PALOS VERDES URBAN VILLAGE

Transcription

1 PALOS VERDES URBAN VILLAGE Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Community Redevelopment Agency 354 S. Spring Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA W. Ono Ujor September 2006

2 PALOS VERDES URBAN VILLAGE Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Community Redevelopment Agency 354 S. Spring Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA W. Ono Ujor September 2006 Wendy Lockwood 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA Oakland Orlando Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Palos Verdes Urban Village Page Environmental Checklist Form 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 10 Environmental Impacts Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 52 Supporting Information Sources 53 Report Preparation 54 Appendix A. Traffic Study List of Figures 1. Project Location Map 2 2. Site Plan 3 3. Palos Verdes Street and Section Looking West 4 4. Palos Verdes Street Elevation Sections Looking North and South from Middle of Site 5 5. Project Site Photos 7 6. Project Site Photos 8 7. Shadow Study 14 Palos Verdes Urban Village i ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

4 List of Tables 1. Proposed Project Residential Components 6 2. Unmitigated Construction Emissions Mitigated Construction Emissions Operational Emissions of the Proposed Project Estimated Noise Levels from Construction Activities Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Attenuation of Construction Noise Levels Away from Project Site Parking Analysis 49 Palos Verdes Urban Village ii ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Palos Verdes Urban Village 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles 354 South Spring Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: W. Ono Ujor, City Planner (213) Project Location: Palos Verdes Street between 5 th and 6 th Street 550 S. Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, California 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Gary Dwight Palos Verdes Street Investments, LLC 1202 Paseo Del Mar San Pedro, CA General Plan Designation: San Pedro Community Plan Land Use Designation Regional Center Commercial Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan Designation Commercial/Recreational 7. Zoning: C2-2 (Commercial) 8. Description of Project: The proposed project is the construction and operation of an approximately 321,000 gross square foot (gsf) mixed-use residential (for sale) and commercial development, on a 1.6-acre site. A paint store and surface parking currently occupy the site. Figure 1 shows the project location. The proposed project includes the development of 251 residential units located in two buildings (Table 1 shows a breakdown of the units): a four- to fivestory mid-rise townhouse building (36 units, 27,000 gsf); and an 18-story building on 5 th Street (215 units, 287,200 gsf). The 18-story building would include 4,000 square feet of ground level retail space. Parking (582 spaces) would be located in no more than three levels under the entire site and three to four levels above grade. Figures 2 through 4 show the proposed project site plan and elevations. Palos Verdes Urban Village 1 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

6 3rd St 5th St Centre St Palos Verdes St PROJECT LOCATION Harbor Blvd Sampson Way Way Pacific Ocean 2 6th St th St 1 LOS ANGELES Feet AREA OF DETAIL Pacific Ocean 710 SOURCE: GloveXplorer, Jan 2006; ESA, Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 1 Project Location Map

7 Feet SOURCE: Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 2 Site Plan

8 Palos Verdes Street Elevation 4 Section A-A north-south looking towards the west SOURCE: Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, 2006 Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 3 Palos Verdes Street and Section Looking West

9 Section through view corridor looking north 5 Section through Urban Village looking south SOURCE: Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, 2006 Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 4 Palos Verdes Street Elevation Sections Looking North and South from Middle of Site

10 TABLE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS Breakdown by unit type Total units a Average square footage of units Urban Village Residential Units on Palos Verdes Street 36 1,015 5 th Street work force units th Street market-rate units 200 1,099 Total 251 a. An average of 1.75 bedrooms per unit or approximately 440 bedrooms. SOURCE: San Pedro Mixed Use Residential/ Retail Site Plan, It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would begin in 2008 and be completed and occupied in The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing 11,248 square foot paint store. Construction would last approximately 36 months and would include approximately 1.5 months of demolition, 3.5 months of site preparation, and 31 months of construction. The construction phases would not overlap and the proposed project would haul approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil off-site. The haul route would be along 5 th Street to Harbor, Harbor to the 110 Freeway and then to the 405 Freeway likely possibly north to Sunshine Canyon. The ultimate disposal location will not be determined until closer to the excavation time. It could be a site in need of fill or a landfill. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in the community of San Pedro within the City of Los Angeles (Figure 1). The project site is bounded by 5 th Street to the north, Palos Verdes Street to the west, an office building on 6 th Street to the south and the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call and the Grinder Restaurant to the east. Harbor Boulevard fronts the eastern side of the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call and the Grinder Restaurant. Surrounding land uses generally consist of office buildings and hotels. New development in the area mainly consists of market rate residential dwelling units. Figures 5 and 6 show photographs of the site and surrounding area. Regional access is provided by the 110 Freeway, Gaffey Street, Harbor Boulevard and 5 th Street. Land uses in the area include a 160 foot-tall office building northwest of the site, a 165 foot residential building under construction directly west of the site, the Port of Los Angeles administrative headquarters (60-feet-tall) northwest of the site, surface parking north of the site, a boys and girls club (40-feet-tall) northeast of the site, surface parking and a hotel east of the site, and a 35 foot tall office building south of the site. 10. Discretionary Actions and Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required: CRA: Owner Participation Agreement and minor variations from the Redevelopment Plan (mixed residential/commercial use in a commercial-recreation designated area, site coverage, setback, floor area ratio, density and height). City of Los Angeles: Planning Department (Variances from setback requirements, Expedited Tract map, Condominium Map), and review and sign off by the Fire Department, Transportation Department, Bureau of Engineering for ancillary project characteristics and features. Also building and other non-discretionary permits as needed. Palos Verdes Urban Village 6 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

11 5th Street S. Palos Verdes Street S. Harbor Boulevard Sampson Way 6th Street View looking east towards project site 5th Street S. Palos Verdes Street S. Harbor Boulevard Sampson Way View of paint store on of project site 6th Street SOURCE: ESA, 2005 Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 5 Project Site Photos 7

12 5th Street S. Palos Verdes Street S. Harbor Boulevard Sampson Way 6th Street View eastward on 6th Street south of project site 5th Street S. Palos Verdes Street S. Harbor Boulevard Sampson Way South view across from project site on South Palos Verdes 6th Street SOURCE: ESA, 2005 Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 6 Project Site Photos 8

13 11. Project Objectives: The applicant wishes to: to provide a variety of market-rate housing in the San Pedro community; to provide opportunities for home ownership in the community; to provide opportunities for adjacent properties to create pedestrian linkages to the waterfront; to help revitalize the economic life of the Plan area; to preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods in San Pedro; to create pedestrian linkages to the waterfront; to create a catalyst for commercial development in the area; to achieve an environment reflecting high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles; to create a pleasant and attractive environment. Palos Verdes Urban Village 9 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

14

15 Environmental Impacts Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) & c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized waterfront area in the Community of San Pedro in the City of Los Angeles. The existing character of the area generally includes tall buildings (160 feet, 140 feet, 165 feet) immediately west and one half block south (110 feet) of the site. Buildings north and east of the site are lower (35 feet, 40 feet). The proposed project would range in height from approximately 46 feet (the garden terrace deck) to 56 feet (the four- to five-story mid-rise building) to 212 feet (18-story building) above grade. The project site would be developed to step down towards the harbor. The proposed project would have its tallest element (18-stories) on 5 th Street; the middle of the site would be substantially lower (four- to five-stories). There are no scenic vistas in the project area; the site is visible in views from the San Pedro hillsides located 1.5 to 2 miles west of the site. The proposed project would feature in those views on clear days. The 18-story building would be two stories taller than the residential building under construction immediately west of the site across Palos Verdes Street. However, with the curve of 5 th Street the 18-story building would be offset from this residential building, and the southern portion of the site that would substantially front the residential building west across Palos Verdes Street would be four to five stories, substantially preserving views for residents in this new building. The project site, which is located one half block west of Harbor Boulevard and the promenade, would be visible from the Harbor. As noted above, the project site would be developed with low and mid-rise buildings in the middle of the site, this would substantially preserve views across the site from the new residential building located west of the site across Palos Verdes Street to the harbor and from the harbor to the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to maximize views from the west towards the harbor by placing the lowest portion of the proposed project on the southerly portion of the site, and the high-rise portion along 5 th Street. The proposed project will address the Palos Verdes Urban Village 11 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

16 aesthetics goals of the San Pedro Community Plan and the Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan, which include the following: San Pedro Community Plan Goals 1) Provide for the development of new housing to meet the diverse economic and physical needs of the projected population of the Community Plan Area to the year 2010 by designating specific lands to provide for adequate multi-family residential development; 2) Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods while providing a variety of compatible new housing opportunities; 3) Improving the function, design, and economic vitality of the commercial corridors and industrial areas; 4) Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing uses which provide the foundation for community identity, such as scale, height, bulk, setbacks and appearance; 5) Maximizing the development opportunities around future transit system while minimizing any adverse impacts; and 6) Planning the remaining commercial and industrial development opportunity sites for needed job producing uses that improve the economic and physical condition of the San Pedro Community Plan Area. Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan Goals 1) 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 design principles; and 8) Creation of new sites for residential development. The proposed project would be designed to avoid substantially blocking views from the building under construction across Palos Verdes Street. It would be of modern design compatible with surrounding newer buildings and therefore would avoid the creation of objectionable views. It would include setbacks and landscaping and would have a contemporary design compatible with surrounding development. The four- to five-story brownstone-styled building would have façade detailing and steps from the units down to the street. It would not have a significant impact on scenic views nor would it degrade Palos Verdes Urban Village 12 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

17 the existing visual character of the site and surroundings because the project would not substantially feature in any scenic vistas that include the project site such as from Harbor Boulevard and the Harbor. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest officially designated state scenic highway is approximately 30 miles north of the project site (State Highway 2, from approximately 3 miles north of Interstate 210 in La Cañada to the San Bernardino County line). The closest eligible state scenic highway is located approximately 12 miles to the northeast of the project area (State Highway 1, from State Highway 91 near Long Beach to Interstate 5 south of San Juan Capistrano). The proposed project site is not visible from either of these locations. In addition to the officially designated and eligible state scenic highways, the City of Los Angeles has City-designated scenic highways that are considered for local planning and development decisions. Harbor Boulevard is a City-designated scenic highway. The proposed project would be developed such that it would not substantially impact scenic views; it includes the high-rise portion of the site along 5 th Street, and the mid-rise element across the southern portion of the site thus substantially preserving views from the west towards the harbor. The proposed project would not be located near significant tree groves, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The impact would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the City of Los Angeles building regulations, the proposed project would be constructed of non-reflective building materials that would not create any substantial source of glare during the daytime hours. 1 The 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, and landscape lighting that could increase the level of night-time lighting at the project site beyond current levels. All exterior lighting would be directed downward and inward onto to the project site to minimize, spillover and glare while providing adequate safety and security 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 units would not be impacted by proposed project lighting. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. A shadow study was undertaken for the proposed project (see Figure 7). The study shows that shadows from the proposed project would be at their longest in December. December shadows would shade the front of the Harbor Building at 10 a.m. and at noon the parking lot across 5th Street from the 18-story building. At 3 p.m. on December 21, shadows would extend across 5th Street and would (for less than an hour) shade the Port of Los Angeles Boy's and Girls Club play area located approximately 100 feet northeast of the 18- story 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 the promenade, at the same time Harbor Boulevard and the Promenade would be shaded 1 City of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Title 9, Article 1 Building Regulations, website accessed October 26, Palos Verdes Urban Village 13 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

18 SOURCE: EEK Architects. Palos Verdes Urban Village Figure 7 Shadow Study 14

19 by the Boys and Girls Club Building. At 3 p.m. in June shadows would extend immediately east across a parking area. At other times of the year shadows would mainly be confined to streets and sidewalks north, east and west of the site in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project would not shade any residential buildings. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? a c) No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of Los Angeles. Aerial photos from 1953 and 1969 show mostly residential, commercial and port activities on the site and in the project vicinity. 2 The project site has not been zoned for agricultural uses, there is no active agricultural fields on the project site. The project site is not labeled as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, no impacts to protected agricultural resources are anticipated to result from the proposed project. 2 Professional Service Industries, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 29, 1992, p.7. Palos Verdes Urban Village 15 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

20 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Less Than Significant. The project site is located within the 6,600-square-mile South Coast 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 for which the Basin is in non-attainment (i.e., ozone and PM 10 ). The proposed project would be subject to the SCAQMD s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 3 The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2003 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates, in part, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The most recent SCAG RTP was prepared in Regional population and employment growth assumptions from the 2004 RTP better represent whether the proposed project would unduly influence population and employment growth in the project area. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 1, Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, April Palos Verdes Urban Village 16 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

21 SCAG locates the project site within the Southbay Cities Subregion. The 2004 RTP projects that employment in this subregion will grow by about 58,383 jobs between 2005 and 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. Such levels of employment growth are consistent with employment forecasts for the subregion as adopted by SCAG. The proposed project includes residential units and would result in increased permanent population growth. The proposed project is expected to add 251 new housing units, which represents 4.1 percent of the 6,097 new housing units projected in SCAG s 2004 RTP between 2005 and 2010 (the proposed project will not be occupied until 2011). Such levels of reasonable population growth are consistent with population forecasts adopted by SCAG. Because the SCAQMD has incorporated RTP projections into the AQMP, and the proposed project is consistent with those projections, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in many parts of the Basin, with Los Angeles County among the highest of the counties that compose the Basin in terms of non-attainment of the standards. Based on the following analysis, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with violation of an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation provided mitigation is incorporated (see below). Construction Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from construction activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily nitrogen oxides (NO X ), would result from the use of construction equipment such as wheeled loaders. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings (i.e. paints) and other building materials would release reactive organic compounds. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Emissions for the regional construction air quality analysis were compiled using the URBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 5 The URBEMIS 2002 model separates the construction process into three stages. The first stage is building demolition with emissions resulting from demolition dust, debris haul truck trips, equipment exhaust, and worker travel. The second 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 subdivided 5 California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS 2002 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects, Version 8.7, April Palos Verdes Urban Village 17 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

22 into building equipment, architectural coating, asphalt, and worker travel. Emissions from the third stage include equipment exhaust from building construction and asphalt paving, reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions from architectural coating and asphalt paving, and worker travel. The calculation of regional emissions is an indicator of the proposed project s affect on the Basin. Regional emissions are interspersed throughout the Basin 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 to overall 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 site preparation, and 31 months of construction. These assumptions were based on URBEMIS 2002 default options. The construction phases would not overlap and the proposed project would haul approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil off-site. 6 Based on reference from similar projects, the proposed project would generate a maximum of approximately 25 daily demolition haul trips and 90 daily site preparation haul trips. Refer to the appendix for equipment mix assumptions for each construction phase and more detailed general construction assumption information. Unmitigated daily construction-related regional and localized emissions for the proposed project are presented in Table 2. As shown, maximum emissions could exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for ROC (during building erection/finishing) but not for NO X, carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter (PM 10 ). Therefore, the regional construction impact would be significant without incorporation of mitigation measures. TABLE 2 UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) Phase ROC NO X CO PM 10 Demolition a Site Preparation/Grading b Building Erection/Finishing Maximum Regional Total Regional Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No a. Assumed a maximum of 25 demolition haul trips per day. b. Assumed a maximum of 90 dirt haul trips per day. SOURCE: ESA, June Barry Lehrman, EEK Architects, communication, July 19, Palos Verdes Urban Village 18 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

23 It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. 7 Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 would reduce regional PM 10 emissions associated with construction activities by 50 percent. Mitigation Air-1 would reduce emissions from the proposed project below a level of significance (see Table 3 below). TABLE 3 MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) Phase ROC NO X CO PM 10 Demolition a Site Preparation/Grading b Building Erection/Finishing Maximum Regional Total Regional Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? No No No No a. Assumed a maximum of 25 demolition haul trips per day. b. Assumed a maximum of 90 dirt haul trips per day. SOURCE: ESA, June Mitigation Measure Air-1: In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, 8 the project applicant, in the contract with 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 after Mitigation Mitigation Measure Air-1 would reduce impacts to a level of less than significance as shown in Table 3 below. Operation Regional air pollutant emissions associated with proposed project operations would be generated by the consumption of electricity and natural gas and by the operation of onroad vehicles. Mobile source emissions would be the largest source of pollutants resulting from project operation and were estimated using the URBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model. The proposed project would result in a net of 561 new daily trips. 9 7 SCAQMD, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, June 3, SCAQMD, Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), last amended July 9, Katz, Okitsu, and Associates, Palos Verdes Urban Village Traffic Study, July 24, Palos Verdes Urban Village 19 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

24 Stationary-source emissions were compiled using procedures outlined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. As presented in Table 4, regional operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the regional operations impact would be less than significant. TABLE 4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROC NO X CO PM 10 Net On-Road Mobile Sources Net Stationary Sources <1 7 1 <1 Total Net Emissions Regional Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? No No No No SOURCE: ESA, June The SCAQMD recommends a hot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when vehicle to capacity (V/C) ratios are increased by two percent or more at intersections with a level of service (LOS) of D or worse. The proposed project would result in a net of 561 new daily trips. Based on LADOT s criteria for significant impacts, the proposed project is not expected to create significant traffic impact. As such, the proposed project would not substantially impact local intersections and, therefore, would not have potential to cause or contribute to a significant impact with respect to one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations due to mobile source emissions. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative construction thresholds for air quality are the same as those used when considering a project-specific air quality impact. 10 The SCAQMD daily significance thresholds are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state ambient air quality standards and the thresholds are related to a project s contribution to the regional air quality baseline. If a project would result in exceeding the daily regional emission limits, then it would be considered to substantially contribute to cumulatively considerable construction air quality impacts. The regional construction emissions calculated for the proposed project and presented in Table 3 are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. Although the project site is located in a region that is in non-attainment for O 3 and PM 10, emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable as, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure Air-1, the emissions would fall below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. Therefore, the impact would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of Mitigation Measure Air Koizumi, James, Air Quality Specialist, SCAQMD, personal communication, July 20, Palos Verdes Urban Village 20 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

25 The SCAQMD s approach for assessing cumulative operational impacts is based on the SCAQMD s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. This forecast also takes into account SCAG s forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether a project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth. If a project is consistent with the regional population, housing and employment growth assumptions upon which the SCAQMD s AQMP is based, then future development would not impede the attainment of ambient air quality standards and a significant cumulative air quality impact would not occur. As shown in 3.a) above, the proposed project would be consistent with the projections in the 2004 SCAG RTP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Los Angeles General Plan and with the established zoning regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the AQMP is based and the cumulative operational impact would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Certain population groups are especially sensitive to air pollution and should be given special consideration when evaluating potential air quality impacts. These population groups include children, the elderly, persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. As defined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a sensitive receptor to air quality is defined as any of the following land use categories: (1) long-term health care facilities; (2) rehabilitation centers; (3) convalescent centers; (4) retirement homes; (5) residences; (6) schools; (7) parks and playgrounds; (8) child care centers; and (9) athletic fields. Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the Port of Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club approximately 100 feet to the northeast, the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call adjacent to the project site and to the east, and the Crowne Plaza LA Harbor Hotel approximately 150 feet to the southwest. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Under the future 2011 conditions without the proposed project, intersection operations are expected to improve at all of the study intersections due to planned roadway improvements. All five study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore CO emissions would not worsen at local intersections. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be necessary. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules (including Rule 402 prohibiting the release of nuisance air emissions), no construction activities or materials are proposed which would create objectionable odors. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing Palos Verdes Urban Village 21 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

26 plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. The proposed project would not include any uses or industrial operations that are identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odor complaints. On-site trash receptacles used by the new residential uses could create adverse odors. Trash receptacles would be located and maintained in a manner that promotes odor control, no adverse odor impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. On-site retail uses could create odors. It has not yet been determined what types of retail uses would occupy the proposed project site; any products and/or retail operations that have the potential to emit odors (e.g., trash enclosures) would be packaged in sealed containers and/or handled in a manner that would not emit any objectionable odors. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 (prohibiting nuisance air emissions) would ensure that no impacts related to objectionable odors would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Palos Verdes Urban Village 22 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

27 a) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles and is currently developed with retail/commercial uses and surface parking. There is some landscaping including ornamental vegetation and trees on-site. No special status animals, plants, or plant communities are known to currently inhabit the project site. The proposed project would, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 11 The proposed project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. No locally designated natural communities exist on the project site, nor any riparian vegetation. Therefore, no impacts to locally designated natural communities would occur. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. No wetlands exist at the project site, nor would any be affected by implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. The site is completely developed and paved and is surrounded by commercial, residential and parking structures. No impacts to wildlife and dispersal or migration corridors would occur under the proposed project. The project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. e), f) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with local polices protecting biological resources or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project site contains landscaping including ornamental vegetation and 31 eucalyptus, pepper and other non-native trees on-site that would be removed as part of the project. The 11 street trees along Palos Verdes Street are anticipated to remain, although their roots and canopy may be affected by project construction. No special status trees exist on the project site and the project would not interfere with a tree preservation policy. The project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. 11 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Office. Listed and Proposed Species that Occur in Los Angeles County. website accessed April 11, Palos Verdes Urban Village 23 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

28 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. According to the Supplement to the Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan FEIR, no architecturally or historically significant resources are located in the vicinity of the project site. 12 A recent reconnaissance of the project site did not reveal any potentially historic structures. No impacts to historic resources are anticipated. b - c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Supplement to the Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan FEIR, no paleontological or archaeological resources are known to exist on site. 13 Two known paleontological sites are located within one-quarter mile of the proposed project. In general, the proposed project would disturb a site that has already been disturbed by previous building, so it is unlikely that paleontological or archaeological resources would be disturbed. The impact would be less than significant with the mitigation measure below. d) Less Tan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No formal cemetery exists on site or in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are found during excavation activities, construction crews would cease excavation activities and contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with implementation of the mitigation measure below. Mitigation Measure Cult-1: If evidence of archeological or paleontological resources is encountered on-site, construction activity shall cease until an archeologist and/or paleontologist assesses the resource and determine the appropriate course of action. The applicant shall abide by the recommendation of the archeologist/paleontologist. 12 City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, Supplement to EIR, Beacon Street Redevelopment Project, January Ibid. Palos Verdes Urban Village 24 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

29 In the event that human remains are found during excavation activities, construction crews shall cease excavation activities and contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. The County Coroner shall determine what to do with the remains and when construction shall resume. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a i. iv.) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located 2.1 miles west from the Palos Verdes Fault, 2.1 miles south of the San Andreas Fault, eight miles southwest of the Newport Inglewood Fault and 20 miles south of the Whittier Elsinore fault. The maximum credible magnitude earthquake is an 8.3 from the San Andreas Fault, located, Palos Verdes Urban Village 25 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

30 as stated earlier, 2.1 miles south. The California Department of Mines and Geology show a 10% probability of any reoccurrence at the site. 14 Ground shaking during seismic events has the potential to dislodge objects from walls, ceilings, and shelves, and to damage and destroy buildings and other structures on the project site. All building on the project site would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Uniform Building Code (UBC). The CBC regulations are designed to limit damage done to buildings during seismic events. The impacts from ground shaking would be considered less than significant for the proposed project. The project site is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction, flow slides, and lateral spreading based upon on-site soil types and topographic and subsurface conditions. The project site has a five-foot change in grade across the site with the westerly side of the project site at 29 feet above sea level and the easterly side at approximately 24 feet above sea level; there is no evidence of potential landslides on the site. 15 The proposed project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in ground surface disruption activities, such as site grading, excavation for building foundations and the proposed underground parking garage, and trenching for utilities. These activities would induce the potential for erosion to occur at the site. Construction sites one acre or larger must apply for coverage under the National Pollution discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) statewide general stormwater permit. A prospective applicant may apply for coverage under one of these permits through the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with existing regulations, the applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP. An SWPPP must include: (1) a site description, (2) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment controls, (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal, (4) implementation of approved local plans, (5) proposed post-construction controls, and (6) provisions for nonstormwater management. The project site would include more landscape and open space than currently exists on the project site. Therefore, the volume of stormwater runoff at the project site would not increase as a result of the proposed project. Because the project site would be covered by buildings including drainage designed to carry water flows to the local drainage system similar to existing conditions, the proposed project would not create rapid stormwater runoff that would result in the loss of topsoil from erosion. In addition, most permeable surfaces on the project site would be landscaped and would not be subject to erosion. 14 Dale Hinkle P.E. Inc, Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 14-Story Residential Structure and Four Four-Story Structures, 550 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California, December 16, Ibid. Palos Verdes Urban Village 26 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

31 Substantial erosion or loss of top soil would not be anticipated during operation of the proposed project. Thus, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. However, to ensure that the proposed project would provide adequate drainage, a site drainage plan would be prepared. The existing site is substantially covered by impermeable surfaces, the proposed project would therefore not substantially increase impermeable surfaces. The site drainage plan would ensure that stormwater from the project site and the surrounding area would, as today, not exceed the capacities of local storm drains, and not result in erosion or flooding. Additionally, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) requires that certain new and redevelopment projects with a disturbance area greater than 100,000 square feet comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP). The project site is 1.6 acres or approximately 70,021 square feet and would therefore not be required to comply with SUSWMP. Nonetheless the proposed project would comply with the BMP s contained therein. The SUSWMP was designed to ensure that stormwater pollution is mitigated by incorporating BMPs during post-construction activities. It ensures that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns in addition to flood protection and pollutants carried by stormwater, including soil matter, are retained and are not delivered to waterways. The applicant shall prepare a site drainage plan to be submitted for approval by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works in accordance with City procedures. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures would be required. c - d) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation for the project site was conducted December 20, The investigation concluded that the project site would not be subject to liquefaction and the site has low to non-expansion potential. In addition laboratory testing showed that the existing fills on the project site (to a depth of five to ten feet) were poorly compacted when placed on the project site (presumably prior to the construction of the on-site building). The project applicant plans to remove all existing fill during site excavation, therefore removing the poorly compacted fill and ensuring impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansive soils would be less than significant. e) No Impact. Existing sewer lines would be used for the disposal of wastewater. As a result, septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be used. Therefore, no impact with regard to the capability of soils to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would result. Therefore, no impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required. 16 Dale Hinkle P.E. Inc, Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 14-Story Residential Structure and Four- Story Structures, 550 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California, December 16, Palos Verdes Urban Village 27 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

32 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a - b) No Impact. The proposed project is not expected to store, transport, generate, or dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste. In addition, the proposed project site is not listed as a site containing hazardous waste on any lists compiled pursuant to Section of the Government Code. 17 The proposed project would likely use routine domestic hazardous materials including cleaning fluids, solvents, paints, etc. No impact is anticipated. c) No Impact. Six schools are located one mile or less from the project site. These include: Meyler Street School, Barton Hill Elementary School, Cabrillo Elementary School, Mary 17 Professional Service Industries, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 29, Palos Verdes Urban Village 28 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

33 Star of the Sea High School, Dana Middle School and Fifteenth Street Elementary School. As indicated above, the proposed project would not generate substantial quantities of hazardous waste. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. d) No Impact. Historically, the site has been used for various commercial purposes. The project site is not listed as a site containing hazardous waste on any lists compiled pursuant to Section of the Government Code. 18 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment database search was performed for the project site and did not identify any sites or facilities that present a significant environmental hazard to the site. 19 Furthermore, the Phase I Environmental Assessment confirmed no further investigation of the property is necessary. 20 Therefore, no impact is anticipated. e - f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of an airport or air strip. 21 Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Less Than Significant Impact. Access in the vicinity of the proposed project will be maintained at all times including during the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project will not create any interference with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, less than significant impact is anticipated. h) No Impact. There are no significant areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees in the vicinity of the project site that could result in a wildland fire or expose people or structures to such a fire. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 18 Professional Service Industries, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 29, Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Thomas Bros. Maps, The Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2005 Edition. Palos Verdes Urban Village 29 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

34 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.): c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP). The SUSWMP was designed to ensure that stormwater pollution is mitigated by incorporating BMPs during post-construction activities. It would ensure that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns in addition to flood protection and pollutants carried by stormwater, including soil matter, are retained and are not delivered to waterways. In order to ensure that the proposed project would provide adequate drainage, a site drainage plan would be prepared and submitted for approval by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works in accordance with City procedures. The site drainage plan would ensure that stormwater from the project site and surrounding areas would not result in erosion or flooding, or violate any water quality discharge requirements. In accordance with existing regulations, the project applicant shall implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). A SWPPP must include: (1) a site description, (2) best management practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment controls, (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal, Palos Verdes Urban Village 30 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

35 (4) implementation of approved local plans, (5) proposed post-construction controls, and (6) provisions for non-stormwater management. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces, namely a paint store and surface parking, which would be removed. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and parking lots increase runoff rates through impeding infiltration of rainfall and increasing overland flow velocities. The new mixed-use complex would be constructed and the quantity of impervious surfaces could decrease slightly due to a potential increase in landscaping. As a result, the proposed project could have a runoff volume less than the site s current runoff volume; although the run-off could have more pollutants as a result of increased intensity of use. Water service for the proposed project would not be furnished from local groundwater wells, but from the municipal supplier (Department of Water and Power). The proposed project would not deplete the existing water levels in local aquifers. Thus, no impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required. c f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed urban area and contains surface parking and commercial uses. There is no stream or river in the near vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The grade of the finished site would not differ significantly from the existing grade. Operation of the proposed project would, therefore, not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. With regard to altering general drainage patterns on the project site, the project applicant would comply with Section of the Building Code that regulates erosion control and drainage improvements. Additionally, the City would review any grading plans that affect drainage. To minimize soil erosion during construction activities, the proposed project would be subject to a municipal NPDES permit for construction and the preparation of a SWPPP. At a minimum, specific measures shall include the following: (1) a site description, (2) BMPs for erosion and sediment controls, (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal, (4) implementation of approved local plans, (5) proposed post-construction controls, and (6) provisions for non-stormwater management. The proposed project would comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP). The SUSWMP was designed to ensure that stormwater pollution is mitigated by incorporating BMPs during post-construction activities. It would ensure that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns in addition to flood protection and pollutants carried by stormwater, including soil matter, are retained and are not delivered to waterways. The applicant shall prepare a site drainage plan to be submitted for approval by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works in accordance with Palos Verdes Urban Village 31 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

36 City procedures. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project includes up to three levels of subterranean parking garage which would require excavation to depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing grade. The geotechnical investigation encountered groundwater at depth of 20 feet below the existing grade on some portions of the project site. 22 Therefore, groundwater would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. Because groundwater was located 10 feet below the level of proposed excavation, groundwater dewatering is anticipated to be required for the construction of the subsurface parking for the proposed project. Permanent dewatering for the operational phase of the development is also anticipated. Groundwater generated during construction phase dewatering operations may be discharged into the local storm drain system. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit would be required for such discharges of ground to surface waters. A 10-millimeter plastic membrane with a two inch sand barrier on each side is proposed beneath the project slab to prevent moisture migration. With adherence to the NPDES discharge requirements potential dewatering operations would have a less than significant impact on groundwater in the project area. g - i) No Impact. The project site is not located within an area designated as 100-year or 500-year flood plain. 23 Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project would not subject people or structures to significant flooding impacts. No impact would occur. j) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1/5 mile west of the main channel of the Los Angeles Harbor, and approximately two miles north of the San Pedro Channel of the Pacific Ocean. The site and adjacent land are improved with roadways and buildings, and are elevated approximately 24 to 29 feet above sea level. Due to the elevation of the site and the distance from the main channel, the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is very low. No impact would occur. 22 Dale Hinkle P.E. Inc, Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 14-Story Residential Structure and Four Four-Story Structures, 550 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California, December 16, Zimas Zoning Information and Map Access System. Accessed October 26, Palos Verdes Urban Village 32 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

37 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) No Impact. No roadways would be reconfigured as a result of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not prevent access to nearby residential uses. The proposed project would not divide an established community; rather it would add to and fill in an existing community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is also located in the San Pedro Community Plan area. 24 The San Pedro Community Plan guides land use, design and character of land uses and open space, conservation of existing and provision of new housing, provision of supporting infrastructure and public services, protection of environmental resources, and protection of residents from natural and other known hazards. The project site has a land use designation of Regional Center Commercial and is zoned C2-2 (Commercial), which allows for mixed-use residential and commercial development. The San Pedro Community Plan sets forth goals and objectives to maintain the community s individuality including: Provide for the development of new housing to meet the diverse economic and physical needs of the projected population of the Community Plan Area to the year 2010 by designating specific lands to provide for adequate multi-family residential development; Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods while providing a variety of compatible new housing opportunities; and Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing uses which provide the foundation for community identity, such as scale, height, bulk, setbacks and appearance. 24 City of Los Angeles, San Pedro Community Plan, May Palos Verdes Urban Village 33 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

38 The proposed project is located in the Beacon Street Redevelopment Project Area. The Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the San Pedro Community Plan of the City of Los Angeles. Some of the goals of the Redevelopment Plan include the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration, the return of the project area land to economic use and new construction, and the creation of new sites for residential development. The proposed project is within Areas K and L, which are designated for Commercial-Recreation according to the Beacon Street Redevelopment Plan. This designation allows for hotels, restaurants and small shops, in a park-like setting. There is currently a deed restriction on the project site, a product of a prior redevelopment project, that limits the FAR on the site to 1.5:1, with no more than three stories allowed. The applicant would seek an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA), which would remove the restrictions from the prior development upon approval of the proposed project. The applicant will seek a use variation from the redevelopment plan to allow for the mixed use residential/commercial of the proposed project. The applicant will also seek a site coverage variation as it covers 72.3% of the site and the plan limits site coverage to no more than 60% above three stories. The Redevelopment Plan limits residential height to 15 stories; the project includes an 18 story tower. The project would require variances from required setbacks: 15 foot minimum setbacks are required for residential uses; the project would provide 5 feet on 5 th Street, 10 feet on the south side of the property, 20 feet on the east side of the property. The proposed project is located adjacent to the From Bridge to Breakwater project. The From Bridge to Breakwater project is a master development plan for specific development projects and associated infrastructure improvements for approximately 418 acres near the port, from the Vincent Thomas Bridge to the federal breakwater, within the City of Los Angeles, Harbor Department. 25 The proposed project would be compatible with and would not interfere with the From Bridge to Breakwater project. In addition, residences of the proposed project would benefit from the new open space, development, and transportation improvements associated with the From Bridge to Breakwater project. c) No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area within the City of Los Angeles. There are no known habitat or natural communities conservation plans for the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any conservation plans. No impact would occur. 25 Los Angeles Harbor Department, Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent, From Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan for the San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, September Palos Verdes Urban Village 34 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

39 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a - b) No Impact. No mineral resource of value to the region and/or the residents of the state are known to be within the project area other than petroleum, and the project proposes no activities or policies that would have any effect on the petroleum resources located in the vicinity. Furthermore, the project site is not designated for resource recovery and would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Palos Verdes Urban Village 35 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

40 a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. The decibel (db) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a process called Aweighting, referred to as dba. In general, a difference of more than three dba is a perceptible change in environmental noise, while a five dba difference typically causes a community reaction. An increase of ten dba is perceived by people as a doubling of loudness. 26 The City has established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could adversely affect its citizens and noise sensitive land uses. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) (Chapter IV, Article 1, Section and Chapter XI, Article 2, Section ) indicates that no construction or repair work shall be performed between the hours of 9 PM and 7 AM of the following day, since such activities would generate loud noises and disturb persons occupying sleeping quarters in any adjacent dwelling, hotel, or apartment or other place of residence. No person, other than an individual home owner engaged in the repair or construction of his/her single-family dwelling, shall perform any construction or repair work of any kind or perform such work within 500 feet of land so occupied before 8 AM or after 6 PM on any Saturday or on a National Holiday, or at any time on any Sunday. Under certain conditions, the City may grant a waiver to allow limited construction activities to occur outside of the limits described above. According to the noise ordinance in Chapter XI, Article 2, Section of the LAMC, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any machinery, equipment, tools, or other mechanical or electrical device, or engage in any other activity in such a manner as to create any noise which would cause the noise level on the premises of any other occupied property, or, if a condominium, apartment house, duplex, or attached business, within any adjoining unit, to exceed the ambient noise level by more than five (5) decibels (City of Los Angeles, 1982, amended 1986). Chapter IX, Article 2, Section of the LAMC specifies the maximum noise level of powered equipment or powered hand tools. Any powered equipment or hand tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding 75 dba at a distance of 50 feet is prohibited when the equipment is located within 500 feet of a residence. However, this noise limitation does not apply where compliance is technically infeasible. Technically infeasible means that the above noise limitation cannot be met despite the use of mufflers, shields, sound barriers and/or any other noise reduction device or techniques during the operation of equipment. 26 EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March Palos Verdes Urban Village 36 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

41 Existing ambient noise levels range from 54.6 dba to 57.4 dba along 5 th Street in the vicinity of the site. 27 Noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise-sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise. Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call adjacent to the project site and to the east, the Port of Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club approximately 100 feet to the northeast, multi-fmaily housing one block to the north, and the Crowne Plaza LA Harbor Hotel approximately 150 feet to the southwest. The multi-family housing project under construction to the west of the site across Palos Verdes Street would also be a sensitive receptor. These sensitive receptors have a direct line-of-site to the project site. Construction Noise Noise impacts from construction activities occurring within the project site would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the equipment location, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction activities would include six stages: (1) demolition; (2) site preparation; (3) foundation; (4) structural; and (5) finishing and cleanup. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. As mentioned earlier, construction activities would be limited to the hours specified in the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, thereby, limiting the hours during which construction noise would be generated. 28 The anticipated noise level associated with each construction phase appears in Table 5. In addition, typical noise levels generated by individual pieces of equipment are displayed in Table 6. TABLE 5 ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES a Construction Phase Noise Level (dba, L eq a ) Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Construction 85 Finishing 89 Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, Environmental Science Associates, Noise Measurements taken August 21, 2006, pm peak hour; Ldn estimated based on peak hour Leq measurement and methodology from Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, page N Intensive construction or repair work shall not be performed between the hours of 9 PM and 7 AM on any weekday, before 8 AM or after 6 PM on any Saturday or national holiday, or at any time on Sunday. Palos Verdes Urban Village 37 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

42 TABLE 6 NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dba, L eq at 50 feet) Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Backhoe 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977; FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, The construction noise levels presented in Table 5 represent conservative conditions in which the maximum amount of construction equipment would be operating during a onehour period. These estimated maximum noise levels would not be continuous, nor would they be typical of noise levels throughout the construction period. As indicated in Table 5, due to the type of construction equipment, the highest level of construction noise would be expected to occur during the site clearing and finishing and cleanup phases. Composite equipment used during these phases would generate a noise level of 89 dba (without mufflers) at a reference distance of 50 feet from construction activity. Most construction activity would be located 50 feet or more away from sensitive receptors given the setbacks of the receptors themselves from their property line and the setback of the buildings being constructed. However, construction equipment would occasionally travel along the boundary of the project site and within 25 feet of the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call. This hotel could experience an exterior noise level of approximately 91 dba. 29 According to the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, the presumed ambient noise level for a C2 zone property is 60 dba during daytime hours. 30 As such, construction-related noise levels would exceed the ambient noise environment by more than five dba. Regarding interior noise levels, typical building construction provides a noise reduction of approximately 12 dba with windows open and a minimum 26 dba with windows closed. 31 This would result in interior window open noise levels of 79 dba and interior windows closed noise levels of 65 dba at the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call. Regarding exterior noise levels, the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call has an outdoor swimming pool approximately 50 feet from the project site. The swimming pool is enclosed by a six-foot concrete wall. This 29 Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, City of Los Angeles, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, American Society for Testing of Materials, Standard Classification for Determination of Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class, Palos Verdes Urban Village 38 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

43 concrete wall would reduce construction noise level by approximately five dba. Given that construction noise would be approximately 89 dba at 50 feet, exterior noise levels at the swimming pool as a result of construction activity could reach 84 dba. To put these noise levels in perspective, the sound level that permits relaxed conversation with 100 percent intelligibility is 45 dba. This drops to 60 percent intelligibility at 70 dba. In addition, 50 percent of people report that noise levels of 75 dba disturb sleep. Table 7 provided further information regarding exterior construction noise levels at different distances. TABLE 7 ATTENUATION OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AWAY FROM PROJECT SITE Distance (feet) Noise Levels (dba, L eq ) SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977; FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, As mentioned above, the noise limitation of the LAMC does not apply where compliance is technically infeasible. 32 Technically infeasible means that the noise standard cannot be met despite the use of mufflers, shields, sound barriers, and/or other noise reduction devices or techniques during the operation of equipment. The following mitigation measures would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to off-site receptors to the extent feasible and would ensure that construction impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Noise-1: Noise-2: A temporary 6-foot sound barrier (i.e. plywood) shall be erected along the project site s northerly, easterly and westerly perimeters, such that the linesof-sight between construction activity and the adjacent sensitive receptors (the Best Western Sunrise Hotel Ports O Call immediately to the east, multifamily housing one block to the north, and the multi-family housing project currently under construction immediately to the west) are blocked to the maximum extent feasible. All construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where feasible. Mufflers can reduce noise levels by dba for individual pieces of equipment. However, mufflers are not reasonably available for all equipment. 32 LAMC, Chapter IX, Article 2, Section Palos Verdes Urban Village 39 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

44 Noise-3: Noise-4: Noise-5: Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul equipment shall be limited to the maximum extent feasible without interrupting work. The construction staging area shall be located no less than 100 feet from sensitive receptors. Impact Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measures Noise-1 through Noise-5 would reduce construction-related noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Residential grade mufflers typically reduce the noise levels from an individual piece of equipment by 18 to 23 dba. 33 Composite noise levels for construction phases that utilize multiple pieces of equipment would be reduced by approximately ten dba. Operational Noise The proposed project would locate residences and minor amounts of commercial space in an area already occupied by residences, hotels, and commercial land uses. Operational noise sources associated with the proposed project would be typical of the surrounding community (e.g., landscaping activity). The proposed project would not generate noise levels that expose nearby sensitive receptors to unusual or excessive noise levels. In addition, the proposed land use would be compatible with the surrounding noise environment. The proposed use is similar to other uses in the area (the multi-family housing project under construction to the west, multi-family housing located one block to the north). Traffic from the proposed project would not significantly impact local roadways (see the discussion of traffic impacts below). Potential stationary noise sources related to the long-term operations of the proposed project include parking activity, mechanical equipment and courtyard space. The proposed project would include two levels of subterranean parking. Proposed parking on the site would be enclosed on all sides and parking facility noise would be inaudible at sensitive receivers. As such, parking structure activity would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise levels by five dba. Mechanical equipment (e.g., parking structure air vents, pool machinery, and HVAC equipment) would be designed so as to be located within an enclosure or confined to the rooftop of the proposed structures. Operation of mechanical equipment would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise levels by five dba. Low level noise would be generated by courtyards. Sources would include the sounds of talking and low level music. The sources would generally be located central to the project site and away from sensitive receptors. In addition, noise generated by these sources 33 Catalyst Products, accessed February 2, Palos Verdes Urban Village 40 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

45 would be lower than traffic noise affecting sensitive receptors. Courtyard activity would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise levels by five dba. The proposed project would not generate a substantial number of new traffic trips. 34 A doubling of traffic is needed to result in an audible change in noise levels. Traffic from the proposed project would not double existing traffic on the roadway network surrounding the project site and would not result in a significant mobile noise impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration sensitive land uses and receptors include fragile/historic buildings, commercial, building where low ambient vibration is essential for operations within the buildings (e.g., computer chip manufacturers and hospitals), and buildings where people sleep. Vibration-sensitive receptors near the project site are identical to the noise-sensitive receptors presented above. The proposed project would be constructed using typical construction techniques, and standard construction equipment. Such construction techniques and equipment does not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or noise. Post-construction on-site activities would be limited to urban land uses that do not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or noise (including vehicle traffic and loading operations). As such, the proposed project would operate below a level of significance. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Please see Checklist Question 11 a) for a detailed analysis. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project provided the mitigation measures identified in 11 a) are implemented. Please see discussion of 11 a) above for a detailed analysis and mitigation measures. e) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of an airport. 35 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area or people visiting the project site to excessive noise levels from airports. No impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required. f) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the exposure of people in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels due to proximity to a private airstrip. The proposed project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 36 Therefore, the project would not have the potential to expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. No impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required. 34 Katz, Okitsu & Associates, Palos Verdes Urban Village Traffic Study, July 24, Thomas Bros. Maps, The Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2005 Edition. 36 Ibid. Palos Verdes Urban Village 41 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

46 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be developed in accordance with applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and would not exceed the population growth anticipated in the SCAG RTP. SCAG locates the project site within the Southbay Cities Subregion. The 2004 RTP projects that employment in this subregion will grow by about 58,383 jobs between 2005 and The proposed project would result in a net increase of about 27 jobs, or approximately 0.05 percent of the total job growth projected for the subregion. Such levels of employment growth are consistent with employment forecasts for the subregion as adopted by SCAG. The proposed project includes residential units and would result in increased permanent population growth. The proposed project is expected to add 251 new housing units, which represents 4.1 percent of the 6,097 new housing units projected in SCAG s 2004 RTP between 2005 and An on-site average population of 2.3 persons per unit or 577 people is anticipated. 37 Such levels of population growth are consistent with population forecasts adopted by SCAG. In addition, the proposed project would not extend roads or substantially alter the existing infrastructure. Therefore, impacts to population growth would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b - c) No Impact. No residential units would be removed in order to construct the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial amounts of existing housing or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The existing paint store and its 10 employees would be relocated. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 37 Richard Overstreet, Palos Verdes Street Investments, LLC, communication, August 18, Palos Verdes Urban Village 42 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

47 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? a) The proposed project would add 251 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of retail to the Beacon Street Redevelopment Project area. The residential development in the area is within the levels anticipated in the area but has the potential to generate a need for new or physically altered fire, police, and other public services. The proposed project would comply with applicable requirements to pay school and park fees, and would also generate property tax revenue for the maintenance of public facilities. a.i.) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would increase demand for fire protection services in the project area. The proposed project has the potential to, individually and/or in combination with other projects, generate the need for new or expanded fire staffing levels and/or protection facilities. With the implementation of Pub-1, less than significant impacts would occur. Fire protection services would be adequately provided to the project site by the City of Los Angeles Fire Department Station #112 located on Harbor Blvd in San Pedro and Fire Station #36 located on North Gaffey Street in San Pedro. 38 Furthermore, all of the residential development and retail center facility would be fully sprinklered as a protective measure to ensure public safety during an event of a fire. Impact would be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure Pub-1: Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall request confirmation from the Los Angeles Fire Department that the proposed project meets Fire Department design requirements in terms of access and fire protection for the structures. 38 Personal Conversation with Captain Frank Comfort, City of Los Angeles Fire Department. Palos Verdes Urban Village 43 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

48 a ii.) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would increase demand for police protection services in the project area. The proposed project, either individually or in combination with other projects, has the potential to generate the need for new or expanded police staffing and/or protection facilities. However, with the implementation of following Mitigation Measure Pub-2, less than significant impacts would occur. The Los Angeles Police Department would provide the primary law enforcement for the proposed project. Specifically, Harbor Community Police Station would service the proposed project. In addition to city police forces, the proposed project would include the following security features: concierge services in the lobby and security key card to access the buildings and parking. These features will further enhance public safety at the project site. Impact would be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure Pub-2: The applicant shall receive confirmation from the Los Angeles Police Department that all appropriate security measures are incorporated into the proposed project. In order to meet increased demand for police protection services, the applicant will pay any fair share contribution to any needed police improvements. a iii.) a iv.) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development has the potential to generate about 98.5 students (52.4 elementary school, 23.7 middle school, 22.4 high school), that could lead to overcrowding and/or the need for more school facilities. 39 However, the proposed project is within population projections for the area and would be required to pay the mandated school fee. The current school fee is $3.60 per gross square foot for multi-family housing; 40 payment of this fee would reduce impacts caused by the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant with payment of the fee, which is the maximum mitigation that can be required, in accordance with State law. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would increase demands for park facilities in the community. Although the proposed project would provide a rooftop terrace garden (22,000 gsf) with a pool to offset this demand somewhat. The population increase associated with the proposed development would generate additional demand for added parks, and improved sites and recreation facilities in an area where the existing supply of such facilities is already inadequate. The payment of Quimby/Park Fees would assist in funding capital improvement projects, upgrades to existing recreational facilities, and acquisition and development of new park and recreation facilities around the proposed project site. The City is park poor, with tremendous need for additional recreation and park land. Existing facilities need park improvements to meet community needs, prevent future maintenance problems, and offer 39 LAUSD Residential Development School Fee Justification Study, September Ed Zearate, Clerk, LAUSD Developer Fee Program, telephone conversation, August 22, Palos Verdes Urban Village 44 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

49 positive alternatives to an increasingly dense and urbanized population. Overuse and age have taken their toll on City park facilities, which are increasingly needed for social, physical, and mental health. Impact would be less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure Pub-3: Prior to construction of the proposed project the applicant shall receive confirmation from the City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks that the proposed project park land/fee payments meet the requirements of the Recreation and Parks Department. a v.) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project, either individually or in combination with other projects, has the potential to impact other public facilities. Although no such impacts have been identified, the City may as part of their assessment of public facilities determine the need for additional public facilities as a result of the proposed project and other projects and may assess a fee. The applicant will pay any appropriate fair share public facilities fee to reduce impacts caused by the proposed project and would coordinate with the appropriate service provider to ensure adequate public service is provided to the proposed project. The following mitigation measure will apply to the project, and would reduce any impact to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure Pub-4: In order to meet any increased demand for public facilities, the applicant will pay their fair share contribution to any needed public facility improvements. Impact Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measures Pub-1 through Pub-4 would reduce impacts to public services to less than significant levels. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Palos Verdes Urban Village 45 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

50 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located less than 500 feet from John S Gibson Park. John S Gibson Park provides a walking path along Harbor Boulevard as well as other amenities. In addition, Anderson Memorial Playground is located approximately one-quarter mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project will include a variety of recreational amenities including a roof top garden terrace (22,000 gsf) with a pool. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on existing parks or other recreational facilities. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project provides recreational amenities for its tenants that will reduce the need for new and/or expanded park facilities. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that either individually or in combination with other projects a need will be generated for new and/or expanded park facilities. However, as indicated in Mitigation Measure Pub-3, the applicant shall ensure that proposed park land/fee payments meet the requirements of the Department of Recreation and Parks. Less than significant impacts with mitigation Pub-3 are anticipated. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-tocapacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Palos Verdes Urban Village 46 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

51 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in approximately 561 net average week-day trips, including 77 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips (see Appendix A for the traffic study). 41 Under existing 2006 conditions, all five study intersections are currently operating at good levels of service (LOS D or better). Under future 2011 conditions without the proposed project, intersection operations are expected to improve at all of the study intersections due to planned roadway improvements. All five study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Based on the City of Los Angeles significant impact criteria, the proposed project would not have any significant impacts at any of the five study intersections. 42 The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the surrounding roadway network. Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term adverse traffic and parking impacts as construction equipment and a haul trucks access the site thereby potentially delaying traffic on surrounding streets. Completion of the construction staging and traffic plan would ensure that construction traffic and parking impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Traffic-1: The proposed project would be required to submit a formal construction staging and traffic plan to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction permits. The construction staging and traffic plan shall include requirements for flag-men and other measures. This plan would be designed to minimize delays from haul trucks and construction equipment accessing the site. Impact Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure Traffic-1 would reduce impacts to traffic and parking during construction to less than significant levels. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) administers the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a state-mandated program designed to address the impact urban congestion has on local communities and the region as a whole. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. A traffic impact analysis is conducted where the following occur: Where the proposed project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either AM or PM weekday peak hours at CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway onramps or off-ramps. Where the proposed project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours at CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations. 41 Katz, Okitsu, and Associates, Palos Verdes Urban Village Traffic Study, July 24, Ibid. Palos Verdes Urban Village 47 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

52 Based on the proposed project s trip generation of 561 net average weekday trips, including 77 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips, the proposed project would not add 50 or more new trips per hour to an arterial monitoring intersection or add 150 or more new trips per hour to a mainline freeway monitoring location in either direction. The nearest CMP roadway to the project site is Gaffey Street located west of the study area. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The nearest airport is the Long Beach Airport, which is located over eight miles from the project site. 43 The proposed project would not result in substantial population growth beyond that which is anticipated by the City. The project site is not located within an aircraft flight path nor does it include any high-rise structures that could act as a hazard to aircraft navigation. Further, the proposed project is not located directly in line with airport runways. As such, the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. There are no existing hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on-site or within the project vicinity, and implementation of the proposed project would not create hazards relative to design features. The project area currently consists of commercial, retail, and residential uses with which the proposed project would be compatible. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create or increase hazards relative to a design feature or incompatible uses. No significant impacts would result, and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project would comply with applicable City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) regulations, Department of Building and Safety regulations, and Uniform Building Code standard design requirements. Additionally, the project applicant would provide the LAFD with a full site plan for review, including all buildings, fences, drive gates, retaining walls or other features that might affect the LAFD access. Unobstructed fire lanes in accordance with regulations and standards stated above, would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. As a result, there would be no impact with regard to emergency access. f) No Impact. Parking for the proposed project would be provided in no more than threelevel subterranean parking structure and three to four levels above grade parking. As shown in Table 8, the proposed project would require 581 parking spaces; 582 parking spaces would be provided. The parking impact would be less than significant. Access to the subterranean parking area would be via 5 th and Palos Verdes Street. This would be an appropriate location for parking access as 5 th and Palos Verdes Street have relatively low traffic volumes and conflicts with cross-traffic would be minimal. In addition, parking access would be designed to avoid pedestrian conflicts with vehicles. Parking access would result in a less than significant impact. 43 Thomas Bros. Maps, The Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2005 Edition. Palos Verdes Urban Village 48 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

53 TABLE 8 PARKING ANALYSIS Land Use Unit Code Requirement Parking Spaces Required Parking Residential 251 Units 2.25 per unit a 565 Retail 4,000 Square Feet 4.0 per 1,000 square feet 16 Minimum Total 581 SOURCE: Gafcon, June g) No Impact. The project site is located within a busy commercial corridor. The project site and vicinity includes opportunities for the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes. The MTA provides public transportation in the project vicinity and public transportation would not be disturbed by the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and mitigation measures would not be necessary. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? Palos Verdes Urban Village 49 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

54 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (cont.): f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Existing uses on the project site result in a demand for approximately 1,294 gallons of water per day and generates approximately 1,125 gallons of sewage per day. 44 The proposed project would result in a demand for approximately 72,623 gallons of water per day and would generate 63,150 gallons of sewage per day. 45 The proposed project would increase water demand by approximately 71,000 gallons more per day and would generate approximately 62,000 more gallons of sewage per day. This increase in demand, either individually or in combination with other projects would not have the potential to exceed the capacity of water infrastructure in the area. 46 The proposed project, either individually or together with other projects has the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing wastewater infrastructure and thus could result in the need for additional and/or expanded wastewater infrastructure. The proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Quality Control Board. With the implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure Util-1: In order to meet increased demand for wastewater infrastructure that may be needed in the area, the applicant will pay their fair share contribution to any needed local sewer line improvements. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed urban area. The project site is currently served by City stormwater drainage facilities. As a part of proposed project construction, new on-site drainage features would be installed to ensure that no significant impact to the City stormwater drainage facilities would occur. Thus, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 44 City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Generation Factors, Ibid. 46 Personal Communication, Alvin Bautista, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, February 22, Palos Verdes Urban Village 50 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

55 d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the demand for water beyond the ability of the City to provide water service to the site. The proposed project is within the growth projections for the area. e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would be located on a previously developed site with sewer line connections served by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Should the proposed project require the relocation or extension of sewer lines, the project applicant shall receive confirmation from the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, and Bureau of Engineering that proposed relocations are acceptable. Impacts on wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure Util-1 above. f - g) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Existing uses on the project site generate approximately 10 tons of solid waste per year. 47 Demolition of the on-site paint store is anticipated to generate about 423 tons of debris. 48 The proposed project would generate approximately 187 tons of solid waste per year. 49 Solid waste generated by the proposed project could be disposed at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Valencia or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill near the intersection of the I-5 and SR 14. Both the Sunshine Canyon Landfill and the Chiquita Canyon Landfill have sufficient remaining capacity to serve the proposed project. 50 These facilities have between 10 and 20 million tons of remaining capacity; in addition, both facilities have applied for expansion. Since two major landfills have adequate capacity to serve waste generated by the proposed project, this impact is considered less than significant. The proposed project would be subject to the applicable City recycling requirements. In addition, the following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure Util-2: The applicant shall (or shall require through the contract with the contractor) that construction and demolition materials are separated to the maximum extent feasible so they can be transported to recyclers to enhance recycling and to assist in achieving Assembly Bill 939 diversion requirements. Impact Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measures Util-1 and Util-2 would reduce impacts to public services to less than significant levels. 47 County of Los Angeles, Solid Waste Generation Factors, Estimate based on 77 lbs of debris per square foot (2000 lbs per ton). 49 County of Los Angeles, Solid Waste Generation Factors, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Continued Operation of the Puentes Hills Landfill EIR, June Palos Verdes Urban Village 51 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

56 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ( Cumulative considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area. Vegetation on the project site includes ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses. There are no known rare or endangered animal or plant species at or surrounding the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant of animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Any archaeological or paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been previously unearthed or disturbed. Although there is a possibility that archaeological or paleontological resources exist at deep levels below ground surface, the uncovering of such resources would be remote. The commercial structures on the project site do not possess any historic architectural significance. Impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with growth projections for the area. The proposed project together with other anticipated development in the area is not anticipated to create any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create or contribute to an adverse impact on humans either directly or indirectly. Palos Verdes Urban Village 52 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

57 Supporting Information Sources American Society for Testing of Materials, Standard Classification for Determination of Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class, Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS 2002 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects, Version 8.7, April Catalyst Products, accessed February 2, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Generation Factors, City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, Supplement to EIR, Beacon Street Redevelopment Project, January City of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Title 9, Article 1 Building Regulations, website accessed October 26, City of Los Angeles, San Pedro Community Plan, May County of Los Angeles, Solid Waste Generation Factors, Dale Hinkle P.E. Inc, Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 14-Story Residential Structure and Four Four-Story Structures, 550 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California, December 16, EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March Katz, Okitsu, and Associates, Palos Verdes Urban Village Traffic Study, July 24, Koizumi, James, Air Quality Specialist, SCAQMD. Personal communication on July 20, LAMC, Chapter IX, Article 2, Section Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Continued Operation of the Puentes Hills Landfill EIR, June Los Angeles Harbor Department, Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent, From Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan for the San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, September Personal Communication, Alvin Bautista, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, February 22, Personal Communication, Bob Cheung, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, December 8, Palos Verdes Urban Village 53 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

58 Professional Service Industries, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 29, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Office. Listed and Proposed Species that Occur in Los Angeles County. website accessed April 11, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 1, Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, April Report Preparation Environmental Science Associates Wendy Lockwood, Regional Director Adeeb Arafeh, Associate III Jason Nielsen, Graphics Natasha Mapp, Administration Palos Verdes Urban Village 54 ESA / Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2006

59 Appendix A Traffic Study

60 Traffic Study for Palos Verdes Urban Village San Pedro, California July 24, 2006 Prepared For: ESA Associates Prepared by: 1055 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300 Monterey Park, California phone: (323) fax: (323) JA5269

61 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 PROJECT STUDY AREA...4 PROJECT ACCESS...7 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY...7 EXISTING 2006 CONDITIONS...9 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM...9 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE...11 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES...11 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE...11 FUTURE 2011 WITHOUT PROJECT AMBIENT GROWTH...15 RELATED PROJECTS...15 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS...19 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE...19 FUTURE 2011 WITH PROJECT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION...21 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION...21 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT...22 DETERMINATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS...28 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONFORMANCE SUMMARY AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS...31 Prepared for ESA Associates Traffic Impact Study Palos Verdes Urban Village July 24, 2006 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 2

62 List of Figures FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA 5 FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY SITE MAP 6 FIGURE 3: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY 10 FIGURE 4: EXISTING 2006 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 13 FIGURE 5: EXISTING 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS 16 FIGURE 7: FUTURE 2011 WITHOUT-PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 17 FIGURE 8: FUTURE 2011 WITHOUT-PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 18 FIGURE 9: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 23 FIGURE 10: PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 24 FIGURE 11: PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 25 FIGURE 12: FUTURE 2011 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 26 FIGURE 14: FUTURE 2011 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 27 List of Tables TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 8 TABLE 2: KEY ROADWAY DESCRIPTION 9 TABLE 3: EXISTING 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 12 TABLE 4: RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 15 TABLE 5: FUTURE 2011 WITHOUT-PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 20 TABLE 6: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE 21 TABLE 7: FUTURE WITH-PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 28 Prepared for ESA Associates Traffic Impact Study Palos Verdes Urban Village July 24, 2006 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 3

63 Introduction This study report identifies the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Palos Verdes Urban Village (hereafter refer to as "Project"). The proposed Project site is located along Palos Verdes Street, between 5th and 6th Street located in the community of San Pedro within the City of Los Angeles, California. The proposed Project includes construction of 251 condominium residential units and 4,000 square-feet of local retail. The Project is anticipated to be constructed/occupied by The Project study area, as defined through consultation with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation includes five key study intersections. Traffic impacts were analyzed utilizing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic at the five study intersections. The traffic analysis includes the following traffic scenarios: Existing 2006 Conditions Future 2011 Without Project Future 2011 With Project Prior to the start of the study, Katz, Okitsu & Associates coordinated with staff from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to obtain consensus on the traffic scope, methodology and assumptions. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was prepared and reviewed by LADOT staff. A copy of the MOU is provided in Appendix A. Project Study Area The Project is defined by the following five key study intersections: 1. Pacific Avenue and 5th Street 2. Pacific Avenue and 6th Street 3. Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street 4. Harbor Boulevard and 5th Street 5. Harbor Boulevard and 6th Street The Project location, study intersections and the general traffic circulation system are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the proposed Project's preliminary site plan. Prepared for ESA Associates Traffic Impact Study Palos Verdes Urban Village July 24, 2006 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4

64 Gaffey St. Harbor Blvd. Harbor Blvd. RAILROAD Bonita St. Oliver St. Ofarrell St. Sepulveda St. Santa Cruz St. 1st St. 3 2nd St. 3rd St th St. Palos Verdes St. 4 5th St. 1 6th St. 7th St. Grand Ave. Pacific Ave. 2 Mesa St. Centre St. 5 LOS ANGELES MAIN CHANNEL 8th St. Sampson Wy. 9th St. 10th St. Beacon St. 11th St. Nagoya Wy. 12th St. Project Site LEGEND Study Intersection N Palos Verdes Urban Village - Traffic Study Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections

65 N Palos Verdes Urban Village - Traffic Study Figure 2 Project Site Plan