 305 of 466
Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
8. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of
approval by the Planning Commission, or final decision by the City Council, unless
significant construction or improvements have commenced. One or more
extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless
requested in writing to the Community Development Director, including the reason
therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of
expiration will be provided.
9. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and
agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project
authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual
attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The
permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City
may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City
because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an
action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the
defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any
obligation under this condition.
SECTION 5. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the
conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions
shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 11 Section 15311 Categorical
Exemption for Accessory Structures, as the project consists of a Sign Variance to allow
additional signage at the subject property. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the
Page 306 of 466
Categorical Exemptions apply. The project is not located in a particularly sensitive
environment such that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern, nor will the project result in a significant cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, or have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, or damage a scenic highway or
scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The site is not located on a hazardous
waste site and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge
to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council,
must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 17th day of March, 2026.
______________________________________________________________________________
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 26-XX is a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its
regular meeting of March 17, 2026.
Stephen Izant, Chairperson Alison Becker, Secretary
Page 307 of 466
____________________
Date
Page 308 of 466
SIGNAGE10.27.25JB3D1100PACIFIC COAST HWYPage 309 of 466
AB2A3C53B3A3D3D3D3D3D3B3A3A1LEGENDPole SignMulti-Tenant SignBack Lot Multi-Tenant SignPrimary Business SignPrimary Business Parapet Sign Primary Business Tower Sign Primary Business Fascia Sign Secondary Business Sign Building Identification Sign (Address)12A3A2B3B3C3D45Property LineJB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-1251SITE PLAN1SITE PLANSCALE: 1” = 50’2B10.27.2543D3D3D3D4444Page 310 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-1251SIGN TYPE 1 - POLE SIGN23D RENDERING - POLE SIGNSCALE: NTS20'-0"MAX.10'-0" MAX.10.27.25Page 311 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-1251TENANT SIGNS (SIGN TYPES 3D & 4)SCALE: NTSFULL ELEVATION (SIGN TYPES 3D, 4)SCALE: NTSSIMULATED ILLUMINATION (EXACT METHOD TBD)SCALE: NTSTENANT SIGNS - OVERVIEW3PRIMARY FRONTAGE MAX. SIGN AREA = APPROX. 385 SQFT.SECONDARY FRONTAGE MAX. SIGN AREA = APPROX. 90 SQFT.PROPOSED SIGNAGE APPEARS TO BE UNDER WHAT IS ALLOWED. 3D48'-0" MAX.18" MAX.12" MAX.12'-0" MAX.10.27.25Page 312 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-12513D RENDERING - TENANT SIGNS - VIEW A43D RENDERING - VIEW ASCALE: NTS2A3C43A3A3D12'-0" MAX.14" MAX.10.27.25Page 313 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-125153D RENDERING - TENANT SIGNS - VIEW B3D RENDERING - VIEW BSCALE: NTS2A2B3C54'-6"MAX.10" MAX.15'-0" MAX.10'-0"MAX.10.27.25Page 314 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-12516SIGN TYPE 2B - BACK LOT MULTI-TENANT SIGNBACK LOT MULTI-TENANT SIGNSCALE: NTSPROPOSED SIGN LOCATIONSCALE: NTSPARKING THIS WAY1100 PCHDENTIST CHIROPRACTORLEASING MANAGEMENT2B2A3C56'-0"MAX.9'-0" MAX.9'-0" MAX.6'-0" MAX.10.27.25Page 315 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-1251SIGN TYPE 3A/3B/3D - PRIMARY BUSINESS SIGNS7NORTH ELEVATION - 3DSOUTH ELEVATION - 3DWEST ELEVATIONPRIMARY BUSINESS SIGNS - TRADER JOE’S & FIVE BELOW SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION - 3APRIMARY BUSINESS SIGNS - COFFEE SHOP SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"PRIMARY BUSINESS SIGNS - ATM KIOSK SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"PRIMARY BUSINESS SIGNS - BROKERAGE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION - 3DSOUTH ELEVATION - 3DWEST ELEVATION - 3BNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATION - 3A, 3BWEST ELEVATIONBROKERAGEBROKERAGECOFFEE SHOPCOFFEESHOPCOFFEESHOP10.27.25±5'-0"±4'-0"±40'-0"±25'-0"±16'-0"±12"±3'-6"±15"±12"±15'-0"±8'-0"±8"±8"±8"±8"±7'-0"±8'-0"±8'-0"±12'-0"Page 316 of 466
JB3D1100 PCH HERMOSA BEACH24-1251FULL ELEVATION VIEW8FULL WEST ELEVATION (SIGN TYPES 3A, 3B & 4)SCALE: NTS10.27.25Page 317 of 466
Project Background
The City of Hermosa Beach has approved plans for a comp rehensive façade renovation
and overall site enhancement for the neighborhood shop ping center at 1100 Pacific Coast
Highway in Hermosa Beach. The proposed plans will impr ove the aesthetic appeal and
revitalize the center, while also enhancing pedestrian access and circulation throughout the property. In conjunction with this renovation, the proposed signage program establishes a cohesive
and coordinated sign package that supports tenant visibility while elevating the overall customer experience on site. Unique Site Conditions, Access and Visibility Constraints The shopping center at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway occup ies a uniquely large and complex
site within the City of Hermosa Beach. The property e xceeds 50,000 square feet in area and
is located at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard. While this
intersection would typically provide strong visibili ty for a commercial center, several site-
specific conditions significantly limit tenant identifica tion when compared to other C-3 zoned properties. Although the site includes frontage along both Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation
Boulevard, direct visibility from these corridors is constrained by multiple physical
features. Greenwood Park occupies the prominent corn er at the Pacific Coast Highway and
Aviation Boulevard intersection, substantially blockin g pedestrian and vehicular approach
views to the primary tenant façades. In addition, freest anding buildings along the west-
facing elevations further obstruct sightlines from P acific Coast Highway, reducing the
visibility of interior tenant spaces as vehicles trave l along the corridor.
The site also contains multiple access points and a multi-level tenant configuration that
View from Pacific Coast Highway Aviation Boulevard Intersection C-3 Zoning Sites Visibility Comparison
Page 319 of 466
Wall Signage Limitations Under the Code
Per Section 17.15.140 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal C ode, only one (1) wall sign is
allowed per tenant in the C-3 zoning. This standard is generally appropriate for smaller
commercial properties with clear street frontage and u nobstructed views from adjacent
roadways. However, due to the unique site conditions described above, the one wall sign per tenant
limitation does not adequately serve the visibility needs of this project. The combination of obstructed primary frontage, internalized tenant locations, multiple building elevations, and second-floor uses results in limited opportunitie s for tenants to identify their presence
• 2nd Story Tenants – Parking Directional Sign – Space for 4 tenant wall signs
particularly for the 2nd story tenants who have parking behind the building on Aubry Court. This signage location also includes a directio nal sign towards the back
parking lot (labeled as 2B in the signage package).
• Additional Visibility on and from Aviation – 8 additio nal tenant wall signage
opportunities, split between a more visible location on the corner of the new architectural feature (labeled signs 3C in the signage package) and a lower standing
sign (labeled 2A in the signage package) closer to the existing non-conforming monument sign on Aviation and Aubry Court for the businesses in the Center to try to capture potential customers heading down Aviation before they commit to their travel on PCH.
• End-Cap Tenants – At the corner of the 2 story space closest to Aviation, we are
requesting one (1) additional wall signs per tenant on each floor right at their
frontage facing Aviation. As these are the only ten ants with a true face towards
Aviation, it’s important that they have a wall sign on both the PCH and Aviation
frontages. These signs are redlined in the below dr awing and would meet criteria of
Sign 4 shown in the signage package. Sign Area Allocation
Additionally, while the number of signs will vary by tenant based on individual frontage
conditions, total allowable permanent sign area is calculated by the City at the time of Page 321 of 466
each sign permit, pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.120(D), based on building frontage.
Due to the limited primary frontage of many tenant sui tes and the lack of qualifying
secondary frontage under the Code, the project reques ts a variance to allow tenant sign
area to be 10% above base allowance.
Under this approach, the maximum allowable sign area for each tenant will continue to be
evaluated and enforced through the City’s standard sign permit review process. In addition,
all signage will comply with the maximum sign dimensi ons, locations, and design
parameters shown in the approved Signage Package, which f urther limits sign size and
ensures a cohesive and appropriately scaled signage prog ram.
Architectural Integration
Please see the attached drawings for the proposed sign age locations, sizes, and overall
composition. As illustrated, the signage program is thoughtfully integrated into the approved architectural renovation and is designed to be visually balanced, orderly, and
proportional to the building façades. The request represents a measured and coordinated
increase to the code standard that responds to the sit e’s unique size, configuration, and
access conditions, resulting in only just over one ad ditional wall signs per tenant on
average. The proposed signage improves tenant visibili ty and wayfinding while maintaining
a high-quality aesthetic consistent with the City’s st andards and the intent of the façade improvements. Page 322 of 466
PacificCoastHwyProsp
e
ctAveP
rosp
e
ct
A
v
e
Monte
r
eyBl
vdPier Ave
1st St
27th St
8th StHermosaAveLongfellow
A
v
e
Aviation B lv d
2 2 n d
S t
2nd StGreenwichVillageArdmoreAveHermosaAveManhat
t
anAve2nd StManhattan AveG o u l d Ave
Longfello
w
A
v
e
ValleyDrArtesia Blv
d
C-3 Zoned Parcels
City of Hermosa Beach
C-3 General Commercial Zone (142 Parcels)
Zoning City Wide
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1A Limited Single Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-2A Medium Density Residential
R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
R-P Residential Professional
RPD Residential Planned Development
R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2 Downtown Commercial Zone
C-3 General Commercial Zone
M-1 Light Manufacturing
OS Open Space
OS-1 Restricted Open Space
OS-2 Restricted Open Space
OS-O Open Space Overlay
PF Public Facility
MHP Mobile Home Park
SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential)
SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial)
Unclassified (School District)
¯Page 323 of 466
Public Notification Package 1100 Pacific Coast Highway (Sign Variance VAR25-02)
Page 324 of 466
Page 325 of 466
Page 326 of 466
Page 327 of 466
Page 328 of 466
Page 329 of 466
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chairperson of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission has called a public hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below. 1. A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02) TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE WALL SIGNS PER BUSINESS ENTITY, NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING 129,736-SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 11 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, 2. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA25-02) TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING LOTS, MAKING THEM NEARLY EQUAL IN SIZE AND A VARIANCE (VAR5-03) TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTED LOTS TO EACH BE LESS THAN THE 4,000-QUARE-FOOT MINIMUM AT 1244 2ND STREET (APN 4186-027-031) AND APN 4186-027-030 (NO ADDRESS) LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 5 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15305 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. 3. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP25-04) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED 588.5-SQUARE- FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (VERIZON WIRELESS) LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 725 5TH STREET IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7). CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR CLASS 3 EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and is being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website.
Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/March 5, 2026/HD26-015
City ofHermosa Beach
Page 330 of 466
Community Development Department
Planning Division Attn: JW
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE
1100 Pacific Coast Hwy., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 4182-011, -037, -039, and - 061
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing
on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the request described below.
A SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02) TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN THREE WALL SIGNS PER BUSINESS ENTITY,
NOT TO EXCEED 35 WALL SIGNS FOR THE SITE, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 PERCENT
INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR AN EXISTING
129,736-SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. CEQA: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 11 EXEMPTION
PER SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to
participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-
0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting.
PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS - Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the
public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach,
CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the
meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and
participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following:
Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09
Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860
Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860
eComment - Submit an eComment by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community
Development at planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting
date in the subject line and must be received by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline
but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the
City will endeavor to ensure remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be
technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation
methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by
submitting an eComment to ensure participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also broadcast the meeting
via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically
feasible. To guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council
Chambers. If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try
another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda.
Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254
Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda
Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 331 of 466
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the
United States, over the age of 18 years; that on the 5th day of March , 2026, that I
deposited 546 Notices in the United States Post Office, a letter of notice, a copy of
which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following
persons at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice in that
said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of
the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles as being owners of property within 500 feet
and all residential occupants within 500’ of the property described as:
APN: 4185-011-037,039, 061
Subject: 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
Page 332 of 466
1559
1501719
711
143783283615008091560
8398291550922934915953823833845903919925 93793996494490683414141402 9248388468249481531
1525
1519
1509
1502
1435
1431
1421
1415
1420
1436
1512
1518
1526
1401
1407
1440 1515
1430 1507
1041105310591400
1411
1529
1516 1517
1416
1413
13148109089289389561310 8258278319139149419491200
959945857865867
901 103510491217
1219
1233
1235
1241
1255
1263
1291
1301
1315
1044
102910211214
1228
1238
1242
1250
1260
1268
1280
1286
1292
1308
1322
1212
1220
1224
1245
1249
1257
1265
1251
1253
1294
1302
1307
10171326
1312
10111015103810421036
849933951950
1000
916
110
2
82183790594292690010011027103310401030101610141002102610201010100410091025840 841843929955960946940930918912844830822860
828
808
802 813835801920902850820 9279439091013101893592391791184795794711077296496151131
627702653703730642632725 10051045
6506251050614718621651645626636647731701601931623727622612657652611706644720952620710712732861
855
745739723713709655635619607610 724602648775738735722714656646624640634Pacific
Coas
t HwyMiraSt
8th StArdmore AveAubrey
Ct
7th StBonnie Brae
St
Joy St
Aviation Blvd
14th St
AubreyParkCtOceanDrVal
ley Dr
Pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
A
v
e
9th St
16th St
Montgomery Dr Campana St
10th St
11th Pl
PierAve
10th St Owosso Ave
11th St
8th Pl
15th St
13th St
1100500' RADIUS MAP r1100 Pacific Coast Hwy, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Page 333 of 466
Aviation Blvd
15thSt
AUBREYPARK
15th PlMira
StBonnie Brae St
11th St
Joy St
OceanDrOwosso AveAubreyParkCt14th St
Paci
f
ic
Coast HwyArdmoreAveP i e r Ave
11th PlBardSt
Oak St
11th St
8th Pl
Montgomery Dr
9th St
11th Pl
ProspectAve
10th St Campana StValley
D
r
Oak St
Sunset DrLoma Dr16th St
10th St
11th St
15th St
13th St
Cypress
Ave
Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2026
1100 Pacific Coast Highway
APN: 4185-011-061 & 4185-011-039
Zone: C-3-HE General Commercial
Sign Variance (VAR 25-02)
Description
Legend
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
R-P Residential-Professional
RPD Residential Planned Development
R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Downtown Commercial
C-3 General Commercial
M-1 Light Manufacturing
OS Open Space
OS-1 Restricted Open Space
OS-2 Restricted Open Space
OS-O Open Space Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park
SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential)
SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial)
-HE Housing Element Overlay
500' Notification Radius
Page 334 of 466
Planning Commission Meeting –March 17, 2026
SIGN VARIANCE (VAR25-02)1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Page 335 of 466
Project Site
•C-3 Zone
•129,736 sq.ft. lot
•Multi-tenant Center
Page 336 of 466
Project Description
C-3 Signage
Requirement
Request
One (1) wall
sign allowed
per business
No more than
3 wall signs per
business but
not to exceed
35 wall signs
for the entire
building
Allowable sign
area based
linear frontage
of tenant
space
10% additional
signage
•Sign Variance
Page 337 of 466
Variance
FINDINGS
1.Does not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on
other properties in the vicinity;
2.Special Conditions and extraordinary
circumstances apply to the property
and do not apply to other properties;
and
3.Does not adversely affect public
safety
Project Site
Page 338 of 466
Sign Variance
FINDINGS
1.Does not grant a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation on
other properties in the vicinity;
2.Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property
and do not apply to other properties;
and
3.Does not adversely affect public
safety
234’
Page 339 of 466
Sign Variance
FINDINGS
1.Does not grant a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation on
other properties in the vicinity;
2.Special Conditions and extraordinary
circumstances apply to the property
and do not apply to other properties;
and
3.Does not adversely affect public safety
Page 340 of 466
CEQA and Public Noticing
CEQA
Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures
PUBLIC NOTICE
- Mailers, 500-foot radius- Published Ad
- Site Postings
Page 341 of 466
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Draft Resolution determining that the project is
categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approve Sign
Variance subject to conditions.
Page 342 of 466
Contact us.
Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
310-318-0242
planning@hermosabeach.gov
THANK YOU!
Page 343 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-034
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
LOCATION: 333 26TH STREET
ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONVEX SLOPE
DETERMINATION (CSD25-04) AT 333 26TH STREET
CEQA: Determine this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 21065
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission:
1. Determine this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 21065; and
2. Adopt a resolution upholding the Community Development Director’s
Determination denying a request for a Convex Lot Determination at 333 26th
Street in the Two-Family Residential Zone (Attachment 1).
Executive Summary:
The Appellant, Brandon Straus, on behalf of the property owners, submitted an appeal of
the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a request for a convex slope
determination (CSD25-04) at 333 26th Street.
As outlined in this report, the Community Development Director (“Director”) determined
that, based on the available evidence submitted for this property, it does not support a
convex slope determination. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
deny the appeal and adopt a Resolution upholding the Director's Determination.
Background:
The subject site is located at 333 26th Street in the Two-Family Residential Zone and is
developed with an existing single-family home constructed in 1925. The applicant intends
to redevelop the site and filed an application for a Convex Slope Determination (CSD25-
04) on December 2, 2025 (Attachment 2).
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.04.040 “General Definitions – Grade” states
that the grade is any point on a lot based on existing corner point elevations. Building
height is measured at the highest point of the building from the corresponding point on
Page 344 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 7
grade, which is interpolated from the corner points of the lot (as established by a
topographical survey). The interpolated line is calculated by subtracting the high corner
from the low corner along the length of the property and dividing that number by lot depth.
This establishes the slope per foot. This process accommodates most of the lots in the
City which are commonly flat or slope uniformly. However, for lots that are exceptional
with significant convex contours, HBMC Section 17.04.040 provides that, “For lots with
convex contours (where the ground level arches upward along a property line), the 'grade'
of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the property line with spot
elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot intervals.”
HBMC Section 17.04.040 prescribes that the grade determination be made by the
Director, based on all available evidence, with any disputes referred to the Planning
Commission. An application for a Convex Slope Determination (CSD25-04) was
submitted on December 2, 2025 (Attachment 2).
On December 29, 2025, staff completed their review of the application materials and in a
letter (Attachment 6) to the applicant (Attachment 6) requested additional information:
an interpolated line diagram on both sets of elevations and on the survey, distinguishing
lines clearly with a legend. Additionally, staff requested that the applicant provide an
additional diagram with the proposed building and critical points including:
a. Natural Grade Line (excluding fill soils);
b. Interpolated Line without convex slope determination using existing
property corners established in the provided survey.
c. The Proposed Interpolated line if granted convex slope determination as
requested (CSD), making sure to exclude fill soils and indicate how much
fill is being excluded at which points
i. The difference (measured in feet) between the minimum and
maximum difference in the interpolated line without CSD and with
CSD
On January 8, 2026, the Director and staff met with the applicant and reviewed the
applicant’s materials and received clarification on several items. The applicant elected
not to provide the additional materials requested for the staff’s evaluation convex slope
determination.
On January 28, 2026, the Director determined that the findings to support a convex slope
were not met and issued a denial (Attachment 7).
On February 5, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal to the Director’s Determination
(Attachment 8). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the evidence and determine
if a convex slope determination should be issued.
Discussion:
Page 345 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 7
The application included a survey with two-foot intervals (Attachment 3), and a Soils
Report (Attachment 4) with seven boring samples located across the property. The first
three borings (B-1/TH-1, B-2, and B-3) are in the southern portion of the lot, along 26th
Street at the property corners and about one-third of the way across the lot, closer to the
northwest property corner. There are an additional two borings (B-4 and B-5) in
approximately the middle of the lot along the property lines, with the final two borings (B-
6 and B-7) located at the rear of the lot, close to the property corners, as shown in the
submitted geotechnical site plan below, Boring Site Plan Figure 1 found on page 27 of
Attachment 4.
Boring Site Plan Figure 1
Page 346 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 7
The property corners have the following elevations per the applicants’ submitted survey:
Southwest: 120.50’ Northwest: 124.18’
Southeast: 122.49’ Northeast: 125.50’
The Soils Report (Attachment 4) also provided the depth of fill soil based on the
excavations at the correlating borings (B-1 to B-7) in Appendix A of that report, pages 27-
33; with the fill ranging from 0.5 up to 2.5 feet. In the recent past, when convex slope
determinations were made in the affirmative, the amount of fill soil was subtracted from
the corresponding elevation. In this case the applicant requested a determination that,
“the property is a convex sloping lot and that the elevations on the easterly and westerly
property lines depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – be used
for the purposes of calculating building height”.
The survey below, Two-Foot Interval Survey West, Figure 2 and Two-Foot Interval Survey
East Figure 3 (Attachment 3) reflects the spot elevations plotted two-foot intervals along
the length of the property, which is 82.7 feet. The bottom line of the survey connects the
property corners to each other, while the top curved line is the change in elevation, the
total change in elevation is seven feet on the west side (Figure 2) and four feet on the
east side (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Two-Foot Interval Survey West
Page 347 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 7
Figure 3: Two-Foot Interval Survey East
The application also included elevations which depicted a proposed three-story home
with a basement and roof deck (Attachment 5). In their cover letter (Attachment 2, page
3) the applicant requested, “In light of the NorCal Report indicating a 0.5’ fill layer across
most of the lot, we request that the elevations on the easterly and westerly property lines
depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – be used to determine
the height limit for the subject lot.” Staff understands the applicant’s request to be corner
point elevations raised to 126.66 at the east property corner and 126.25 at the west
property corner. This request does not utilize the “multiple-point method” in which grade
is determined by additional points along the property line.
The applicant’s survey documents the property corners and shows a grade difference of
3.68 feet (120.5’-124.18’) and on the east side the difference is 3.01 feet (122.49-125.5’).
Therefore, the slope ranges from 3.6 to 4.4 percent across the entire length of the lot
which is 82.7 linear feet. Generally, staff consider a lot with a slope of about 10 percent
or greater to be potentially convex. This 10 percent may be measured on a portion of the
lot, each case being reviewed and analyzed on a case-by-case basis and taking into
context the proposed development. In the case of the subject site, 333 26th Street, there
is an increase in elevation with the apex in approximately the middle of the lot, the total
rise in elevation from the lowest property point (Southwest: 120.50’) to the top of that ridge
is 7.25 feet (127.25) at the 46th foot of the property. In this segment of the lot there is a
16 percent slope.
If the applicant was proposing to develop the new home on the existing grade without any
significant alteration to the grade, an affirmative convex slope may be warranted.
However, as shown on the applicant’s elevation and roof plan (Attachment 5), a basement
is proposed. Because constructing the basement would require excavation of the lot, the
natural grade would be altered by as much as 12’-6”. Figure 4 below, also included as
Attachment 9. illustrates that the development of this site would alter the existing grade,
eliminating the convexity; the finished grade would be 14’16” In this case the applicant
Page 348 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 7
requested a determination that, “the property is a convex sloping lot and that the
elevations on the easterly and westerly property lines depicted on the topographical
survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – be used for the purposes of calculating building
height”. lower than the existing grade at this point.
Figure 4: Staff’s Analysis of Elevation Relative to Proposed Development
It is the staff’s assessment that the evidence submitted for this property does not support
a convex slope determination when the scope of the proposed development is
considered. The purpose of the convex lot determination was not to provide additional
height to lots that have convexity but then eliminate that convexity with development.
Instead, the convex slope determination is intended to accommodate lots that are
developed with the convexity and cannot otherwise significantly change the grade to
accommodate proposed development.
The prior two convex lot determinations reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission, 325 Hopkins Avenue (CSD24-01) and 3232 Hermosa Avenue (CSD25-01)
are examples of lots with ten percent slope and that were proposed to be developed with
without significantly excavating or grading the lot. In the cases of an affirmative convex
slope determination, staff may employ the “multiple-point method” in which grade is
determined by additional points along the property line.
Since the lot after grading and excavation will more closely resemble a uniformly sloping
lot with a maximum slope of 4.4 percent, the City’s process of using the interpolated
Page 349 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 7
property corners would adequately accommodate the variation in elevation and a convex
lot determination is not supported.
Environmental Analysis:
The denial of a convex slope determination is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act as a “project” is defined in Public Resources Code § 21065 as
having the potential to either cause direct physical change in the environment or
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The denial of the convex slope
at the subject property will not result in either a direct or indirect physical change.
Public Notification:
For the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission hearing the applicant received a notice
poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of
the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC Section 17.68.050. Public notification
materials are included as Attachment 10. As of the writing of the report, staff has received
no public comments.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 26-XX
2. Cover Letter
3. Survey
4. Soils Report
5. Elevations and Roof Plan
6. Planning Comment Letter dated 12-29-25
7. CSD Director’s Determination dated 1-28-26
8. Appeal of Director’s Determination 2-5-26
9. Staff Analysis of Elevation Relative to Proposed Development
10. Public Notification Package
Respectfully Submitted by: DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 350 of 466
P age 1 of 12
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION DENYING A REQUEST
FOR A CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATION (CSD25-04) AT 333 26TH
STREET LOCATED IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE, AND
DETERMINE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as
follows:
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, an application was filed by Brandon Straus on
behalf of the owners of real property at 333 26th Street (the “applicant”), seeking
determination that the property is a convex sloping lot and that the elevations on the
easterly and westerly property lines depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to
account for fill – be used for the purposes of calculating building height; and
WHEREAS, Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) sections 17.04.040 and
17.46.015 provide the definitions of “building height” and “grade” and establish the “by-
right/straight line interpolation” method for calculating building height. The grade used
for heigh measurements is based on surveyed elevation points at the property corners;
and
WHEREAS, HBMC Section 17.04.040 prescribes that the grade determination be
made by the Community Development Director, based on all available evidence, with any
disputes referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the HBMC allows for a convex slope determination on lots with
“convex” contours (where the grade level arches upward along the property line). In these
situations, the grade of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the
property lines with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two-foot intervals in
addition to property corner points; and
WHEREAS, the application and supporting submitted evidence demonstrates that
the convex contours of the lot will be eliminated with the proposed development,
including the excavation for a basement; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2026, the Community Development Director
Page 351 of 466
P age 2 of 12
determined that the findings to support a convex slope were not met and issued a denial;
and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal to the Community
Development Director’s determination; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its public meeting of March 17, 2026,
heard the appeal and considered all testimony and evidence, both oral and written,
presented; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based on the testimony and evidence received at its March 17, 2026
Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission hereby determines that all
available evidence does not support a convex condition on the subject property, pursuant
to HBMC Section 17.04.040, after the proposed excavation and grading of the site.
SECTION 2. The denial of a convex slope determination is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act as a “project” is defined in Public Resources Code §
21065 as having the potential to either cause direct physical change in the environment
or foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The denial of the convex slope
at the subject property will not result in either a direct or indirect physical change.
SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby upholds the
Community Development Director’s decision to deny a convex slope determination and
denies the requested appeal.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal
challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City
Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Page 352 of 466
P age 3 of 12
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution PC 26-XX is a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its
regular meeting of March 17, 2026.
Stephen Izant, Chairperson Alison Becker, Secretary
Date
Page 353 of 466
1
SROUR & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Development Services Group, Inc.
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 206, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
brandon@esrour.com 310/372-8433
November 11, 2025
Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Community Development Department: Enclosed please find an application for a convex slope determination for 333 26th Street
and approval to use certain grade elevations as an alternative to the interpolated grade for
purposes of determining the building height limit for the lot. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code allows consideration of spot elevation points along side property lines as an alternative to elevations along the interpolated grade, if the lot is determined to
have a convex slope. A finding of a convex slope must be based on evidence that grade elevations along the property lines represent natural or unaltered grades. A survey and topographic profile of the lot prepared by Eagle Eye Land Surveying shows spot elevations at two-foot intervals along the easterly and westerly lot lines, with the highest points of
convexity reaching elevations of 127.66’ and 127.25’, respectively.
Page 354 of 466
2
Based on the topographical survey, the slope of the subject lot appears convex. A geotechnical
engineering investigation for the site indicates the extent to which the elevation of the convex slope is
due to fill soil. In a report dated October 30, 2025, NorCal Engineering presented data from seven boring holes on the site, labeled B-1 through B-7 on the diagram below.
Appendix A, pages 1-6, of the NorCal Report shows the depth of fill soil at the boring points
as follows:
B-1 1.5’ B-2 2.0’ B-3 2.5’
B-4 0.5’
B-5 0.5’ B-6 1.5’ B-7 1.0’
At the boring sites nearest the highest point of convexity, B-4 and B-5, the report indicates 0.5’
of fill soil. Therefore, when excluding fill soil at the highest points of convexity, the elevations of the natural soil are 127.16’ on the east lot line and 126.75’ on the west lot line.
Page 355 of 466
3
Based on the relatively level grade at the top of the convexity, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that the 0.5’ layer of fill spans the portion of the lot depicted in red below.
Accordingly, we request a determination that a natural convex slope condition exists on the
subject lot and that alternate elevation points may be used to determine the height limit. In light of the NorCal Report indicating a 0.5’ fill layer across most of the lot, we request that the elevations on the easterly and westerly property lines depicted on the topographical survey -- less 0.5’ to account for fill – be used to determine the height limit for the subject lot.
Included with this application are elevation drawings and a roof plan and critical points for a proposed single-family residence on the subject site. The elevations and roof plan incorporate the profile of the convex slope on the survey, less .5’, and the corresponding proposed maximum height elevations. Please review these plans to confirm that they would be compliant with the height limit
if a convex slope determination were approved for the site.
Thank you for your review of this application. Best regards,
Brandon Straus
Brandon Straus
Page 356 of 466
4
Page 357 of 466
N2
5
°
0
7
'
0
1
"
W
8
2
.
6
9
'
N2
5
°
0
7
'
2
6
"
W
8
2
.
7
1
'
N65°05'30"E 559.47'
N65°07'00"E 555.47'
30.00'
200.01'
329.46'
7.
5
0
'
7.
5
0
'
20
.
0
0
'
20
.
0
0
'
30.01'
200.06'
325.40'
N65°07'00"E 30.01'
N65°05'30"E 30.00'
27TH CT.
26TH ST.MORNINGSIDE DR.SW
G
RH 148.43
RH 134.82
RH 144.25
HPR 140.85
HPR 155.45
TW 122.47
TW 123.32
TW 122.37
TW 123.78
TW 124.32
TW 128.05
TW 128.03
BOS 125.49
BOS 121.99
TOS 126.44TOS 128.09
TW 127.75
TW 128.66
TW 128.15
TW
1
2
7
.
6
5
TF
1
3
3
.
5
5
TF 134.06
TF 13
4
.
0
4
TF
1
3
1
.
1
1
TF
1
3
2
.
2
1
TW
1
2
5
.
8
7
GFF 125.64GFF 125.62
TOS 128.48
BOS 127.30
FF 127.04
TF
1
3
1
.
3
1
TF 131.19
1 STORY STRUCTURE
LOT NO. 27
2 STORY STRUCTURE
LOT NO. 25
2 STORY STRUCTURE
LOT NO. 25
3 STORY STRUCTURE
LOT NO. 29
TF
1
3
2
.
1
9
CHIMNEY
DECK
BOS 123.83
TOS 132.53
TF 130.08
123.80
123.54
123.30
125.36
123.60
124.23
125.35
125.53
125.52
120.53
119.93 121.54
125.61
124.86
124.66
124.84
125.66
126.94
127.33
127.51
127.02
127.40
12
6
.
6
1
123.45
123.46
123.09
TC 119.78
FL 119.17
119.46 120.16
121.20
122.16 123.28
TC 120.39
FL 119.80
TC 121.40
FL 120.94
TC 122.48
FL 122.08
TC 123.37
FL 122.87
125.73
12
7
.
1
7
12
5
.
1
0
124.91
FF 128.53
BALCONY
BALCONY
EL 125.47
EL 125.50 @ PC
EL 124.18 @ PC
EL 120.50 @ PC
EL 122.49 @ PC
DRIV
E
W
A
Y
DRIV
E
W
A
Y
G
G
20
'
20
'
FND L&TAG RCE 30826 ON
PL PROD. 1.00' S'LY OF PC.
EL= 122.49'
TW 126.68
TW 126.18
TW 126.17
TW 126.68
TW 127.13
BOS 125.93
TOS 126.90
FF 128.10
FND L&TAG RCE 22024 0.73'
S'LY & 0.17' W'LY OF PC,
PERPENDICULAR THERETO,
EL= 120.50'
FND L&TAG LS 4142 ON
PL PROD 7.5' N'LY OF PC
EL= 123.81'
FND L&TAG RCE 30826 ON
PL PROD 1.97' N'LY OF PC
EL= 125.52'
124.66
12
6
.
3
0
126.08
126.29
12
7
.
5
8
122.81
122.23
122.31
123.66
125.53
3.58'6.95'6.78'2.32'
2.36'3.55'
2.54'2.41'
2.58'9.42'2.42'9.36'W'LY PL -PROFILE118.00120.00122.00124.00126.00128.00130.00000.00
002.00
004.00
006.00
008.00
010.00
012.00
014.00
016.00
018.00
020.00
022.00
024.00
026.00
028.00
030.00
032.00
034.00
036.00
038.00
040.00
042.00
044.00
046.00
048.00
050.00
052.00
054.00
056.00
058.00
060.00
062.00
064.00
066.00
068.00
070.00
072.00
074.00
076.00
078.00
080.00
082.00
ELV.STA.120.50
122.63
123.46
123.64
124.15
124.32
124.56
125.04
125.26
125.53
125.70
126.48
126.56
126.68
126.73
126.81
126.83
127.03
127.04
127.06
127.23
127.23
127.23
127.25
127.25
127.12
127.02
126.95
126.90
126.85
126.80
126.71
126.62
126.39
126.22
126.05
125.79
125.46
125.12
124.50
124.19
124.18
126.53
082.69
E'LY PL -PROFILE118.00120.00122.00124.00126.00128.00130.00000.00
002.00
004.00
006.00
008.00
010.00
012.00
014.00
016.00
018.00
020.00
022.00
024.00
026.00
028.00
030.00
032.00
034.00
036.00
038.00
040.00
042.00
044.00
046.00
048.00
050.00
052.00
054.00
056.00
058.00
060.00
062.00
064.00
066.00
068.00
070.00
072.00
074.00
076.00
078.00
080.00
082.00
ELV.STA.082.71
N25
°
07
'0
1
"W
82
.6
9
'N25°0
7'2
6"
W
82
.
71
'
123.50
120.50
122.63
123.46
123.64
124.15
124.32
124.56
125.04
125.26
125.53
125.70
126.48
126.56
126.68
126.73
126.81
126.83
127.03
127.04
127.06
127.23
127.23
127.23
127.25
127.25
127.12
127.02
126.95
126.90
126.85
126.80
126.71
126.62
126.39
126.22
126.05
125.79
125.46
125.12
124.50
124.19
124.18
126.53
122.49
123.63
126.46
126.53
126.54
126.54
126.87
126.98
127.09
127.20
127.32
127.40
127.47
127.54
127.61
127.65
127.66
127.66
127.64
127.61
127.58
127.54
127.50
127.47
127.41
127.33
127.26
127.18
127.11
127.03
126.97
126.93
126.43
125.96
125.90
125.85
125.79
125.74
125.68
125.63
125.57
125.52
125.50
122.49
123.63
126.46
126.53
126.54
126.54
126.87
126.98
127.09
127.20
127.32
127.40
127.47
127.54
127.61
127.65
127.66
127.66
127.64
127.61
127.58
127.54
127.50
127.47
127.41
127.33
127.26
127.18
127.11
127.03
126.97
126.93
126.43
125.96
125.90
125.85
125.79
125.74
125.68
125.63
125.57
125.52
125.50
NOTE
THIS SURVEY AND MAP ARE THE PROPERTY OF EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING
AND MAY NOT BE MODIFIED, ALTERED, OR CHANGED IN ANY FASHION
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY E.E. LAND SURVEYING AND THE CLIENT
FOR WHOM THE SURVEY WAS PREPARED. THIS PROVISO EXTENDS TO THE
RESULTING PLOT OF SAID MAP AND THE COMPUTER DISC OR E-MAIL OF THAT
MAP AS PROVIDED TO THE CLIENT. ANY VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISO WILL VOID
ANY PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
BY EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING AS TO SUCH CHANGED MATERIAL.
E.E.
LAND SURVEYING
CO
N
V
E
X
S
U
R
V
E
Y
SI
T
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
333
2
6
t
h
S
t
,
H
e
rmo
s
a
Bea
c
h
,
C
A
9
0
2
5
4
PROJECT NOTES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: N 65°07'00" E SHOWN AS THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH ST.
OF SHAKESPEARE TRACT, M.B. 9/190 AS FILED IN THE RECORDS OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
TOOMEY
25-239
08/20/25
APN; 4181-024-026
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.
ASSESSORS'S I.D. NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DATE:
ASSUMED BENCHMARK:
ABBREVIATIONS :
AB AGGREGATE BASE
AC ASPHALT PAVEMENT
AD AREA DRAIN
BM BENCHMARK
BOS BOTTOM OF STAIRS
BOW BACK OF WALK
BRMP BOTTOM OF RAMP
BS BOTTOM OF SLOPE
CB CATCH BASIN
CBW CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
CF CURB FACE
CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONC CONCRETE
E EAST
EG EDGE OF GUTTER
EL ELEVATION
EM ELECTRIC METER
EMH ELECTRIC MANHOLE
EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EPB ELECTRIC PULL BOX
EV ELECTRIC VAULT
EEH EDGE OF EAVE HEIGHT
FF FINISH FLOOR
FG FINISH GRADE
FH FIRE HYDRANT
FL FLOW LINE
FND FOUND
FOW FACE OF WALK
FS FINISHED SURFACE
GB GRADE BREAK
GM GAS METER
GV GAS VALVE
HPR HIGHEST POINT OF ROOF
ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
IE INVERT ELEVATION
IP IRON PIPE
LP LEAD, TACK & TAG
LT LEAD & TACK
MP METAL POST
N NORTH
NG NATURAL GROUND ELEVATION
O/S OFFSET
OHW OVERHEAD WIRE
PB PULL BOX
PC PROPERTY CORNER
PL PROPERTY LINE
PLS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
PLT PARKING LOT LIGHT
PM PARKING METER POST
PP POWER POLE
PROD PRODUCED
RCE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
RH RIDGE HEIGHT
RW RETAINING WALL
S SOUTH
SB SPLASH BOX
SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
SMH SEWER MANHOLE
SPB SIGNAL PULL BOX
STLT STREET LIGHT
SW SPIKE & WASHER
TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
TC TOP OF CURB
TELMH TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TG TOP OF GRATE ELEVATION
TOS TOP OF STAIRS
TR TREE
TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL
TOP TOP OF PARAPET
TW TOP OF WALL
TX/BX TOP/BOTTOM OF X
W WEST
WD-FENCE WOOD FENCE
WI-FENCE WROUGHT IRON FENCE
WM WATER METER
WV WATER VALVE
EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING
1601 PACIFIC COAST HWY.
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
PHONE (562) 452-3519
PREPARED BY:
DRAFTED BY:
MAP ISSUE DATE:
M.A.P.
09/18/2025
DA
T
E
O
F
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
#
IT
E
M
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR
ALL MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS, OR OTHER
DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE
CHARGE OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, LICENSED TO
PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL PROFET, LS 9806,
PURSUANT TO THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S
ACT BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 8700-8805.
N
S
W
E
LOT 27, BLK. 112
SHAKESPEARE
M.B. 9/190
LOT AREA = 2481 S.F.
ELECTRIC BOX
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
IRRIGATION VAULT
WATER SERVICE GRATE
STORM DRAIN INLET
SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER METER
SEWER MANHOLE
GAS VALVE
GAS METER
SYMBOLS
POWER POLE
LIGHT POLE
WATER HEATER
MAIL BOX
ELECTRIC METER
BOLLARD
CATV BOX
TRAFFIC LIGHT
DOUBLE GATE
SLIDE GATE
SINGLE GATE
LEGEND & BLOCKS
TREE
MH
GV
S
G
E
T
W
MB
BUILDING
HATCHING & LINE TYPE
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
BRICK PAVERS
STONE PAVERS
TILE PAVERS
PLANTER WALL
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
BRICK WALL
CHAIN LINK FENCE
IRON FENCE
CENTER LINE
VINYL FENCE
STONE WALL
ROOF LINE
WOOD DECK
POWER LINE
WOOD FENCE
RETAINING WALL
Gate
X X
UNKNOWN UTILITY
PROPERTY LINE
DRIPLINE
FND SMH IN FRONT OF E'LY NEIGHBOR PROPERTY
EL= 125.47' AS SHOWN HEREON
GUY WIRE
TITLE POLICY NOTE:
A TITLE REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND
REVIEWED BY EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING
AT THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY.
CHICAGO TITLE
TITLE NUMBER: 112513509-JT
DATED AS OF JULY 30, 2025
NO PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS PER SAID
DOCUMENT
09/18/2025
LICENS
E D L AND
SURVEYORSTATEOFC AL I F O
R
NIA9
806
MICHA
E L
A.PROFET0 8 16 24
Page 358 of 466
1Page 359 of 466
2Page 360 of 466
3Page 361 of 466
4Page 362 of 466
5Page 363 of 466
6Page 364 of 466
7Page 365 of 466
8Page 366 of 466
9Page 367 of 466
10Page 368 of 466
11Page 369 of 466
12Page 370 of 466
13Page 371 of 466
14Page 372 of 466
15Page 373 of 466
16Page 374 of 466
17Page 375 of 466
18Page 376 of 466
19Page 377 of 466
20Page 378 of 466
21Page 379 of 466
22Page 380 of 466
23Page 381 of 466
24Page 382 of 466
25Page 383 of 466
26Page 384 of 466
27Page 385 of 466
28Page 386 of 466
29Page 387 of 466
30Page 388 of 466
31Page 389 of 466
32Page 390 of 466
33Page 391 of 466
34Page 392 of 466
35Page 393 of 466
36Page 394 of 466
37Page 395 of 466
38Page 396 of 466
39Page 397 of 466
40Page 398 of 466
41Page 399 of 466
42Page 400 of 466
43Page 401 of 466
44Page 402 of 466
45Page 403 of 466
46Page 404 of 466
47Page 405 of 466
48Page 406 of 466
49Page 407 of 466
50Page 408 of 466
51Page 409 of 466
52Page 410 of 466
53Page 411 of 466
54Page 412 of 466
55Page 413 of 466
56Page 414 of 466
57Page 415 of 466
58Page 416 of 466
59Page 417 of 466
Page 418 of 466
Page 419 of 466
2507OFREVISIONREVISEDPRINTEDOWNER: DAVID AND SUSAN TOOMEY JOB ADDRESS: 333 26TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH
119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.A7DECKHBDECK124.18
3.13'
PROP
SB
3'REQ'DSB 3'REQ'DSB3.08'PROPSB3'REQ'DSB3'FAUFAUROOF DECK305 sq ftH
I
PHIP3 12 :123 12 :12
12:12
12:12
12:1212:1212:12 12:1212:12CRICKETHI
P
HIPHIPHIP
HIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGERIDGEREQ'DSB3 12 :125'-0"32'-6"9'-3"34'28'15'-9"125.52
1
2
2
.
4
9
125.12125.92
1
2
7
.
1
2
1
2
7
.
0
3
1
2
6
.
7
0
1
2
5
.
2
6
1
2
0
.
5
0
125.75
1
2
7
.
3
3
1
2
7
.
6
6
1
2
7
.
5
8
1
2
5
.
0
9
CP6 = 155.29MAX.(125.29 + 30)ACT = 155.00CP5 = 156.09MAX.(126.09 + 30)ACT = 155.00
CP
4
=
1
5
7
.
1
4
-
.
5
f
t
(
f
i
l
l
)
= 1
5
6
.
6
4
M
A
X
.
(12
6
.
6
4
+
3
0
)
AC
T
=
1
5
6
.
4
5
@T
O
P
O
F
G
I
R
D
E
R
CP
3
=
1
5
7
.
0
8
-
.
5
f
t
(
f
i
l
l
)
= 1
5
6
.
5
8
M
A
X
.
(12
6
.
5
8
+
3
0
)
AC
T
=
1
5
6
.
4
5
@T
O
P
O
F
G
I
R
D
E
R
CP
2
=
1
5
7
.
1
7
MA
X
.(12
7
.
1
7
+
3
0
)
AC
T
=
1
5
6
.
6
8
CP
1
=
1
5
5
.
4
1
MA
X
.(12
5
.
4
1
+
3
0
)
AC
T
=
1
5
3
.
1
0
3'-0"10'-0"
3'-0"
15'-0"
125.63
ROOF PLAN CRITICAL POINTS1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHPage 420 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
December 29, 2025 TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
Srour & Associates Brandon Straus
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste 206 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: CSD25-04 for a convex slope determination located at 333 26th Street.
To Brandon Straus:
Thank you for applying for a convex lot determination for staff review.
Background Zoning Information
General Plan Designation: MD (Medium Density)
Zoning District: R-2 (Two-Family Residential Zone)
Coastal Zone: Yes
During this review period of your application, staff identified the following information
necessary for staff to determine compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. See analysis below
for specific concerns:
Comments/ Correction Items:
General
1. Please specify which proposed alternative elevation points are intended to be used for
height calculation purposes and highlight them on the topographical survey.
2. Please provide the proposed alternative elevation points showing the subtraction of
any fill.
3. Please provide a written narrative of which alternate points are being requested for
height analysis purposes in lieu of the property corner points and why. 4. Provide an interpolated line diagram on both sets of elevations and on the survey
(please distinguish lines clearly with a legend). Please include all the following in the diagram, provided without the proposed building. If desired, you can also include a
second diagram with the proposed building and critical points: a. Natural Grade Line (excluding fill soils)
b. Interpolated Line without convex slope determination using existing property corners established in the provided survey.
c. The Proposed Interpolated line if granted convex slope determination as you have requested above (CSD), making sure to exclude fill soils and indicate how
much fill is being excluded at which points i. The difference (measured in feet) between the minimum and maximum
difference in the interpolated line without CSD and with CSD 5. Please be aware that prior to the public hearing for the Convex Slope Determination,
a check for $75 made payable to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk for the recordation of the CEQA Notice of Exemption will be required pursuant to
Page 421 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
the Class 2 Section 15302 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff will advise you on when to provide the check in advance of the
hearing.
Once your resubmittal package is ready, please submit the revised plans to
CommunityDevelopment@hermosabeach.gov along with a response letter to the comments identified above indicating how each comment was addressed in the resubmittal. Additional
comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of revised plans and/or new information.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 318-0243 or by email at dtran@hermosabeach.gov .
Sincerely,
DeDe Tran
DeDe Tran Assistant Planner
Page 422 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM Convex Slope Determination
DATE: January 28, 2026 TO: Brandon Straus, Applicant FROM: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 333 26th Street- Convex Slope Determination, Findings Not Met
BACKGROUND
An application for a Convex Slope Determination (CSD25-04) at 333 26th Street
was submitted on December 2, 2025, by the applicant. The application included
a survey with two-foot intervals, and a Soils Report with seven boring samples
located across the property. The first three borings are at the southern portion of
the lot along 26th street at the property corners and about one-third across the
lot, closer to the northwest property corner. There are an additional two borings
in approximately the middle of the lot along the property lines, with the final two
borings located at the rear of the lot, close to the property corners, as shown in
the submitted geotechnical site plan below. The fill depth was noted in the table
alongside the site plan.
Page 423 of 466
2
The property corners have the following elevations per the applicant’s submitted
survey:
Southwest: 120.50 Northwest: 124.18
Southeast: 122.49 Northeast: 125.50
The survey below reflects the elevations at two-foot intervals.
Staff reviewed the application and wrote a comment letter to the applicant on
December 29, 2025. Staff requested (among other comments) the following:
Provide an interpolated line diagram on both sets of elevations and on the
survey (please distinguish lines clearly with a legend). Please include all the
following in the diagram, provided without the proposed building. If desired, you can also include a second diagram with the proposed
building and critical points:
a. Natural Grade Line (excluding fill soils)
Page 424 of 466
3
b. Interpolated Line without convex slope determination using existing
property corners established in the provided survey.
c. The Proposed Interpolated line if granted convex slope
determination as you have requested above (CSD), making sure to
exclude fill soils and indicate how much fill is being excluded at which
points
i. The difference (measured in feet) between the minimum and
maximum difference in the interpolated line without CSD and with CSD
Consequently, on January 8, 2026, staff (Assistant Planner DeDe Tran and
Director Alison Becker) met with the applicant.
DISCUSSION
At the January 8, 2026, meeting between staff and the applicant, staff reviewed
the evidence and clarified additional questions.
The relevant section of code is HBMC Section 17.04.040 “General Definitions –
Grade” which prescribes the determination of grade to the Community
Development Director, based on all available evidence.
HBMC Section17.04.040 definition of “Grade” further states: “For lots with convex
contours (where the ground level arches upward along a property line), the
'grade' of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the
property line with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot
intervals.”
The survey documents the property corners; the grade difference between the
highest elevation (125.50 feet at the northeast corner) and lowest elevation (120
feet at the southwest corner) points is only a five-foot difference. The highest
elevation documented on the two-foot topographical survey is 127.66 feet, near
the middle of the property. The condition document does not reflect a qualifying
convex-slope condition with an arch or rise along a property line. The figure
below illustrates the kind of “arching” on an uneven, convex, variably sloping lot
that is consistent with a convex lot. Additionally, the proposed redevelopment of this property would alter the existing grade conditions, eliminating the mid-lot
slope.
Page 425 of 466
4
FINDINGS
The evidence does not support a convex slope determination. The lot condition
does not meet the characteristics of a convex lot as defined in the code, “where
the ground level arches upward along a property line,” as in those cases where
there is a more significant elevation change reflected across the property corners,
and which can be found in some portions of the city’s naturally hilly topography.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to alter the grade, eliminating the mid-lot
slope. Therefore, additional height through a convex slope determination is not
warranted based on the lot's topography.
The lot, especially post grading, will more closely reflect the flat, concave or
uniformly sloping lot as show below.
Page 426 of 466
5
Therefore, since the lot most closely resembles a uniform sloping lot (with a small
rise in the middle of the lot which will be eliminated during the grading of the lot),
the City’s process of using the interpolated property corners will accommodate
the variation in elevation and a convex lot determination is not supported.
Page 427 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Last Updated 2/3/2025
PART I: PLANNING APPLICATION
Please note that all information submitted is public record.
SECTION A: PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
SITE ADDRESS/LOCATION:
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: (USE
LINKED GIS TOOL TO LOCATE APN) — —
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SECTION B: APPLICANT (INDIVIDUAL/ENTITY RESPONSIBLE) SHALL BE THE POINT OF CONTACT UNLESS SECTION C IS
COMPLETED
NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
EMAIL:
PHONE: MOBILE PHONE:
SECTION C: APPLICANTS’ AUTHORIZED AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE (IF APPLICABLE)
NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
EMAIL:
PHONE: MOBILE PHONE:
CITY USE ONLY
Received By: Fee(s): Date Paid: Case No.: Case
Planner:
333 26th Street
4 1 8 1 0 2 4 0 2 6
Appeal of Director decision dated January 28, 2026, denying request for a convex slope determination and approval of alternate elevation points to measure building height.
Brandon Straus
Srour & Associates
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 206
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
brandon@esrour.com
310-372-8433
N/A
Page 428 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
3
Last Updated 2/3/2025
SECTION D: PROPERTY OWNER
NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
EMAIL:
PHONE: MOBILE PHONE:
SECTION E: APPLICATION(S) (select all that apply)
☐Amendment to Planning Entitlement
☐Appeal to the Planning Commission
☐Conditional Use Permit
☐Condominium
☐CC&R's Review
☐Director Determination
☐Extension of Time for Planning Entitlement
☐Final Map
☐General Plan Amendment
☐Height Limit Exception
☐Minor Historic Review/Cert. of Appropriateness
☐Major Historic Review/Cert. of Appropriateness
☐Historic Landmark Nomination
☐Limited Outdoor Seating
☐Lot Line Adjustment
☐Minor Modification
☐Mural Review
☐Parking Plan
☐Planning Commission Interpretation
☐Precise Development Plan
☐Sign Variance
☐Similar Use Determination
☐Slope/Grade Height Determination
☐Tentative Map
☐Zoning Code Text Amendment
☐Variance
☐Zone Change
☐Categorical Exemption
☐Negative Declaration / Initial Study
☐Environmental Impact Report
Please refer to Section III of the application for information on current fees. Be advised, multiple fees
may apply to your application (e.g. a CUP application may include a CUP fee, categorical exemption
fee, public noticing fee(s), and technology fee).
SECTION F: CERTIFICATION
1.I certify that to, the best of my knowledge, the information in this application and all plans and submittals are
true, accurate and correct; this application is made with my consent; and misrepresentation of factual
information may invalidate development entitlements granted by the City.
2.I understand that work pertaining to the project shall not begin prior to final City approval. 'Final City approval'
means approval by the final decision-making authority on the application, following any appeal period set
Dana Collins, Successor Trustee of The Shirley A. Lehmer Revocable Trust aka The Shirley A.
Lehmer Revocable Trust
333 26th St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
x
Dana Collins: danacollinsbroker@gmail.com
Page 429 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
4
Last Updated 2/3/2025
forth in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Please be advised for projects within the Coastal Zone, the
California Coastal Commission may be the final decision-making body.
3.I understand that property development is complex and responsibility for understanding and abiding by all
legal requirements pertaining to this project lies with myself, the property owner and project developers. I
understand that unknown conditions and requirements may arise during the development process, which
may result in unanticipated time, cost, requirements, or project denial. I understand that my project may be
subject to requirements of other City departments, such as the Public Works or Los Angeles County Fire
Departments and have inquired about them, or other local, state or federal, or utility company requirements.
4.I hereby authorize employees of the City of Hermosa Beach to enter upon the subject property, as necessary
to enable the City to process this application and upon providing reasonable notice, to inspect the premises
and post public hearing notices.
5.I understand that any decision of the Planning Commission may be reviewed by the City Council and some
applications are subject to appeal. Appeals must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten calendar
days from the date of the subsequent City Council meeting.
6.To the extent permitted by law, I agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack,
set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
7.I understand that all information of any type pertaining to this application is public information and may be
uploaded to the Internet in a portable document format (PDF) as part of an agenda packet for Planning
Commission or City Council meetings. Any information that I believe is proprietary or should not be viewed by
the public is clearly designated; however, and notwithstanding, I understand such information may be
subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.).
8.I understand that I may request in writing to receive notice of any proposal to adopt or amend the general
plan, a specific plan, zoning or other ordinance affecting building permits or grading permits reasonably
related to my proposal. (Government Code Section 65945).
9.I understand that the City reserves the right to require an additional deposit of funds in order to complete an
environmental assessment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
I hereby certify that I have read, understand, and agree with all the statements above.
(Applicant and Property Owner’s Signature shall be notarized)
Applicant:
Owner:
Signature Print Name Date
Signature Print Name Date
***If the above signature(s) are on behalf of a LLC or Trust, the Planning Application shall be accompanied by
verification documents (Articles of Incorporation, Deed of Trust, etc.) to demonstrate the signatories are
authorized to sign on behalf of the entity.
Dana Collins
Successor Trustee of The Shirley A. Lehmer Revocable
Trust aka The Shirley A. Lehmer Revocable Trust
Brandon Straus 11/10/2025
11/10/2025
Page 430 of 466
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of _________________
County of _____________________________)
On _________________________ before me, _________________________________________
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ____________ that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
Clear Form Print Form
Dana Collins
Virginia
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof.
Virginia
Newport News
Deja N'Dow Electronic Notary Public11/10/2025
XXXXXXXXXBrandon Bernstein Straus
State of Florida
County of Orange
This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of online notarization,
this 11/10/2025 by Dana Collins.
Christopher Sarrico
___ Personally Known OR ___ Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced _______DRIVER LICENSE
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof.
Page 431 of 466
Last Updated 2/3/2025
PART II: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
1. Describe the project site, as it currently exists, including size of buildings and improvements, existing
uses, number of parking spaces, square footage of landscaping etc. (use separate sheet if necessary)
Existing Proposed
2. What is the General Plan Land Use Designation for the
site?
3. What is the Zoning for the Site?
4. Is the site in the Coastal Zone?Yes: No:
5.Will the project be developed or constructed in phases? If yes,
include a phasing plan in the detailed project description.Yes: No:
6. Are you proposing any other development, uses, or alterations of
the site that are not included in this application?Yes: No:
7. Has the project or site received previous or other approvals? (If so,
please provide them. An amendment may be required.)Yes: No:
8. Is any part of the site subject to any lease, agreement, covenant,
association, easement, or other encumbrance?Yes: No:
9. Have you conducted any pre-submittal community outreach? If
yes, please include a narrative of the results of the outreach,
including any opposition.
Yes: No:
10. Describe adjacent land uses, including business names:
To North:
To South:
To East:
To West:
11. Lot coverage and surfaces:
(Note: Only the existing square footage column must be completed unless new construction is
proposed)
Type Existing (sq ft) Proposed (sq ft) Net Change (sq ft)
Lot coverage*
Paved area
Landscaped area
Unimproved area
Pervious surfaces
Total building area
Provide # of
buildings & size of
Currently on site is an 875-square-foot single-family residence and detached two-car
garage, built in 1925. There is a small landscaped area in the front yard.
Residential Medium
Density No change
R-2 No Change
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
R-2, residential
R-2, residential
R-2, residential
R-2, residential
N/A
Page 432 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
6
Last Updated 2/3/2025
each building
*Lot coverage: area of lot covered by foundations of all buildings and structures, cantilevers projecting
from a building, decks and stairs >30" above grade. Excluded: Architectural projections, eaves,
unenclosed balconies open on > 2 sides including portions under another balcony projecting <5' from a
building face; nonstructural stairs, patios, walkways and planters establishing finish grade; fences and
walls. (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.04 )
12. Will any buildings be demolished? If yes, complete 12a-12c.Yes: No:
12a. Number of buildings to be demolished?
12b. Gross floor area of buildings to be demolished.
12c. Are any buildings on site at least 50 years old? If yes, a
professionally prepared historical resource survey is
required
13. Will any dwelling units be demolished? If yes, complete 13a-
13c.Yes: No:
13a. Number of dwelling units currently on property.
13b. Number of dwelling units to be demolished.
13c. Has the income certification form been completed? Yes: No:
14. Are any temporary uses or structures proposed?Yes: No:
15. Will fences, walls /retaining walls, or similar elements be
installed or altered?Yes: No:
16.Are any roof decks proposed? If yes, complete 16a.Yes: No:
16a. Size of roof deck
17. Are electrical transformers, fire hydrants, antennae, rooftop
elements, solar photovoltaic energy systems, tanks, or similar
improvements proposed/required?
Yes: No:
18. Will any structure, architectural projection, stairs, decks, utilities,
or other elements encroach into a setback as a result of the
project?
Yes: No:
19. Will any signs be installed or altered in connection with the
use or building?Yes: No:
20. Will trash/recycling facilities be installed or altered?Yes: No:
21.Will any part of the project, or its use, encroach on the
public right-of-way (during or after construction or
operation)?
Yes: No:
22. Will exterior lighting on any building or site be installed or
altered?Yes: No:
23. Number of Proposed Parking spaces
Type Existing Proposed Net Change Required Covered
spaces
Regular space
Compact
Disabled
Loading/other
Guest (residential)
24. Are any parking spaces located offsite or shared with other
uses or businesses on the site? If yes, include a narrative in the
project description and describe their location.
Yes: No:
*Please note that a parking study prepared by a professional parking & traffic expert may be required
for parking plan applications.
x
x
N/A
N/A
Page 433 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
7
Last Updated 2/3/2025
25. Will any driveways or access ways be constructed or altered?Yes: No:
26. Will drainage be altered or increased? If yes, please describe.Yes: No:
27. Is a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan required?
(Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44)Yes: No:
28.Are any trees, unique environmental conditions, or cultural
elements located on the site or an adjacent site?Yes: No:
29. Will any trees be removed, or will construction, trenching,
construction materials, or vehicles encroach within the drip line
of existing trees?
Yes: No:
30. Will any vegetation or planters be removed, altered or
installed?Yes: No:
31. Is site grading or contouring proposed?Yes: No:
Cut (cubic yards): Fill (cubic yards):
Cubic yards export: Cubic yards import:
Maximum height fill slope (feet): Maximum height cut slope
(feet):
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS (Skip to Question 35 if not a residential project)
32. Type of units
Type Number of
units
Bedrooms
per unit
Unit size (sq ft) -
except garages
Garage– per
unit (sq ft)
Total size– all
units (sg ft)
Single-family
Duplex
Multi-family
Condominiums
Accessory or other
33.Will affordable or special need housing be provided? If yes,
complete 33a & 33b.Yes: No:
33a. Indicate the number of affordable units as well as the
level of affordability (ex: Moderate income, low income,
very low income etc.)
33b. Indicate the number of special need housing units
proposed and describe the type of special needs
housing.
34.Will any amenities be provided?Yes: No:
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, OTHER (Skip to Acknowledgements if inapplicable)
35. Provide details on the following criteria:
Existing Proposed
Days and hours of operation:
Shifts per day:
Employees on largest shift:
Estimated total number of
employees:
Number of seats (for
restaurants, schools, theaters,
etc.):
N/A
N/A
Page 434 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
8
Last Updated 2/3/2025
36.Specify any outdoor activities (dining, storage, etc.):
37. Will machinery other than typical office equipment be used?
If yes, please describe:Yes: No:
38. Will any flues, filtration systems, ventilation or similar equipment
be installed or altered (e.g., affecting air, water, grease or oil
trap)?
If yes, please describe:
Yes: No:
39. Will any hazardous or dangerous materials be used? If yes,
please describe:Yes: No:
40. Will the use create any noise or vibration that will heard/felt off
the site? If yes, please describe:Yes: No:
41. How is the project consistent with, and meet the goals of, the City’s General Plan? The General
Plan can be found at https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/community-
development/plan-hermosa.
Page 435 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
o: 310-318-0242 e: planning@hermosabeach.gov
Office Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
9
Last Updated 2/3/2025
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
CONSULTATION OF LIST OF SITES RELATED TO HAZARDOUS WASTES
Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(f), this statement must be completed and
signed by the applicant before an application can be deemed complete for any type of
development project.
I certify that on ________________, I consulted the list of identified hazardous waste sites
(Cortese List) consolidated by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which can be
found at www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/CorteseList.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the proposed location for a development
permit application at:
________________________________________________________________________________
Street Address Assessor Parcel No.
☐is not on the most recent list of identified hazardous waste sites consolidated by the
Office of Planning and Research.
☐is on the most recent list of identified hazardous waste sites consolidated by the Office
of Planning and research. A copy of the list is hereby attached.
________________________________________ __________________________________
Applicant Signature Date
________________________________________
Applicant Print Name
2-4-26
Brandon Straus
x
4181-024-026333 26th St.
Brandon Straus 2/5/26
Page 436 of 466
16. Line of Existing NaturalGrade at Property line46'-6 1/2"The apex of the existing elevation(127.25")14'-6"Height from apex of theexisting elevation to thebasement floor below grade26. Outline of basement floor below grade33'-10 3/4"24. Finished GradeHeight of buildingfrom finished grade82'-2 1/2"Length of the PropertyStaff Analysis of Elevation relative to proposeddevelopment at 333 26th StreetStaff Analysis of Elevation relative toproposed development at 333 26thStreetPage 437 of 466
Public Notification Package 333 26th Street (CSD:25-04 Upholding the Community Development
Director’s Determination Denying a Request for a Convex Slope Determination)
Page 438 of 466
Page 439 of 466
Page 440 of 466
ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DETERMINATION DENYING A REQUEST
FOR A CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATION
(CSD25-04) AT 333 26TH STREET
Planning Commission Meeting –March 17, 2026
Page 441 of 466
History
Ordinance 94-1121, adopted November 22, 1994
For lots with convex contours (where the ground level arches upward along a property line) the "grade" of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the property line with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot intervals.
Page 442 of 466
Application
The determination of grade shall be made by the community development director, based on all available evidence, and any disputes shall be referred to the planning commission.
Evolutions: review by the Planning Commission, soil samples
Progression: Reviewing the convex contours in the context of development, applying a 10% slope analysis
Technical analysis, each property evaluated on its own submission
Page 443 of 466
Photo of Existing Site
Page 444 of 466
Background
History
December 2, 2025
Applicant applied for a Convex Slope
Determination
December 29, 2025 Staff completed their review and sent a comment
letter
January 8, 2026
The Director and staff met with the applicant and
reviewed the applicant’s materials and received
clarification on several items
January 28, 2026
The Director determined that the findings to
support a convex slope were not met and issued a
denial
February 5, 2026 The applicant filed an appeal to the Director’s
Determination
Page 445 of 466
Discussion
Page 446 of 466
Discussion
Figure 2: Two-Foot Interval Survey West
Figure 3: Two-Foot Interval Survey East
Page 447 of 466
Discussion
Page 448 of 466
Discussion
Page 449 of 466
Environmental Determination & Public Noticing
Not a project
Page 450 of 466
Staff Recommendation
1.Determine this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 21065 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
2.Adopt a resolution upholding the Community Development Director’s
Determination denying a request for a Convex Lot Determination at 333 26th
Street in the Two-Family Residential Zone
Page 451 of 466
Contact us.
DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner
310-318-0243
Planning@hermosabeah.gov
THANK YOU!
Page 452 of 466
HBMC Section 17.04.040
For lots with convex contours (where the ground
level arches upward along a property line), the
"grade" of a lot may be based on a detailed
topographical survey along the property line with
spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2)
foot intervals.
Page 453 of 466
333 26th St. Topographical Survey
A Classic Convex Arch Slope Along Property Line
Page 454 of 466
333 26th St. Soils Report
Depth of Fill Soil
Page 455 of 466
The City’s Precedent for Convex Slope Determination
(CSD) Analysis
•Based on these 2 documents, the Appellant requested:
•the City find that convex slope did exist on this lot, and
•elevations on the property lines be used as the grade of
the lot, less .5’ to account for the fill soil
•This two-step analysis has been the basis for convex lot
determinations for at least 15 years
Page 456 of 466
Consistent Convex Arch Slope with 301 27th to 333 26th
301 27th has smaller grade of ~2 feet compared to 333 26th with ~5 feet
333 26th St.
Page 457 of 466
Additional CSD Lot Examples
Page 458 of 466
The City Director’s Denial of Convex Slope
•Director’s denial based on 2 grounds:
•Lack of “an arch or rise along a property line”
•Slope would be graded away during construction
•No consideration of the Appellant’s soils report
333 26th St.
Page 459 of 466
The City Director’s Denial of Convex Slope (cont.)
•Director denied because lot does not resemble the below
diagram
•The Director/Staff presented proposed interpretation in the
February Planning Commission meeting used on Appellant’s
denial, which is intended for future applicants
Page 460 of 466
The Basis for Our Appeal
•Code does not state a convex slope can
occur only at the rear of a lot, like diagram
•None of the Planning Commission’s prior
convex slope findings have reflected this idea
•Approved convex lot examples do not look
like the diagram relied upon by the Director
•All have points of convexity in various locations
along the property lines
•The Planning Commission found the lot one
street over to be convex (as noted on next
slide)
•Lot has high points in the front and the middle,
at a lesser grade than 333 26th
Page 461 of 466
333 26th St.
Page 462 of 466
Timeline from Application Submittal
www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
11/12/2025
Application
Submitted
2/3/2026
Director explains new
convex lot analysis in
meeting with Applicant
1/28/2026
Convex Lot
Denied
2/17/2026
Director tells Planning
Commission a new set
of guidelines will be
issued, but they do not
yet exist
Page 463 of 466
Appeal Summary
•Our position: until the City provides new written standards on convex slope
determinations, the convexity analysis used in past cases applies
•by the slope along a property line, not solely at the rear of the lot, and
•not only when it matches the diagram relied upon by the Director, which is not part of the Code
•Director’s denial on the ground that a lot can be graded flat or concave is not
consistent with the language or intent of the Code
•If the lot post-grading were a factor in a convex determination, no lot would be convex since any lot can be graded flat
•Under the Director’s approach, the required the topographical survey and soils report
would not be needed
•To accept the Director’s reasoning is to read the convex slope provision out of
the code
•The subject lot clearly meets the convex lot standard under municipal code
Page 464 of 466
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CDD-039
Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA
(Commission Secretary Holly Honma)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the April Planning Commission
tentative future agenda.
Attachments:
Planning Commission April Tentative Future Agenda
Respectfully Submitted by: Holly Honma, Commission Secretary
Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director
Page 465 of 466
https://hermosabch-my.sharepoint.com/personal/hhonma_hermosabeach_gov/Documents/Documents/Attachment 1. Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for April .docx
Tentative Future Agendas
PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Regular Meeting
5:00 PM
Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date
1429 Hermosa Avenue – Time Extension for an approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan April 9, 2026 April 21, 2026
Upcoming and Pending
Zoning Code - More Study Sessions upcoming
3201 Pacific Coast Highway - Skechers Parking Plan & Precise Development Plan
Page 466 of 466