Prepared For: September 2006

aesthetics goals of the San Pedro Community Plan and the Beacon Street RedevelopmentPlan, which include the following:San Pedro Community Plan Goals1)Provide for the development of new housing to meet the diverse economic andphysical needs of the projected population of the Community Plan Area to theyear 2010 by designating specific lands to provide for adequate multi-familyresidential development;2)Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing residentialneighborhoods while providing a variety of compatible new housingopportunities;3)Improving the function, design, and economic vitality of the commercialcorridors and industrial areas;4)Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing uses whichprovide the foundation for community identity, such as scale, height, bulk,setbacks and appearance;5)Maximizing the development opportunities around future transit system whileminimizing any adverse impacts; and6)Planning the remaining commercial and industrial development opportunity sitesfor needed job producing uses that improve the economic and physical conditionof the San Pedro Community Plan Area.Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan Goals1)Elimination of blight and creation of a healthy local economy;2)Provision of housing units for families with low to moderate incomes;3)Removal of structurally substandard buildings;4)Changes in land use to facilitate new water-oriented commercial development;5)Provision of new public facilities;6)Expansion of employment opportunities;7)Environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural and urban designprinciples; and8)Creation of new sites for residential development.The proposed project would be designed to avoid substantially blocking views from thebuilding under construction across Palos Verdes Street. It would be of modern designcompatible with surrounding newer buildings and therefore would avoid the creation ofobjectionable views. It would include setbacks and landscaping and would have acontemporary design compatible with surrounding development. The four- to five-storybrownstone-styled building would have façade detailing and steps from the units down tothe street. It would not have a significant impact on scenic views nor would it degradePalos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration12ESA / 205353September 2006

the existing visual character of the site and surroundings because the project would notsubstantially feature in any scenic vistas that include the project site such as from HarborBoulevard and the Harbor.b)Less Than Significant Impact. The closest officially designated state scenic highway isapproximately 30 miles north of the project site (State Highway 2, from approximately3 miles north of Interstate 210 in La Cañada to the San Bernardino County line). Theclosest eligible state scenic highway is located approximately 12 miles to the northeast ofthe project area (State Highway 1, from State Highway 91 near Long Beach to Interstate 5south of San Juan Capistrano). The proposed project site is not visible from either of theselocations. In addition to the officially designated and eligible state scenic highways, theCity of Los Angeles has City-designated scenic highways that are considered for localplanning and development decisions. Harbor Boulevard is a City-designated scenichighway. The proposed project would be developed such that it would not substantiallyimpact scenic views; it includes the high-rise portion of the site along 5th Street, and themid-rise element across the southern portion of the site thus substantially preservingviews from the west towards the harbor. The proposed project would not be located nearsignificant tree groves, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The impact would be lessthan significant.d)Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the City of Los Angeles buildingregulations, the proposed project would be constructed of non-reflective building materialsthat would not create any substantial source of glare during the daytime hours.1The existing site uses include interior and exterior lighting as would the proposed project.The types of lighting include general night-time building lighting, security lighting, andlandscape lighting that could increase the level of night-time lighting at the project sitebeyond current levels. All exterior lighting would be directed downward and inward ontoto the project site to minimize, spillover and glare while providing adequate safety andsecurity lighting for the proposed project. The closest sensitive receptors are the multifamily housing units located one block north of the site across a parking lot. These unitswould not be impacted by proposed project lighting. Therefore, the impact would be lessthan significant, and no mitigation measures are required.A shadow study was undertaken for the proposed project (see Figure 7). The study showsthat shadows from the proposed project would be at their longest in December. Decembershadows would shade the front of the Harbor Building at 10 a.m. and at noon the parkinglot across 5th Street from the 18-story building. At 3 p.m. on December 21, shadowswould extend across 5th Street and would (for less than an hour) shade the Port of LosAngeles Boy's and Girls Club play area located approximately 100 feet northeast of the 18story building on 5th Street (the play area is already somewhat shaded by trees at this time);also at 3 p.m. in December shadows would reach across Harbor Boulevard to thepromenade, at the same time Harbor Boulevard and the Promenade would be shaded1City of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Title 9, Article 1 Building Regulations, websitehttp://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f templates&fn default.htm&vid alp:lamc ca, accessed October 26, 2005.Palos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration13ESA / 205353September 2006

Palos Verdes Urban Village. 205353SOURCE: EEK Architects.Figure 7Shadow Study14

by the Boys and Girls Club Building. At 3 p.m. in June shadows would extendimmediately east across a parking area. At other times of the year shadows would mainlybe confined to streets and sidewalks north, east and west of the site in the immediatevicinity. The proposed project would not shade any residential buildings.PotentiallySignificantImpactIssues (and Supporting Information Sources):Less ThanSignificantwithMitigationIncorporationLess ThanSignificantImpactNo Impact2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCESIn determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project:a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, orFarmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of the CaliforniaResources Agency, to non-agricultural use?b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract?c)Involve other changes in the existing environmentwhich, due to their location or nature, could resultin conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?a – c)2No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of Los Angeles. Aerial photosfrom 1953 and 1969 show mostly residential, commercial and port activities on the site andin the project vicinity.2 The project site has not been zoned for agricultural uses, there is noactive agricultural fields on the project site. The project site is not labeled as PrimeFarmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shownon the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency or in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, no impactsto protected agricultural resources are anticipated to result from the proposed project.Professional Service Industries, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 29, 1992, p.7.Palos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration15ESA / 205353September 2006

PotentiallySignificantImpactIssues (and Supporting Information Sources):Less ThanSignificantwithMitigationIncorporationLess ThanSignificantImpactNo Impact3.AIR QUALITYWhere available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollutioncontrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theapplicable air quality plan?b)Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increaseof any criteria pollutant for which the project regionis non-attainment under an applicable federal orstate ambient air quality standard (includingreleasing emissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantialnumber of people?a)Less Than Significant. The project site is located within the 6,600-square-mile SouthCoast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)is required, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants forwhich the Basin is in non-attainment (i.e., ozone and PM10). The proposed project wouldbe subject to the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).3 The AQMPcontains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducingemissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, inpart, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by theSouthern California Association of Governments.A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing andemployment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The2003 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates, in part, theSouthern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2001 Regional TransportationPlan (RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employmentgrowth. The most recent SCAG RTP was prepared in 2004.4 Regional population andemployment growth assumptions from the 2004 RTP better represent whether theproposed project would unduly influence population and employment growth in theproject area.34South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 1, 2003.Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, April 2004.Palos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration16ESA / 205353September 2006

SCAG locates the project site within the Southbay Cities Subregion. The 2004 RTPprojects that employment in this subregion will grow by about 58,383 jobs between 2005and 2010. The proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 27 jobs,or approximately 0.05 percent of the total job growth projected for the subregion. Suchlevels of employment growth are consistent with employment forecasts for the subregionas adopted by SCAG. The proposed project includes residential units and would result inincreased permanent population growth. The proposed project is expected to add 251 newhousing units, which represents 4.1 percent of the 6,097 new housing units projected inSCAG’s 2004 RTP between 2005 and 2010 (the proposed project will not be occupieduntil 2011). Such levels of reasonable population growth are consistent with populationforecasts adopted by SCAG. Because the SCAQMD has incorporated RTP projectionsinto the AQMP, and the proposed project is consistent with those projections, it can beconcluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP.b)Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. State and federal air qualitystandards are often exceeded in many parts of the Basin, with Los Angeles Countyamong the highest of the counties that compose the Basin in terms of non-attainment ofthe standards. Based on the following analysis, construction and operation of theproposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with violation of anair quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation providedmitigation is incorporated (see below).ConstructionConstruction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impactsthrough the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle tripsgenerated from construction workers traveling to and from the project site. In addition,fugitive dust emissions would result from construction activities. Mobile sourceemissions, primarily nitrogen oxides (NOX), would result from the use of constructionequipment such as wheeled loaders. During the finishing phase, paving operations andthe application of architectural coatings (i.e. paints) and other building materials wouldrelease reactive organic compounds. The assessment of construction air quality impactsconsiders each of these potential sources. Construction emissions can vary substantiallyfrom day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, fordust, the prevailing weather conditions.Emissions for the regional construction air quality analysis were compiled using theURBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model developed by the California Air ResourcesBoard (CARB). 5 The URBEMIS 2002 model separates the construction process intothree stages. The first stage is building demolition with emissions resulting fromdemolition dust, debris haul truck trips, equipment exhaust, and worker travel. Thesecond stage of construction is site grading with emissions resulting from fugitive dust,soil haul truck trips, equipment exhaust, and worker travel. The third stage is subdivided5California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS 2002 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects,Version 8.7, April 2005.Palos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration17ESA / 205353September 2006

into building equipment, architectural coating, asphalt, and worker travel. Emissions fromthe third stage include equipment exhaust from building construction and asphalt paving,reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions from architectural coating and asphaltpaving, and worker travel. The calculation of regional emissions is an indicator of theproposed project’s affect on the Basin. Regional emissions are interspersed throughout theBasin by atmospheric mixing and contribute to the existing poor air quality in the Basin.Calculations of regional air quality emissions represent the contribution of the project tooverall Basin air quality and do not reflect pollutant levels at individual sensitive receptors.Construction for the proposed project would begin in 2008 and occur over 36 months.Construction would include approximately 1.5 months of demolition, 3.5 months of sitepreparation, and 31 months of construction. These assumptions were based on URBEMIS2002 default options. The construction phases would not overlap and the proposed projectwould haul approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil off-site.6 Based on reference fromsimilar projects, the proposed project would generate a maximum of approximately25 daily demolition haul trips and 90 daily site preparation haul trips. Refer to the appendixfor equipment mix assumptions for each construction phase and more detailed generalconstruction assumption information.Unmitigated daily construction-related regional and localized emissions for the proposedproject are presented in Table 2. As shown, maximum emissions could exceed theSCAQMD daily significance thresholds for ROC (during building erection/finishing) butnot for NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter less than ten microns indiameter (PM10). Therefore, the regional construction impact would be significantwithout incorporation of mitigation measures.TABLE 2UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONSEstimated Emissions (lbs/day)PhaseROCNOXCOPM1078341119896564Building Erection/Finishing136761123Maximum Regional Total136891126475100550150YesNoNoNoDemolitionaSite Preparation/GradingbRegional Significance ThresholdExceed Threshold?a.b.Assumed a maximum of 25 demolition haul trips per day.Assumed a maximum of 90 dirt haul trips per day.SOURCE: ESA, June 2006.6Barry Lehrman, EEK Architects, email communication, July 19, 2006.Palos Verdes Urban VillageMitigated Negative Declaration18ESA / 205353September 2006

It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMDRule 403 for fugitive dust.7 Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are notlimited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dustplumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly aspossible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicleundercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover overexposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 would reduce regional PM10 emissionsassociated with construction activities by 50 percent. Mitigation Air-1 would reduceemissions from the proposed project below a level of significance (see Table 3 below).TABLE 3MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONSEstimated Emissions (lbs/day)PhaseDemolitionaSite ding Erection/Finishing57761123Maximum Regional Total578911233Regional Significance Threshold75100550150Exceed Threshold?NoNoNoNoa.b.Assumed a maximum of 25 demolition haul trips per day.Assumed a maximum of 90 dirt haul trips per day.SOURCE: ESA, June 2006.Mitigation MeasureAir-1: In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113,8 the project applicant, in the contractwith the construction contractor(s), shall require that construction contractor(s)use architectural coatings limited to a VOC content of 75 grams per liter or less.Impact Significance

SOURCE: Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, 2006 Palos Verdes Street Elevation Section A-A north-south looking towards the west. 5 Palos Verdes Urban Village . 205353 Figure 4 Palos Verdes Street Elevation Sections Looking North and South from Middle of Site