IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. AESTHETICS 1. AESTHETICS/VIEWS

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. AESTHETICS 1. AESTHETICS/VIEWS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Aesthetic impact assessment generally deals with the issue of contrast, or the degree to which elements of the environment differ visually. Aesthetic features occur in a diverse array of environments, ranging in character from urban centers to rural regions and wildlands. Adverse visual effects can include the loss of natural features or areas, the removal of urban features with aesthetic value, or the introduction of contrasting urban features into natural areas or urban settings. Since this Project Site is located within an urban setting, the aesthetic impact assessment concentrates on urban features. Urban features that may contribute to a valued aesthetic character or image include: structures of architectural or historic significance or visual prominence; public plazas, art or gardens; heritage oaks or other trees or plants protected by the City; consistent design elements (such as setbacks, massing, height and signage) along a street or district; pedestrian amenities; and landscaped medians or park area. The following analysis takes into account two attributes of aesthetic values with respect to environmental impacts: 1) aesthetics or visual character, and 2) viewshed. The former pertains to aspects of the visual character of existing development and of the Proposed Project, such as architecture, color, design, mass and height. The latter refers primarily to views of the Project Site from varying vantage points, as well as views from or adjacent to the site of such visual features such as open spaces, mountain ranges, etc. The inherent subjectivity of issues and values of visual character creates a challenge in arriving at a conclusive determination of what constitutes a significant impact for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Impacts regarding visual character typically include changes to the style or ambiance of a community, the insertion of a prominent feature that changes the original visual character of an area, or the elimination of a significant natural feature (or open space). Regarding viewshed, significant impacts for the purposes of the CEQA typically consist of loss or obstruction of a valued public view (e.g., scenic vista or views of the horizon). These impacts also include changes in the character of the viewshed that deter from a valued public view, such as the elimination or obstruction of natural features that were formerly part of a valued public viewshed. Page IV.B-1

Aesthetics or Visual Character Visual Character of the Site Site I of the Project Site is currently developed with seven commercial/retail buildings and surface parking situated on a rectangular site bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard on the south, Wilton Place on the west, Virginia Avenue on the north and St. Andrews Place on the east. A public alley is situated mid-block partially bisecting the site in an east/west direction and continuing in a north/south direction (in an L shape) with access from Wilton Place and Virginia Avenue. All seven buildings front Santa Monica Boulevard. The buildings are not eligible for listing in the National or California Registers (refer to Section IV. D., Cultural Resources). Site II, situated at the northeast corner of St. Andrews Place and Virginia Avenue, contains a 12 stall parking lot with two temporary trailers and a tent housing the Hollywood Community Job Center. Site III, is situated at the southeast corner of St. Andrews Place and Virginia Avenue and contains 52 surface parking spaces. All three sites are relatively flat with no pronounced elevation change. The Project Site (all three sites) includes a total of 18 trees of various species (no oaks). Aesthetics or Visual Character of Site Vicinity The Project Site is located in the Hollywood area of the City of Los Angeles. There are no dominant physical features of the Project Site or immediate Project vicinity. There are no surface water features in the immediate area or open spaces such as parks or mountains. The neighborhood is within the flat areas of the Los Angeles Basin and the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills) are approximately one to one and a half miles to the north. The visual character or image of the Project Site neighborhood is defined by residential structures, most 2- to 3-story apartment buildings built approximately in the 1920s through 1940s. Commercial/retail buildings are primarily located along Santa Monica Boulevard, Western Avenue and partially along St. Andrews Place and Wilton Place, all of which were most likely constructed during the same time period as the residential structures (including the Project Site buildings). The buildings are similar in scale, mostly 2- to 3-story for the residential structures and single story to 4-story commercial structures along Santa Monica Boulevard which conform to a common setback. All of the Project Site buildings are single-story with the exception of the Sears building, which is approximately 3 stories above grade in height with one story below grade and a parapet wall surrounding the roof. Views or Viewshed Viewsheds typically refer to the visual qualities of the geographical area that is defined by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that give an area its visual boundary and context, or by artificial developments that have become prominent visual components of the area. There are no natural features in the project area, as noted above. Viewsheds of the Project Site are limited to existing development, which includes the seven commercial/retail structures related surface parking lots on all three sites. Views of the Page IV.B-2

site are available along Santa Monica Boulevard, Wilton Place, Virginia Avenue and St. Andrews Place (see Section II, Figures II-5 through II-8). Views of the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills) intermittently are afforded from Santa Monica Boulevard, Wilton Place and St. Andrews Place. However, along Santa Monica Boulevard, the mountains (hills) are mostly obstructed by intervening buildings and topography. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance For purposes of this EIR, the development of an incongruous structure relative to its location, loss of a major scenic view, or loss of a major open space resource would be considered a significant impact. Based on the City of Los Angeles Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of whether the Proposed Project results in a significant aesthetics impact shall be made considering the following factors: Aesthetics: (a) The amount or relative proportion of existing features or elements that substantially contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, or localized area, which would be removed, altered or demolished; (b) The amount of natural open space to be graded or developed; (c) The degree to which proposed structures in natural open space areas would be effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, etc.; (d) The degree of contrast between proposed features and existing features that represent the area s valued aesthetic image; (e) (f) The degree to which the Project would contribute to the area s aesthetic value; Applicable guidelines and regulations; Obstruction of Views: (g) The nature and quality of recognized or valued views (such as natural topography, settings, manmade or natural features of visual interest, and resources such as mountains or ocean); (h) Whether the Project affects views from a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway; (i) The extent of obstruction (e.g., total blockage, partial interruption, or minor diminishment); and Page IV.B-3

(j) The extent to which the Project affects recognized views available from a length of a public roadway, bike path, or trail, as opposed to a single, fixed vantage point. Project Impacts Aesthetics or Visual Character The Project Site would be altered with implementation of the Proposed Project. The most notable visual change would be the replacement of the six single-story commercial/retail buildings on Site I with one large mixed-use structure with 8-stories above grade and one level of below grade retail, and 3 levels of below grade parking, one with commercial/retail space level. The existing 4-story (3 above grade, 1 below grade) department store building currently occupied by Sears would remain. On Site II and Site III, a temporary trailer and surface parking lots would be replaced with two 4-story residential buildings. In addition, all 18 trees found on the Project Site would be removed. The Proposed Project would include a landscape plan that would include trees, shrubs, grass and hardscape patios, courtyards and planters. Valued Visual Character The Project Site is located within an established residential neighborhood containing a mix of apartment and commercial buildings constructed between the 1920s and 1940s. As previously discussed, the Project Site I buildings and the surrounding residential and commercial are neither historic nor part of any historic district. The buildings within the Project Site area represent the prevailing architecture styles in Southern California during that particular development period. Implementation of the Project would involve demolition of six of the seven existing Project Site I retail buildings and one would remain. Though the Project Site I buildings contribute to areas grouping of commercial/retail buildings, the surrounding area would continue to possess a significant concentration of buildings united aesthetically by their architecture and style. Therefore, demolition of these buildings would not significantly diminish the valued visual character or image of the neighborhood, and the impact of eliminating the Project Site buildings from the neighborhood would be less than significant. Natural Open Space The Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area of Los Angeles and is approximately one mile to one and a half miles south of the foothill areas of the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills). The Project Site I is currently built with six single-story commercial/retail buildings, a 4-story retail building (Sears) and surface parking lots on Sites II and III (Site II contains two temporary trailers and a tent). The Site does not contain any natural open space areas. Project implementation would involve demolition of the buildings and removal of the surface parking lots, but it would not involve grading of natural open space areas. Since the Project Site is located in an urban area, there is no concern regarding the placement of the proposed mixed-use complex and residential structures within a natural or open space area. Therefore, the Project Page IV.B-4

impact on grading of natural open space areas and placement of the proposed structure within open space areas would not be significant. Aesthetic Value and Image Site I of the Proposed Project would consist of a 2- to 8-story mixed-use complex built over four levels of subterranean parking levels and one level of below grade retail uses. The exterior of the complex would emulate a Contemporary style, with creative use of traditional building components and other compositional elements and materials commensurate with this architectural style (see Figure III-3). The architectural style provides multi-faceted massing, roof forms, fenestration, and other architectural elements consistent with the architecture in the area. Site I would include retail uses be located on two levels surrounding a pedestrian plaza, and would also be located (on two levels) along Santa Monica Boulevard and seamlessly connect to the existing 3-story (above grade) retail department store building. A retail basement level would also be located and connected to the basement level of the existing retail department store building. Figure IV.B-1 is a model of the Proposed Project and illustrates the location of the pedestrian plaza. The retail uses would also wrap around the Wilton Place and Santa Monica Boulevard corner up to the Proposed Project s Wilton Place driveway. The Project would include other landscaped open spaces, a landscaped paseo, and the use of the roof of the existing 3-story retail department store building as open space for Project residents and the general public for leisure activities. The Proposed Project would encompass elements and features of surrounding architecture and would complement and enhance the area s aesthetic value and image. The Virginia Avenue elevation includes a linear cluster of residential buildings, approximately 3 stories, and set back approximately 10 feet from the roadway, emulating the existing streetscape. These buildings would be separated by landscaped areas and walkways, which connect to the proposed paseo leading to the plaza. Figure IV.B-2 provides model demonstrating the view of the Project as seen from Virginia Avenue (see Figure III-4, Virginia Avenue elevation). As shown in this figure, to decrease the massing of the Project, the residential use is divided into several small buildings with varied setbacks angles emulating the existing Virginia Avenue streetscape. Sites II and III would each consist of a 45-foot tall, or 4-story, residential building that would emulate architectural style of the area s residential buildings. All of the buildings on the Project Site would contain various materials such as stucco, roof tiles similar to other buildings in the area including existing structures on the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the design of existing buildings within the area. Further, the six single-story Site I Project Site buildings are in need of update and repair and contribute to an image of dilapidation and deterioration of the neighborhood. It is possible that potential significant impacts may occur from project implementation due to graffiti and accumulation of rubbish and debris along the wall(s) adjacent to public rights-of-way. However, this potential impact would be mitigated with recommended Mitigation Measures B.1-6 and B.1-7. Implementation of the Proposed Project would improve the aesthetic image and value of the neighborhood with a new, modern complex while evoking architectural style and elements of the area. Project impacts to the area s aesthetic value and image would be less than significant. Page IV.B-5

Applicable Guidelines and Regulations There are no known applicable design guidelines or criteria for multiple family residential development under the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. According to the Hollywood Community Plan, there is no Community Design Overlay for the Project Site and immediate area. Consequently, there is no corresponding design guidelines specifically oriented to the Project neighborhood. Therefore, no impacts would occur to Applicable Guidelines and Regulations pertaining to design. Aesthetics or Visual Character Impact Conclusion The Proposed Project s potential aesthetic or visual character effects have been evaluated using the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide to determine impact significance. Potential impacts on valued visual character, loss of natural open space, project aesthetic value and image, and applicable City guidelines and regulations regarding site planning and design were evaluated. Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to aesthetic or visual character. Page IV.B-6

Insert Figure IV.B-1 Model Photograph Looking North Page IV.B-7

Insert Figure IV.B-2 Model Photograph Looking South Page IV.B-8

Obstruction of Views Valued Views and Obstruction The prominent natural visual features in the Project area are the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills), located approximately one mile to one and a half miles north of the Project Site. As discussed above, the Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area with no natural features on site or in the immediate area that would be considered prominent. Site I of the Project Site would be visible along Santa Monica Boulevard. Due to intervening buildings, Sites II and III would not be visible from Santa Monica Boulevard with the exception of views looking northward on St. Andrews Place. Similar to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would be visible also from the immediate surrounding streets: Wilton Place, Virginia Avenue, and St. Andrews Place. Since the Proposed Project s Site I complex would be taller than existing on site structures, the Proposed Project Site I complex could be potentially visible from the 101 Freeway and Western Avenue (both approximately two blocks east of the Project Site) to the east and possibly from other streets such as Bronson Avenue to the west (approximately two blocks west of the Project Site). These views would not obstruct, totally block, partially interrupt or create a minor diminishment of a valued public view or provide a visual element that would considerably deter from a valued public view as there are no valued public views looking east and west. Therefore, the impact on the public view looking east and west would be less than significant. The only valued public view in the area would be of the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills), which are located to the north. Currently intermittent views of the Santa Monica Mountains can be seen along portions of Santa Monica Boulevard. One small portion of the Project Site that does not contain any structures provides a limited view of the Santa Monica Mountains looking north. However, there are trees and intervening buildings that prevent a full view of the mountains. Further, due to the topography of the Los Angeles Basin, views of the mountains can be afforded in many areas of the Basin and provide a backdrop common to the area. Though implementation of the Proposed Project on Site I would not provide viewing opportunities of the mountains along Santa Monica Boulevard in the project area, views of the mountains can be seen elsewhere in the Basin. Further, views of the Santa Monica Mountains are primarily blocked (approximately 75 percent and greater) by existing Project Site buildings on Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, very limited and intermittent views are currently available. Though project implementation would create a minor diminishment in this valued view (of the Santa Monica Mountains), views are limited and intermittent and views of the mountains can be afforded in many other locations. Therefore, the impact on the view of the mountains looking north would be less than significant. Views from a Designated Scenic Highway None of the streets surrounding the Project Site are designated scenic highways or roadways. The major roadways near the Project Site include S. Western Avenue, to the east, and W. Olympic Boulevard, to the Page IV.B-9

south. Neither roadway is designated as scenic highways under the Wilshire Community Plan. Therefore, the Project impact on a designated scenic highway would be less than significant. Views from a Public Roadway As discussed above, views of the Santa Monica Mountains as seen from Santa Monica Boulevard are mostly blocked by existing Project Site buildings. The mountains can be viewed at one location along Site I of the Project Site, however, its brief for motorists who are focused on an east or west orientation. Though Project implementation would create a minor diminishment in this valued view (of the Santa Monica Mountains), views are limited and intermittent and views of the mountains can be afforded in many other locations. Therefore, the impact on the view of the mountains from a public roadway looking north would be less than significant. Implementation of the Proposed Project at Sites II and III would not obstruct or totally block existing views of the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills) as viewed along St. Andrews Place. The existing view is partially interrupted by trees lining the street, intervening topography and buildings which limit the views of the mountains afforded for motorists on St. Andrews Place traveling north. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Project on this valued view from St Andrews Place would be less than significant. For motorists along Wilton Place, the Project Site buildings (Sites I, II and III) do not block existing views due to the proposed location of the structures, which would be to the east and views of the mountains are afforded to the north. Due to the project location, these views would not be blocked, partially interrupted or diminished by the Proposed Project. Views of the mountains from this public roadway would not be affected by Project implementation, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Conclusion for Obstruction of Views The Proposed Project s potential effects on valued views have been evaluated using the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide to determine impact significance. Potential impacts on valued views, obstruction of views, views from a designated scenic highway and views from a public roadway were evaluated. Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to obstruction of views. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Increased development associated with buildout of the related projects would alter the visual image of each area surrounding those sites. As required by the City of Los Angeles, the project design for each project would be reviewed by the City Department of Planning for consistency with applicable City codes and regulations prior to final plan approval. There are no related projects within a two block radius that could potentially cumulatively diminish the valued aesthetic character of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts on aesthetics would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Page IV.B-10

It is expected that the related project closest to the site to the north (Related Project No. 33, approximately three blocks to the north) would not be constructed at the same time as the Proposed Project. Due to intervening buildings, trees and topography, the Project Site is not visible from this location. Thus, potential for cumulative view obstruction at this location is not expected. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts on obstruction of views would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. MITIGATION MEASURES Recommended Although project impacts to the visual character of the site and surrounding area would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels: B.1-1 All open areas not used for buildings, driveways, parking areas, recreational facilities or walks shall be attractively landscaped and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan, including an automatic irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the decision maker. B.1-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, a plot plan prepared by a reputable tree expert, indicating the location, size, type, and condition of all existing trees on the site shall be submitted to the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning and the Street Tree Division of the Bureau of Street Services. The plan shall contain measures recommended by the tree expert for the preservation of as many trees as possible. B.1-3 Any trees removed during project implementation shall be replaced by a minimum of 24-inch box trees in the parkway and on the site, on a 1:1 basis, to the satisfaction of the Street Tree Division of the Bureau of Street Services and the decision maker. B.1-4 Removal of trees in the public right-of-way shall first require approval from the Board of Public Works. All trees in the public right-of-way shall be provided per the current Street Tree Division standards. B.1-5 The genus or genera of the tree(s) shall provide a minimum crown of 30 50 feet. Project impacts may be potentially significant due to graffiti and accumulation of rubbish and debris along wall(s) adjacent to public rights-of-way. However, this potential impact would be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of the following recommended mitigation measures: B.1-6 Every building, structure, or portion thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition and good repair, and free from graffiti, debris, rubbish, garbage, trash, overgrown vegetation or other similar material, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104. B.1-7 The exterior of all buildings and fences shall be free from graffiti when such graffiti is visible from a public street or alley, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.15. Page IV.B-11

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The Project would not significantly diminish the valued visual character or image of the immediate neighborhood and does not involve grading or removal of natural open space areas. Potentially significant impacts related to graffiti and accumulation of rubbish and debris along public rights-of-way would be less than significant with implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures B.1-6 and B.1-7. Project impacts relative to blockage, partial interruption or minor diminishment of existing valued public views of natural features such as the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills) would be less than significant. Page IV.B-12

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. AESTHETICS 2. SHADE/SHADOW The following analysis was prepared using shade/shadow diagrams provided by Gruen Associates and these figures are included in the discussion below. The diagrams were prepared using building site plan and elevations. Then shadow length multipliers and bearings were projected for the latitude location of the Project Site, resulting in Project shadows. The assumptions used for the shadow analysis is provided below. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The issue of shade and shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by Project buildings, which may affect adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain land uses, such as residential, recreational/parks, churches, schools, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas have some reasonable expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. These land uses are termed shadow-sensitive. Shadow lengths are dependent on the height and size of the building from which they are cast and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies with respect to the rotation of the earth (i.e. time of day) and elliptical orbit (i.e. change in seasons). The longest shadows are cast during the winter months and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. Winter and Summer Solstice Solstice is defined as either of the two points on the ecliptic (i.e., the path of the earth around the sun) that lie midway between the equinoxes (separated from them by an angular distance of 90 ). At the solstices, the sun s apparent position on the celestial sphere reaches its greatest distance above or below the celestial equator, about 23 1/2 of the arc. At winter solstice, about December 22, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic of Capricorn; this marks the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere. At the time of summer solstice, about June 22, the sun is directly overhead at noon at the Tropic of Cancer. In the Northern Hemisphere, the longest day and shortest night of the year occur on this date, marking the beginning of summer. Measuring shadow lengths for the winter and summer solstices represents the extremes of the shadow patterns that occur throughout the year. Shadows cast on the summer solstice are the shortest shadows during the year, becoming progressively longer until winter solstice when the shadows are the longest they are all year. Shadows are shown for winter solstice and summer solstice, cast from 9:00AM to 4:00PM (winter) and 9:00AM to 7:00 PM (summer). There are adjacent shadow-sensitive uses to the north, east and west of the Project Site, which consist of multi-family residential properties. The land uses south of the Project Site are commercial buildings, which are not shadow sensitive uses; however, there is a 4-story residential structure south of Site I on Santa Monica Boulevard which is a shadow sensitive use. Page IV.B-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance Determination of impacts from shadows is a subjective assessment. According to the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, a shadow impact is considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by Project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October). For the purposes of this study the thresholds outlined above will be used. Assumptions Shadow length multipliers and bearings were projected for 34 latitude, which is the latitude location for the Project Site. Shadows shown for winter solstice, cast between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, were shown to have a maximum shadow angle of 42 in the west and 44 in the east. Thus, shadow sensitive uses located greater than 42 west or 44 east of due north would not be affected by winter shadows. Shadow patterns for summer solstice, cast between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, were shown to have a maximum shadow angle of 95 and 95, respectively. Thus, shadow sensitive uses located greater than 95 west or greater than 95 east of due north would not be affected by summer shadows. Topography was not incorporated as an input in the following analysis because the changes in elevation in the area of the Project Site are gradual. Building heights were based on the number of floors of each building. The worst case or highest portion of each individual building was used for shadow analysis. The dimensions, setbacks, and placement of existing buildings were estimated based on a site reconnaissance, ground photographs and aerial photographs of the project vicinity. For the purpose of this study, the height used to calculate the shadows cast by the proposed apartment building is 94 feet. This height is considered a worst-case scenario as only certain parts of the building architecture reach this height. Project Impacts The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide s methodology for shade/shadow impact significance analysis requires analysis for proposed structures that exceed 60 feet in height relative to nearby shade-sensitive uses (i.e., residential). The following Project impact analysis for shade/shadow impacts are provided for Site I only as the complex would rise to approximately a maximum height of approximately 94-feet for the occupied space (up to approximately 113-feet, including 19 feet of unoccupied architectural features). Sites II and III would each be 45-feet in height which are below the L.A. CEQA Threshold s Guide for impact analysis. Summer Shadows Figures IV.B-3 through IV.B-6 present Project summer shadows and the potential impacts on surrounding uses. As shown in these figures, summer shadows from the Project Site would be cast primarily to the east Page IV.B-14

and west. At 9:00AM, shadows would cast towards the west, shading Wilton Place and partially the sidewalk and parking area of the commercial buildings across the street from the Project Site. At Midday (noon) shadows to the north would be very short and would not encroach on any off-site shadow-sensitive land uses. At 3:00PM the shadows begin to shift eastward, but continue to be short and not encroach on any off-site shadow-sensitive land uses. At 5:00PM the shadows become more elongated and stretch across St. Andrews Place and cover the sidewalk on the easterly side of the street. The shadows may cover parts of the existing commercial buildings frontage on St. Andrews Place as well as the Project Site s Site III residential building. However, given that the shadows are cast towards the end of the day light hours, the shadows would not last longer than four hours and shadows from Site I would not result in a significant impact. Consequently, summer shadow impacts to this shadow-sensitive land use (Site III residential building) would be less than significant. Therefore, summer shadow impacts from Site I to surrounding land uses would be less than significant. Winter Shadows The sun angle during the winter solstice is responsible for casting the longest shadows of the year, with peak shadows occurring shortly after sunrise and before sunset. Figures IV.B-7 through IV.B-9 present winder shadows and their potential impacts on surrounding uses. West of the Project Site, there is a single-story commercial/retail building and two 2-story residential structures fronting Wilton Place. Since these land uses are located west of the Project Site, they will receive morning shadows as shown in Figure IV.B-7. By noon the shadows shift in a northerly direction and are shorter in length and partially cover only Virginia Avenue. The noon-time shadows do not encroach on any off-site shadow-sensitive land uses. By 3:00 PM the shadows shift in a northeasterly direction, covering parts of Virginia Avenue and the sidewalk on the north side of the street and possible very little frontage of residential structures. Given that the shadow is cast towards the end of the day, it is not expected that the shadow would last more than 3 hours and shadows from Site I would not result in a significant impact. The shadow also stretches across most of St. Andrews Place and some sidewalk on the east side of the street, however, no off-site shadow sensitive use would be shaded. Consequently, winter shadow impacts to shadow-sensitive land uses across Virginia (Site III residential building) would be less than significant. Therefore, winter shadow impacts from Site I to surrounding land uses would be less than significant. Page IV.B-15

Insert Figure IV.B-3 Summer Shadows June 21 9:00AM Page IV.B-16

Insert Figure IV.B-4 Summer Shadows June 21 12:00PM Page IV.B-17

Insert Figure IV.B-5 Summer Shadows June 21 3:00PM Page IV.B-18

Insert Figure IV.B-6 Summer Shadows June 21 5:00PM Page IV.B-19

Insert Figure IV.B-7 Winter Shadows December 21 9:00AM Page IV.B-20

Insert Figure IV.B-8 Winter Shadows December 21 12:00PM Page IV.B-21

Insert Figure IV.B-9 Winter Shadows December 21 3:00PM Page IV.B-22

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS There are no related projects adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Project Site that will result in any cumulative shade and shadow impacts when considered with the development of the Proposed Project. Therefore, shade and shadow impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and not significant. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Overall, shadows cast onto adjacent shadow-sensitive land uses would not create significant impacts because they would only be of short duration (less than three hours in winter and less than four hours in summer). Shadow impacts from the Proposed Project on to surrounding shadow sensitive land uses would not be significant. Page IV.B-23

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. AESTHETICS 3. ILLUMINATION/GLARE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Site is located in an urban area with the nighttime illumination. The Project Site buildings contain security lighting, store lighting, and building signage lighting, free-standing light standards in parking areas. No other visible outdoor light sources exist. The streets surrounding the Project Site, Santa Monica Boulevard, Wilton Place, Virginia Avenue and St. Andrews Place are illuminated at night with freestanding light standards aligning the roadways. These street lights illuminate the roadways and light spills to the surrounding buildings and open space areas. Other artificial light sources include automobile lights. Reflective light or glare is primarily a daytime phenomenon caused by sun light reflecting from highly finished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and to a lesser degree from lightly colored surfaces. Causes of adverse glare typically include buildings having exterior facades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass or mirror-like material from which the sun reflects at a low angle in the periods following sunrise and prior to sunset. Currently, the Project Site buildings have stucco facades, brick and painted variety of bright colors and muted tan color with non-reflective glass windows which do not create any glare. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide states, with reference to findings of significance involving night lighting state, that... the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: The change in levels of ambient illumination as a result of project sources; and The extent to which Project lighting would spill off the Project Site and effect adjacent lightsensitive areas. The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide does not identify a threshold of significance involving reflected daytime lighting. However, the Los Angeles Department of City Planning has accepted that a determination of significant impact resulting from glare would occur if a Project would produce glare which would create a visual nuisance, or a hazard, as it distracts or interferes with vision and concentration, or results in differential warming of adjacent residential properties. Page IV.B-24

Project Impacts Though the Site I includes existing structures and surface parking areas lit at night, implementation of the Proposed Project would create additional sources of illumination on the Project Site as the site would be built with more structures including a mix of uses, retail, office and residential uses and would intensify the uses currently on-site. In addition, uses on Sites II and III would also intensify from surface parking areas (containing light standards) with residential structures that would illuminate with additional lighting. Though the Proposed Project would increase ambient light levels on the Project Site and in the vicinity, the increase would be considered nominal as the area is located in an urbanized location that is already illuminated at night. The streets are illuminated with lights; surrounding buildings emanate light with residential lighting and sources of artificial light from security lighting, as well as from automobiles. Consequently, the change in levels of ambient illumination as a result of Project implementation would be less than significant. In addition to increasing the ambient glow presently associated with urban settings and with this part of Los Angeles, Project-related light sources would likely spill over onto and potentially illuminate, off-site vantages, including adjacent streets and land uses. However, this spill is considered insignificant as the area is already illuminated with nighttime lighting sources. In addition, Mitigation Measure B.3-2 is recommended to ensure that spillover lighting does not cause a significant impact. Therefore, Project lighting spilling off the Project Site effecting adjacent light-sensitive areas would be less than significant. Building surfaces or glass windows have the potential to create glare, particularly during the early morning and later afternoon time periods. The Proposed Project would not include exterior materials that would create glare impacts. Compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code s reflective materials design standards (City Municipal Code Lighting Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 3, Section 93.0117), which limits reflective surface areas and the reflectivity of architectural materials used, would reduce any adverse impact from window glass glare. Implementation of the Project would therefore not produce glare which would create a visual nuisance, a hazard or result in differential warming of adjacent residential properties. The Project impact with regard to glare would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the Proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects would result in redevelopment or infilling of residential and commercial land uses in the community. Artificial illumination from the Proposed Project and related projects would cumulatively increase the nighttime lighting of the areas surrounding those sites. These projects in addition to the Proposed Project are located in highly urbanized areas with existing nighttime illumination. The additional glow from these projects is considered negligible and not cumulatively considerable. Further, the related projects are subject to the City Zoning Code s reflective materials design standards, which limit reflective surface areas and materials. Thus, potential glare created from these related projects is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts from artificial light and glare are not expected and not significant. Page IV.B-25

MITIGATION MEASURES Code Required B.3-1 B.3-2 The Proposed Project (and related projects) are subject to the City of Los Angeles Zoning Code, Lighting Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 3, Section 93.0117, which limits reflective surface areas and the reflectivity of architectural materials used. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed with shielding, so that the light source cannot be seen from adjacent residential properties. No other mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to artificial light and glare. Page IV.B-26