III. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
III. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments that were received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this Section of the Final EIR provides responses to each of the written comments received regarding the Draft EIR during the comment period. Table III-5, which starts on page III-51 provides a summary of the issues raised in response to the Draft EIR. Before Table III-5 are topical responses that have been prepared in order to address certain questions and summarize certain analyses regarding topics raised during the public comment. These topical responses include the following:
Topical Response 1: Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Topical Response 2: Traffic Analysis Study Area
Topical Response 3: Baseline Traffic Conditions
Topical Response 4: Project Trip Generation
Topical Response 5: Transportation Demand Management Plan
Topical Response 6: Shared Parking Demand Analysis
Topical Response 7: Project Site Access, Circulation and Loading Operations
Topical Response 8: Construction Impacts
Topical Response 9: Project Consistency with the Century City North Specific Plan
Topical Response 10: Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential
Topical Response 11: Shading Impacts
Topical Response 12: Water Supply
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 1: TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Section IV.J, beginning with Table 61 on page 593 of Volume I of the Draft EIR summarizes the forecast operational significant transportation impacts anticipated with the completion of the New Century Plan project. Specifically, page 603 of Volume I of the Draft EIR summarizes that the following four, of the 55 study intersections analyzed, are expected to be significantly impacted by the project during the weekday P.M. peak hour:
• Westwood Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard
• Overland Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard
• Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard
• Westfield Shopping Center Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard
The following two additional study intersections are anticipated to be significantly impacted during the weekend (i.e. Saturday) mid-day peak hour:
• Westwood Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard
• Overland Avenue/Pico Boulevard
As discussed on page 603 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, no significant transportation impacts would occur until development of Phase E (which is comprised of 106,523 square feet of office uses and 19,000 square feet of retail uses) is completed and all other phases of the New Century Plan project have been developed. Section IV.J, Subsection 5.b.1, beginning on page 625 provides a summary of the Mitigation Measures J-3, J-4, and J-5 for the above locations. As noted on page 627 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, no significant transportation impacts are expected at any of the neighborhood street segments or mainline freeway segments.
The Draft EIR proposes physical mitigation measures for two of the six significantly impacted intersections listed above: Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard, and Westfield Shopping Center Driveway and Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed mitigation measure for the Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard intersection includes the installation of an additional northbound lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. The proposed mitigation measure for the Westfield Shopping Center Driveway and Santa
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Monica Boulevard intersection includes widening of the driveway to provide an additional exiting lane. The resulting northbound configuration would provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. A traffic signal modification and roadway restriping will also be required. Implementation of these mitigation measures are expected to reduce the project’s impacts at these two intersections to less than significant levels.
The opportunity to mitigate the New Century Plan’s significant impacts at the remaining four intersections through physical mitigation measures are quite limited due to the recent completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway Project and the lack of availability of additional right-of-way beyond what currently exists, as well as the City’s completed upgrades to the area-wide intersections with both the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control System (ATSAC) and Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) enhancements. Therefore, in order to mitigate the project’s impacts at the remaining four intersections, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan will be implemented.
The New Century Plan’s TDM Plan is expected to reduce the forecast significant impacts to less than significant levels through a combination of trip reduction measures. Westfield’s TDM program is proposed to include measures for both the New Century Plan project site, and include a Century City-wide element aimed at reducing trips to and from other businesses, which may likewise reduce impacts to the intersections listed above. See Topical Response No. 5 for further details regarding the TDM Plan. The TDM Plan is expected to reduce the New Century Plan’s total P.M. peak hour commercial trips by six percent, and thereby reduce the project’s traffic impacts to less than significant levels at the remaining four intersections. However, as the exact level of trip reduction cannot be quantified at this time, it has been conservatively concluded that significant and unavoidable transportation impacts would occur at a total of four intersections. As discussed above, these significant impacts would not occur until development of Phase E (comprised of 106,523 square feet of office uses and 19,000 square feet of retail uses) is completed and all other uses proposed by the New Century Plan have already been developed.
The analysis parameters for the New Century Plan traffic study were based on the approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with LADOT dated February 9, 2007. A copy of the approved MOU is contained in the Final EIR as Appendix A7. LADOT subsequently approved the New Century Plan traffic study and found that it adequately describes the impacts of the New Century Plan project, as concluded in LADOT’s November 20, 2007 departmental clearance letter to the Department of City Planning. A copy of this clearance letter is contained in Appendix J (of Appendix G contained within Volume V of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA
Section IV.J, beginning on page 547 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the Traffic and Circulation analysis associated with the New Century Plan’s traffic study. Appendix G within Volumes III, IV, and V of the Draft EIR contains a complete copy of the traffic analysis prepared for the New Century Plan. Pages 547 through 554 of Volume I of the Draft EIR contain a summary of the existing regional highway and street system. The traffic impact analysis study area originally included a total of 44 intersections. However, after issuance of the June 19, 2006 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and after the June 29, 2006, NOP public scoping meeting was held, interested community members requested that additional analysis locations be added to the study area. Specifically, community members requested that the study area include locations along Olympic Boulevard immediately west of the I-405 (San Diego) Freeway; locations along Overland Avenue near the Westwood Charter Elementary School; the Westholme Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection; and locations near the I-10 (Santa Monica) Freeway. In response to these NOP comments, and to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive traffic impact analysis, the traffic analysis study area was expanded to include the above locations as well as additional locations along the major corridors (e.g., Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, etc.) used to travel to and from Century City. The preliminary traffic analysis study area was thus expanded from 44 study intersections to 55 study intersections and eight study street segments.
Three mainline freeway segments were also included as part of the traffic analysis and consist of the I-10 (Santa Monica) Freeway east of Overland Avenue and the I-405 (San Diego) Freeway both north of Venice Boulevard and south of Mulholland Drive. Project vehicular trips are primarily anticipated to utilize the arterial roadways and are not anticipated to traverse through residential areas, however, a total of eight residential street segments were included in the analysis as required by City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation staff.
The study area is also summarized in greater detail beginning on page 28 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR. This analysis includes the locations required for annual congestion monitoring in the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Congestion Management Program (CMP). Refer to Section 16.0, pages 137 through 140, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR for a summary of the CMP traffic impact assessment. The applicable CMP threshold criteria for a traffic impact assessment are whether a project will add 50 or more trips during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours at CMP monitoring intersections or 150 or more trips during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours at CMP freeway monitoring locations. Neither the proposed project nor the project alternatives will exceed these
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
thresholds, except at intersection No. 62 (Santa Monica Boulevard/Westwood Boulevard). Although the New Century Plan project will not add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours to the CMP freeway monitoring locations, three freeway segments have been identified and analyzed in the project vicinity. Section 15.0, pages 133 through 136, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR summarize the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Freeway Segment Analysis. As stated on page 136, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, no significant project-related mainline freeway impacts are anticipated along either the I-405 (San Diego) or I-10 (Santa Monica) Freeways.
The traffic analysis study area is generally comprised of those locations which have the greatest potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project as defined by the Lead Agency. In the traffic engineering practice, the study area generally includes those intersections that are:
a. Immediately adjacent or in close proximity to the project site; b. In the vicinity of the project site that are documented to have current or projected future adverse operational issues; and c. In the vicinity of the project site that are forecast to experience a relatively greater percentage of project-related vehicular turning movements (e.g., at freeway ramp intersections).
The intersections selected for analysis in the New Century Plan’s traffic study, shown on Figure 1-1 on page 2, Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR, are consistent with the criteria noted above. The traffic analysis study area included several intersections immediately adjacent to the site, key intersections in the Shopping Center vicinity that may have existing or future operational issues and a relatively higher percentage of project-related vehicle turning movements (e.g., left-turns at Avenue of the Stars/Santa Monica Boulevard, Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard, etc.), as well as intersections located at important freeway ramp intersections (e.g., Santa Monica Boulevard/ I-405 Freeway Northbound-Southbound On-Off Ramp intersections, Overland Avenue/I-10 Freeway Westbound On-Off Ramp intersection, etc.). Therefore, the traffic study area used in the Draft EIR is sufficiently comprehensive to evaluate and identify the potential significant traffic impacts related to the New Century Plan. The locations selected for analysis were based on the above criteria, proposed New Century Plan project land uses and corresponding peak hour vehicle trip generation, the anticipated distribution of project vehicular trips, and existing operations at key intersections and corridors in the vicinity of the project site. The traffic analysis study area was also reviewed and approved by LADOT in Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 9, 2007. A copy of the MOU is contained in the Final EIR as Appendix A7.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 3: BASELINE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The starting point of all traffic impact analyses consists of an assessment of existing conditions, referred to as a baseline condition. The baseline analysis parameters for the New Century Plan traffic study were based on an approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) dated February 9, 2007, and is included in the Final EIR as Appendix A7. LADOT subsequently approved the traffic study based on these baseline analysis parameters, as stated in LADOT’s November 20, 2007, departmental clearance letter to the Department of City Planning. A copy of this clearance letter is contained in Appendix J of the formal impact study (i.e., Volume V of the Draft EIR as contained within Appendix G). Baseline conditions typically are determined at the time of the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP). For the New Century Plan project, the NOP was issued on June 19, 2006. At this time on-going major construction associated with the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway project significantly altered traffic patterns around the Shopping Center. LADOT concluded that conducting new peak hour traffic counts at the time of the NOP would be infeasible due to the following factors: 1) major lane closures were occurring on Santa Monica Boulevard and intersecting roadways which caused normal and recurring traffic to utilize other corridors and shift normal commute travel patterns, 2) Santa Monica Boulevard and other major streets were experiencing lower than average levels of peak hour traffic volumes, and 3) traffic counts taken along Santa Monica Boulevard for analysis purposes would have produced skewed results for purposes of documenting baseline conditions and forecasting future traffic volumes along the corridor.
Instead of requiring new traffic counts, LADOT directed the City’s traffic consultant to utilize all previous (i.e., pre-Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction) available peak hour traffic counts for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak commuter periods, as well as the Saturday peak hour condition, to assess existing baseline conditions. Accordingly, comprehensive research was conducted of all prior LADOT approved peak hour traffic counts in the vicinity and counts published as part of recent EIRs within Century City. No weekend traffic count data was available from prior studies. Section 7.0, beginning on page 45 of Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR provides a summary of the formulation of the existing baseline conditions.
For 44 of the 55 traffic study intersection analysis locations, weekday traffic counts for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 were obtained and were conservatively increased in two ways to determine year 2006 existing baseline conditions. First, the prior weekday peak hour traffic counts were increased at a rate of 1.5 percent per year to year 2006. This traffic growth factor
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
was based on traffic growth factors provided in the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County and determined in consultation with LADOT staff. Second, forecast traffic volumes generated by related projects constructed and occupied between the year 2002 and the year 2006 were also added to the baseline conditions, using the trip generation rates provide in the ITE Trip Generation manual. These related projects, which are referred to as the “built” related projects, were included in the MOU approved by LADOT, and are described fully in Section 7.1.3, page 47 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR. They include built related projects on file at the City of Los Angeles, the City of Beverly Hills, and the City of West Hollywood, and the built related projects included in traffic studies for projects in the vicinity of the New Century Plan project. Thus, the baseline conditions were determined to provide a conservative forecast of year 2006 existing conditions for the 44 study intersections. The remaining 11 locations were determined to be sufficiently far from Santa Monica Boulevard to be unaffected by the Transit Parkway project’s construction, therefore new weekday A.M. and P.M. peak commuter period manual counts were conducted in October 2006. No lane closures or atypical conditions were observed at the time that the traffic counts were conducted.
As no historic weekend peak hour traffic data was available and weekend traffic conditions were essentially unaffected by the primarily weekday construction efforts along Santa Monica Boulevard, new Saturday peak period traffic counts were conducted in October 2006. Based on coordination with the traffic subconsultant, no lane closures or atypical conditions were observed during the conduct of the Saturday peak period traffic counts.
To confirm the accuracy and the conservative nature of the traffic study’s baseline (existing) conditions, new weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts were conducted at all 55 study intersections during Spring 2007, after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. The New Century Plan’s traffic impacts were reanalyzed using this second set of data, and the analysis is included in Final EIR Appendix A3 of the Final EIR. As shown in Appendix Table A3-A within Final EIR Appendix A3, with the Spring 2007 peak hour traffic counts used as the project’s baseline conditions, the New Century Plan would generate no weekday P.M. peak hour significant impacts, and two weekend peak hour significant impacts. Overall, the new traffic counts were substantially lower that those included in the Draft EIR. Thus, the Draft EIR’s traffic impact conclusions may overstate the New Century Plan’s anticipated traffic impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The formulation of the New Century Plan’s trip generation forecast is summarized in Section IV.J, beginning on page 574, Volume I of the Draft EIR and in Section 8.1, beginning on page 60, Appendix G, within Volume III of the Draft EIR. Project trip generation is essentially an estimate of the number of vehicles that could be expected to enter and exit the project site’s access points.
WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours, as well as on a daily basis, were estimated using rates published in the following documents:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003
• Century City North Specific Plan;
• West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (WLATIMP); and
• San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG) (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002.
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the New Century Plan were forecast based on trip rates per thousand square feet of development for the Shopping Center and office components of the project, and per number of dwelling units for the residential component of the project.
In addition to the trip generation forecast for the proposed project, a forecast was made of likely pass-by trips that could be anticipated at the site. Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. A project’s forecast trip generation can be reduced (for purposes of analyzing potential impacts to off-site intersections) in order to account for those vehicles already on the adjacent street system. These vehicle trips are not new trips to the system generated by the project. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the site. In this instance, the adjacent roadways to the project site include Santa Monica Boulevard, Constellation Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, and Century Park West. The pass-by traffic forecast has been based on criteria set forth in the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation policy on pass-by trips. A copy of the LADOT policy on pass-by trips is provided in Appendix D of the formal traffic impact study (i.e., Volume III of the Draft EIR as contained within Appendix G). In accordance with LADOT’s policy, and as approved by LADOT, a 10 percent pass-by adjustment was applied to the weekday daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour and weekend daily and mid-day peak hour traffic volume forecasts related to the New Century Plan’s Shopping Center uses (i.e., retail and restaurant uses). LADOT’s adjustment policy is significantly less aggressive than the reductions contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, published in 2004, which provides for pass-by reductions ranging from a low of 16.6 percent and a high of 23.7 percent. Therefore, the New Century Plan’s forecast trip generation may overstate the number of actual trips that will be generated by the project.
The Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway borders the Shopping Center to the north, and the Metro transit area is situated immediately opposite the Shopping Center along the south side of Constellation Boulevard. Over 25 bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the Shopping Center, with 12 of those transit lines and routes directly serving the site along one or more of the project frontages. A total of seven different public bus transit service providers operate in the immediate vicinity of the Shopping Center. In light of the high number of bus transit opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the Shopping Center, LADOT determined that a 15 percent CMP transit reduction adjustment was appropriate, based on data provided in the 2004 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program. This reflects similar approaches and trends as those for commercial developments and residential mixed-use developments around transit centers. Refer to Section 6.5, page 43 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, for further discussion of the CMP trip reduction factor.
In order to provide a conservative trip generation forecast, no trip adjustments were applied to the trip generation forecast to account for internal capture (e.g., interaction between the residential units and the Shopping Center uses) that could be expected to occur within the proposed project. Internal capture is a term used to describe land use interaction of this nature (e.g., a motorist may drive to the site, park once, and then walk to patronize more than one project land use component). One example is a resident of the New Century Plan project that also patronizes the movies and restaurants. Another example is a shopper that drives to the site and then attends a movie or has dinner at one of the restaurants within the site. When combined within a mixed-use development, land uses tend to interact, and thus attract a portion of each other’s trip generation.
The weekday trip generation rates and forecast of the vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 8-1, page 63 of Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR. The detailed project trip generation summary, including trip rates
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
and assumptions, is provided in Appendix D of the formal traffic impact study (i.e., contained in Volume III of the Draft EIR as Appendix G, refer to Appendix Table D-1). The weekday project trip generation forecast was submitted for review and approved by LADOT staff.
As presented in Table 8-1, page 63 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to generate a net decrease of 177 vehicle trips (235 fewer inbound trips and 58 outbound trips) during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 364 vehicle trips (290 inbound trips and 74 outbound trips). Over a weekday 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,922 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (2,961 inbound trips and 2,961 outbound trips).
WEEKEND TRIP GENERATION FORECAST
As summarized in Section 8.3, page 68, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed New Century Plan project were also estimated for the weekend mid-day peak hour, as well as over a weekend 24-hour daily period, using trip generation rates published in the following document:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003
It should be noted that the other documents (e.g., SANDAG, etc.) utilized in developing the weekday trip generation forecasts do not include weekend trip generation rates, however, these documents were referenced in preparing the project weekend trip generation forecasts. As such, the ITE trip generation publication and trip rates were employed in developing the weekend project trip generation forecasts.
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project were forecast based on trip rates per thousand square feet of development for the Shopping Center and office components of the project and per number of dwelling units for the residential component of the project. The same assumptions (e.g., pass-by adjustments) employed in the weekday trip generation forecasts were used in the weekend trip generation forecasts for the New Century Plan.
The weekend trip generation rates and forecast of the vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 8-2, page 70, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR. The detailed project trip generation summary, including trip rates and assumptions, is provided in Appendix D of the formal traffic impact study (i.e., contained in Volume III of the Draft EIR as Appendix G, refer to Appendix Table D-2). The weekend project trip generation forecast was submitted for review and approved by LADOT staff.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
As presented in Table 8-2, page 70 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 720 vehicle trips (367 inbound trips and 353 outbound trips) during the weekend peak hour. Over a weekend day 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 7,466 daily trip ends (3,733 inbound trips and 3,733 outbound trips).
The forecast trip generation for the New Century Plan project was found to be conservative and consistent with traffic engineering/transportation planning industry standards utilized in the Southern California region. In addition, the trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not account for internal capture and synergy between the various project components (e.g., between the residential and commercial components).
SHOPPING CENTER TRIP GENERATION - USE OF ITE/WLATIMP TRIP GENERATION RATES VERSUS ACTUAL DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC COUNTS
As required by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), the project trip generation forecast was based on the above summarized trip generation rates rather than site specific driveway traffic counts. However, in order to confirm the accuracy and conservative nature of the traffic analysis’ trip generation forecasts, site specific driveway traffic counts were also conducted at the Shopping Center on May 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007 for weekday counts and February 27, 2007 for weekend counts. Tables III-1 and III-2 below compare the Shopping Center’s actual peak hour ground (i.e., driveway) weekday and weekend traffic counts to the Shopping Center’s trip generation calculated by using ITE/WLATIMP trip generation rates. As presented in Table III-1, the comparison shows that the actual combined Shopping Center driveway traffic counts are 20 percent and 31 percent lower than the existing Shopping Center trip generation forecast for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours using the above trip generation rates, even applying both a pass-by and transit reduction to the trip generation forecast. As illustrated in Table III-2, the comparison shows that the actual combined Shopping Center driveway traffic counts are 42 percent lower than the existing Shopping Center trip generation forecast for the weekend peak hour. Thus, the New Century Plan’s forecast trip generation, utilizing the ITE/WLATIMP trip generation rates, is a very conservative estimate of the project’s actual trip generation.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-1
Comparison of Actual Ground Counts to ITE/WLATIMP Rates – Weekday
Shopping Center A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Peak Peak Trip Generation Basis Hour In Out Total Hour In Out Total I. Actual Ground Counts Counts conducted May 3, 2006 8:00-9:00 A.M. 215 88 303 5:00-6:00 P.M. 802 736 1,538
Counts conducted March 6, 2007 8:00-9:00 A.M. 241 97 338 4:00-5:00 P.M. 700 765 1,465
Average of Actual Ground Counts N/A 228 93 321 751 751 1,502 (Does not include any off-site employee trip generation, if any)
Total Actual Site Peak 228 93 321 751 751 1,502 Hour Generation
II. ITE/WLATIMP Forecast Without Transit/Pass-by Adjustments Shopping Center 8:00-9:00 A.M. 318 203 521 5:00-6:00 P.M. 1,152 1,247 2,399
a a a Cinema 8:00-9:00 A.M. Nom. Nom. Nom. 5:00-6:00 P.M. 180 281 461
Total Shopping Center Forecast 318 203 521 1,332 1,528 2,860
Difference: Actual vs. Forecast (90) (110) (200) (581) (777) (1,358) without Transit/Pass-by Adjustment III. ITE/WLATIMP Forecast With Transit/Pass-by Adjustments Shopping Center 8:00-9:00 A.M. 243 156 399 5:00-6:00 P.M. 881 954 1,835
a a a Cinema 8:00-9:00 A.M. Nom. Nom. Nom. 5:00-6:00 P.M. 138 215 353
Total Shopping Center Forecast 243 156 399 1,019 1,169 2,188
Difference: Actual vs. Forecast (15) (63) (78) (268) (418) (686) with Transit/Pass-by Adjustment a As the cinema component of the project site does not have any movie start times prior to 11:00 A.M., any trip generation during the A.M. peak hour is considered nominal.
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 2008.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-2
Comparison of Actual Ground Counts to ITE/WLATIMP Rates - Weekend
Shopping Center Trip Generation Basis Peak Hour In Out Total I. Actual Ground Counts Count conducted February 24, 2007 1:00-2:00 P.M. 1,006 983 1,989 (Does not include off-site employee trip generation, if any)
Total Actual Site Peak Hour Generation 1,006 983 1,989
II. ITE/WLATIMP Forecast Without Transit/Pass-by Adjustments Shopping Center 1:00-2:00 P.M. 1,657 1,530 3,187
Cinema 1:00-2:00 P.M. 792 622 1,414
Total Shopping Center Forecast 2,449 2,152 4,601
Difference: Actual vs. Forecast without (1,443) (1,169) (2,612) Transit/Pass-by Adjustment
III. ITE/WLATIMP Forecast With Transit/Pass-by Adjustments Shopping Center 1:00-2:00 P.M. 1,243 1,148 2,390
Cinema 1:00-2:00 P.M. 594 467 1,061
Total Shopping Center Forecast 1,837 1,614 3,451
Difference: Actual vs. Forecast with (831) (631) (1,462) Transit/Pass-by Adjustment
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 2008.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 5: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
In addition to physical measures, Westfield’s proposed transportation mitigation measures include trip reduction through a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. This TDM Plan is expected to reduce the number of peak hour vehicular trips made to the project site and other Century City locations. Though significant impacts do not occur until the final phase of the proposed project (comprised of 106,523 square feet of office uses and 19,000 square feet of retail uses), at that point the TDM Plan is expected to fully mitigate the proposed project’s anticipated significant impacts with a trip reduction equal to six percent of the site’s total P.M. peak hour commercial trip generation. The following locations are expected to be fully mitigated by the TDM Plan: Westwood Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard (a reduction in the site’s total P.M. peak hour commercial trip generation of two percent [2%]), Overland Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard (a reduction in the site’s total P.M. peak hour commercial trip generation of six percent [6%]), Westwood Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard (a reduction in the site’s total weekend mid-day peak hour commercial trip generation of two percent [2%]), and Overland Avenue and Pico Boulevard (a reduction in the site’s total weekend mid-day peak hour commercial trip generation of two percent [2%]). The TDM Plan includes measures to affect peak hour vehicle trip generation at the project site, as well as a commitment to work with other businesses in Century City to support TDM measures that could be applied throughout Century City. The Century City-wide element of the New Century TDM Plan could reduce trips from other businesses which impact the above intersections and could also reduce trips at additional intersections.
The TDM measures to be applied at Westfield owned properties are aimed primarily at reducing employee vehicular trips to the project site. Such TDM measures may include providing ridematching information to employees which will allow them to find other employees with whom to carpool or join a larger vanpool; providing employees with bike storage lockers and showers to encourage them to bike to work; providing preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; and encouraging employers to manage work schedules for employees to facilitate alternate means of transportation and minimize travel during peak hours. The TDM Plan may also implement measures to reduce vehicular trips by other project users, such as patrons or residents. Installing shelters at bus stops or providing more visible pedestrian wayfinding signs could make riding the bus and walking a more attractive transportation alternative for visitors.
For Century City-wide measures, Westfield is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) for all of Century City which could develop and deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
with physical improvements to waiting areas at transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver car trips.
To test the feasibility of a shuttle circulator, the Westfield Century City Shopping Center implemented a free pilot shuttle program during the 2007 Holiday Season from December 11, 2007 through January 13, 2008. The pilot shuttle program provided shuttle service to residential complexes including Century Park East, Century Park Place, Century Woods, and Le Parc. Representatives from two other complexes, Century Towers and Century Hill, participated in meetings regarding the shuttle program. The shuttle program had a total ridership of 412 people. An evaluation is currently being conducted of the pilot program.
Additionally, to support the proposed Metro Westside Extension of the Red Line, Westfield has also reserved areas within the proposed 1801 Avenue of the Stars residential building for a knock-out panel to connect to a potential future Metro subway station.
Westfield will provide a detailed TDM Plan, including monitoring, for approval by the City prior to the issuance of initial building permits for the project. The TDM Plan will specify requirements for each phase of the proposed project. Westfield’s commitments to support the TDM Plan could include support for the formation of a TMO and support for a Century City shuttle circulator. At each phase of the proposed project, Westfield would be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding, and that Westfield is continuing to fulfill its TDM commitments. It is not until Phase E that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trips equating to a reduction of 178 vehicle trips. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels. The Draft EIR conservatively provides, however, for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 6: SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
As described on page 614, Section IV.J of Volume I of the Draft EIR and in Section 4.0, Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, the New Century Plan project will provide 4,529 on-site parking spaces upon completion of the New Century Plan project including 3,874 spaces for the commercial land use components and 655 spaces for the residential component. The Shopping Center’s overall operating experience indicates that the actual parking demand at the project will be substantially less than what would be otherwise calculated using the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requirements throughout most of the year. This is further reinforced by the published findings of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in their Shared Parking1 manual which concludes that the total parking demands of a project are substantially less than the additive parking requirements of the project’s individual components. The shared parking concept, particularly for Shopping Centers of this size and nature, is widely recognized by cities throughout the country. This topical response discusses the commercial shared parking demand analysis prepared as part of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 614, Section IV.J of Volume I of the Draft EIR, a parking demand analysis was conducted in order to determine the adequacy of the planned commercial parking supply to meet the demand generated by the Shopping Center and office components of the project. No shared parking is proposed for the New Century Plan’s residential uses.
The New Century Plan’s commercial shared parking demand analysis was based on data provided in the ULI Shared Parking manual. As stated in Section 4.5 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, this methodology recognizes that different land uses peak at different times of a day and/or days of the week and is consistent with methodology used by the City of Los Angeles in the review and approval of shared parking applications for other major retail centers (e.g., Westfield Topanga Plaza and Westfield Promenade). For example, a retail land use can share parking with an office land use because the peak parking demand for these uses occurs at different times of the day. Based on coordination with LADOT staff, the hourly parking accumulation data from the ULI Shared Parking document was utilized in the analysis. The ULI document provides peak period parking demand and hourly parking accumulation data for a wide variety of uses. The New Century Plan’s parking demand analysis employed the published weekday and weekend hourly parking accumulation percentages for the project’s commercial land use components. An hourly parking accumulation percentage of 100 percent reflects full utilization of parking for that hour, while an hourly parking accumulation percentage of 50 percent reflects a parking demand of half of the spaces for that land use.
1 Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute, 2005, Washington, D.C.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Tables 4-1 and 4-2, pages 21 and 22 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, indicate that, with the New Century Plan’s proposed 3,874 parking spaces for the project’s retail, restaurant and office uses, an extensive surplus of parking is forecast at the site during non- holiday conditions. Specifically, a surplus of 903 parking spaces is estimated during the peak hour (1:00 P.M.) of parking demand during weekday conditions while a surplus of 1,063 parking spaces is forecast during the peak hour (2:00 P.M.) of parking demand for weekend conditions. Thus, the New Century Plan’s proposed parking supply of 3,874 parking spaces for the commercial uses (retail, restaurant, office, etc.) is more than adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand at the Shopping Center during non-holiday season shopping periods.
Tables 4-3 and 4-4, pages 23 and 24 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, indicate that the proposed on-site parking supply would not be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand during the weekday and weekend conditions during the December (i.e., holiday shopping period) time frame. As summarized on page 615, Section IV.J of Volume I of the Draft EIR, during the holiday shopping period a deficit of approximately 526 parking spaces is forecast during peak parking demand weekday conditions, and a deficit of approximately 549 parking spaces is estimated during weekend peak parking demand conditions. Therefore, without mitigation, a potential significant impact with respect to insufficient on-site parking could occur during the holiday parking season.
As summarized in Section IV.J, page 628, Volume I of the Draft EIR, in order to mitigate the potential impact associated with parking during the holidays, Mitigation Measure J-6 is proposed. Specifically, it is recommended that the Shopping Center continue its current practice of securing off-site parking spaces during the holiday season. Significant off-site parking is available at the Century Park West parking garage, as well as at the MGM Tower parking structure (refer to Appendix A within Appendix G of Volume IV of the Draft EIR for a summary of parking utilization observations conducted at the MGM Tower and Century Park West parking structures during the 2005 and 2006 holiday seasons demonstrating the availability of parking at these facilities). During holiday seasons, up to 600 parking spaces would be secured at one or both of these facilities, or at an off-site facility with determined parking availability which can be secured for the proposed project. Shopping Center employees would be directed to park at the off-site parking structures, as well as patrons as needed, during the holiday season. With the proposed on-site parking supply and the provision of off-site parking spaces, the supply would be sufficient to accommodate the peak demand during holiday seasons.
Furthermore, the New Century Plan’s mix of uses and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan are both expected to reduce vehicle trips to the Shopping Center, which will also have the effect of reducing parking demand. For more information on the New Century Plan’s TDM Plan, please see Topical Response No. 5. The Shopping Center is ideally situated for visitors to take advantage of public transit; Section 6.0, beginning on page 37 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, summarizes the regional access to the site
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments provided by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Bus Transit service, LADOT, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, City of Culver City Bus, as well as other transit lines and service providers. The project site is also directly north of the existing transit area located at the southeast corner of Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 7: PROJECT SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND LOADING OPERATIONS
Section II, Subsection 4, beginning on page 120 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the site access and circulation scheme associated with the proposed project. Section 3.0, beginning on page 11 of Appendix G within Volume III also contains a detailed description of the project site driveways. In addition, Section 3.1, beginning on page 15 and Section 3.2 beginning on page 16 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR contain descriptions of the valet service and loading operations, respectively.
Figure 12, page 121 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, illustrates the proposed project vehicle access scheme, while Figure 13, page 122 of Volume I of the Draft EIR illustrates the vehicle access scheme and loading areas within the project site on Parking Level B (the lower of the two subterranean parking levels). Primary vehicular access to the existing semi-subterranean parking garage for the Shopping Center would continue to be provided from Santa Monica Boulevard via the main entry/exit driveway. The existing valet entrance and exit would also remain along Santa Monica Boulevard within the western portion of the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage. A new valet entry/exit for the office uses and a drop-off entry/exit would be also provided along Santa Monica Boulevard further to the east. Existing driveways along Constellation Boulevard and Century Park West would also be maintained, with the exception of the existing office driveway to 1930 Century Park West located along Constellation Boulevard within the western portion of the site, which would be removed. In addition, the new parking structure at 1930 Century Park West would include entry/exit driveways on Century Park West, which would represent the consolidation of two existing office driveways at this location.
As shown in Figure 12 of Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR, access to the roof-top parking deck would be provided from within the existing semi-subterranean parking levels below the Shopping Center. Two separate driveways would be provided along Avenue of the Stars. One driveway would allow residents to access the residential-only parking at the 1801 Avenue of the Stars property, while a separate driveway would provide entry/exit access to parking for the office and Shopping Center uses. The new retail entry/exit driveway would be located in the same location as the existing 1801 Avenue of the Stars entry/exit driveway. An existing service drive that stretches from Constellation Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard along much of the eastern boundary of the project site and is partially below grade would continue to be available for service and delivery access. New below grade loading dock areas (on Parking Level B of the existing semi-subterranean parking area below the Shopping Center and Parking Level B of the new 1801 Avenue of the Stars parking structure) would be provided along this service driveway in order to serve the residential and Shopping Center uses in the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
northeastern portion of the site. Delivery access to existing loading docks on Parking Level B that service the retail and grocery store uses in the central, southern, and western portions of the site would be maintained via Constellation Boulevard. In addition, the existing retail loading dock on Parking Level B within the southern portion of the site would be reconfigured for use by retail tenants, and the loading dock on Parking Level B within the southwestern portion of the site would be expanded to accommodate loading and unloading activities for the existing dining terrace. A new service elevator would also be provided in this area for the dining terrace. With these new loading dock improvements, the need for the existing on-street loading and loading on Century Park West that occurs under the supervision of an attendant would be eliminated. All new loading docks and refuse collection areas would be located in the subterranean parking level, which will not have any unobstructed openings that face toward any noise-sensitive receptor location.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 8: CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction of the project would occur in phases representing geographic areas over an approximate four-year period, beginning in early 2009 and ending in late 2012. Existing buildings to be removed as part of proposed construction activities would include structures in the central, northern, and eastern portions of the Shopping Center and the office buildings at 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West. The recently completed Shopping Center improvements within the western portion of the project site would remain. Phases relating to geographic locations within the site that are not specific with regard to timing have been identified. Figure II-1 on page II-4 of this Final EIR provides an illustration of the anticipated geographic project phases. Phase A of the project is anticipated to include construction of the Shopping Center uses and residential uses in the northeast portion of the site at 1801 Avenue of the Stars. Phase B would include construction of new retail uses along the remainder of the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage within the northern portion of the site together with the new parking facility at 1930 Century Park West within the southwestern portion of the site. Phase C would include retail construction within the southern portion of the site. Phase D of the project would include construction of retail within the more central portion of the site. Finally, Phase E would include construction of new office uses, which are anticipated to be located above the retail uses along Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as approximately 19,000 square feet of retail uses. Construction activities within these five general phases are expected to overlap. Demolition would involve a total of 459,055 square feet of retail space and 360,964 square feet of office space. To provide for the new improvements, grading activities would include approximately 21,420 cubic yards of cut, 1,895 cubic yards of fill, and 19,607 cubic yards of cut for foundations. Of this grading, approximately 39,132 cubic yards would be expected to be exported.
While construction workers would be generated from many parts of the region, and thus different directions, haul trucks and delivery trucks would generally depart the project site via a combination of two routes. The first route is identified as, 1) from the staging areas to either Santa Monica Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, or Constellation Boulevard to southbound Avenue of the Stars, 2) onto westbound Pico Boulevard, 3) onto southbound Overland Avenue, and 4) onto I-10 (Santa Monica Freeway). The second route is identified as from the staging areas to Santa Monica Boulevard to the I-405 (San Diego Freeway). The reverse order of routes would be utilized to access the project site. Construction would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Mondays through Fridays and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Thus, construction traffic would not occur during the noise-sensitive late evening and nighttime hours.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-21 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Construction related truck staging would generally occur within the north, south, and east sides of the project site along Santa Monica Boulevard, Constellation Boulevard, and the service tunnel driveway, respectively. The service tunnel is the one-way northbound service tunnel along the existing easterly retail frontage and extends between Constellation Boulevard (entry location) and Santa Monica Boulevard (exit location). Century Park West would not be used for construction truck staging during excavation. During Phase A construction activities, sidewalk closures are envisioned along both the Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars frontages, and the potential exists for the temporary closure of a single traffic lane (i.e., the curb lane) along the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage and the Avenue of the Stars frontage (i.e., adjacent to the existing 1801 Avenue of the Stars site). During Phase B construction activities, sidewalk closures are envisioned along both the Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard frontages, and the potential exists for the temporary closure of a single traffic lane (i.e., the curb lane) along the Century Park West frontage and the Constellation Boulevard frontage (i.e., adjacent to the existing 1930 Century Park West site). Use of Century Park West during construction would be limited and would generally occur during Phase B, which includes construction of a new parking facility at 1930 Century Park West. During Phase C construction activities, sidewalk closures are envisioned along the adjacent Constellation Boulevard frontage, and the potential exists for the temporary closure of a single traffic lane (i.e., the curb lane) along the adjacent Constellation Boulevard frontage. Phase D includes construction/demolition in the core area, and therefore no sidewalk or lane closures are expected to be required for this phase. Phase E will use an on-site staging area between the main Santa Monica Boulevard driveway and the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site as well as the one-way northbound service tunnel along the existing easterly retail frontage, and therefore should not require any sidewalk or lane closures. The on-site staging area along the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard between the main Shopping Center access driveway and the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site can also be utilized during any construction phase.
Construction worker-related parking is anticipated to occur either on-site or in a combination of on-site and off-site parking areas. Upon completion of Phase B (the new parking structure located at the 1930 Century Park West site) construction workers will be able to park within this new structure. Any need for additional off-site parking (e.g., during peak Shopping Center time periods) is anticipated to be provided at the Century Park West parking structure located one block south of the project site. The entrances and exits to this parking structure are located along the south side of MGM Drive, just south of the existing MGM office tower. The Draft EIR specifically addresses parking availability within the Century Park West parking structure during non-holiday and holiday time periods (refer to Appendix Tables A21 through A24 within Appendix A of the Draft EIR traffic impact study document [contained within Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR]). Ample parking availability exists on-site to accommodate some, if not all, of the construction worker parking demand. Construction workers are anticipated to arrive at the site prior to the weekday A.M. peak commuter peak hour, as they
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-22 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
would be on-site prior to the 7:00 A.M. start time. The majority of construction workers are not anticipated to leave the site during the P.M. commuter peak hour.
Numerous mitigation measures have been proposed to address potential construction- related impacts. As part of these mitigation measures, the City of Los Angeles would require the proposed project to devise and implement a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP) in compliance with LAMC requirements. Specific components of the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan as well as other conditions and measures associated with the proposed project are identified below within the Construction Traffic section of this topical response.
A summary of the potential construction-related impacts of the project that are discussed in more detail in the Draft EIR is provided below.
AIR QUALITY
In order to provide a conservative analysis within the Draft EIR, it was assumed that all construction activities would be complete within the first four years following entitlement. This assumption is conservative as it represents the minimum timeframe anticipated for construction and provides for the maximum overlap of construction stages (e.g., demolition, site preparation, and building construction) within the project’s overall development period. This is of particular importance as construction emissions are directly related to the duration and intensity of construction activities (i.e., emissions increase as the amount of construction increases). Emission rates representative of certain stages of construction (i.e., construction worker trips and delivery vehicle trips) can also decrease over time in response to the use of vehicles or equipment that emit lower levels of pollutant emissions.
The emissions levels set forth in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR represent the highest daily emissions projected to occur on any one day for each individual geographic construction phase. As presented in the Draft EIR, under the most conservative scenario in which all construction phases would overlap, construction-related daily maximum regional construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for PM10, PM2.5, or SOX. However, maximum regional emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for VOC, CO, and NOX during periods of heavy use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Therefore, regional construction emissions resulting from the project would result in a significant short-term impact. Mitigation measures are provided in the Draft EIR to reduce these emissions. In addition, additional mitigation measures have been provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR. However, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would remain in exceedance of the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during the most intense construction period. It should be noted that the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-23 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
emissions estimates presented in the Draft EIR do not take into account recently promulgated emission standards for off-road diesel construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles.
With regard to localized construction impacts, the conservative estimate of maximum on- site daily emissions for CO, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, was compiled for each phase of construction. Since the overlapping phases may exceed 5 acres, the localized effects from the on-site construction emissions of CO, NOx (NO2), PM10 and PM2.5 were analyzed using the ISCST3 dispersion model. As shown in Table 11 of the Draft EIR, PM10 and PM2.5 localized impacts would exceed the SCAQMD recommended threshold. Localized CO and NO2 concentrations would remain below thresholds under the most conservative construction scenario in which all phases overlap. The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations would occur at residential uses on the west side of Century Park West, approximately 100 feet west of the project site. Maximum PM10 concentrations would occur primarily from site grading activities for Phase B (1930 Century Park West). Implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR as well as additional mitigation measures included in Section II, Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR would reduce localized PM10 emissions by approximately 33 percent and PM2.5 emissions by approximately 19 percent. However, these short-term localized emissions would remain significant.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions. In addition, there would be no residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.
NOISE
Construction noise levels were estimated based on an industry standard sound attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance for point sources (e.g., construction equipment). Within the analysis, all construction equipment was conservatively assumed to operate simultaneously, was assumed to be located at an on-site location nearest to each sensitive receptor, and overlap of Phases A, B, and C of construction was evaluated to provide a worst-case scenario. As shown in the Draft EIR, noise from construction would cause the ambient noise level to exceed the 5-dBA significance threshold at all sensitive receptors during various durations of the construction period. In addition, should additional overlap of construction phases occur, noise levels could increase by a maximum of 2 dB at sensitive receptor locations. It should be noted that none of the sensitive receptors will experience significant noise impacts for the entire duration of the construction period. Nevertheless, even with implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, construction-period noise impacts would be significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-24 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
In addition to on-site construction noise, haul trucks, delivery trucks, and construction workers would require access to the project site throughout the project’s construction period. The major noise would be trucks queuing and idling up to the staging areas. The construction truck staging at the service tunnel driveway would have no significant noise impacts since much of the staging would occur within an enclosed structure. To represent a worst-case scenario, the analysis assumed that there would be 20 construction trucks lined up the entire length of Santa Monica Boulevard and Constellation Boulevard along the project site. As described in the Draft EIR, off-site noise levels from these activities would fall below the 5 dBA significance threshold. Thus, short-term impacts associated with construction staging would be less than significant.
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Construction of the proposed project would generate traffic from construction worker trips and construction truck trips (i.e., the arrival and departure of trucks for the removal of debris generated by on-site demolition, excavation and grading activities, as well as the delivery of construction materials). As discussed above, the overlap of Phases A, B, and C of construction was evaluated to provide a worst-case analysis. Specifically, this period would generate the highest number of construction trips (construction worker trips and construction truck trips) when compared to any other combination of construction phases.
Together, construction workers and construction trucks are anticipated to generate 1,220 trips per day (610 inbound, 610 outbound) during this peak overlap of construction phases for the proposed project. The inbound construction worker trips are anticipated to occur outside of the A.M. peak hour. Similarly, the construction workforce is not expected to leave the site during the PM commuter peak hour. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, one quarter of the construction workforce was assumed to leave the site during the P.M. commuter peak hour. It was assumed that approximately 121 outbound construction worker trips may be generated during the P.M. peak hour (i.e., 25 percent of the 485 outbound P.M. peak hour construction worker trips). The construction workforce would likely be generated from all parts of the Los Angeles region and thereby was assumed to arrive and depart from all directions (i.e., each direction along the I-405 and I-10 Freeways and from the local areas). Based on a distribution of 20 percent to any one particular segment, an increase of no more than 24 vehicles is forecast at study intersections during the P.M. peak hour. The delivery and pick-up of construction materials will be scheduled for non-peak travel periods, to the maximum extent feasible. Thus, no significant construction traffic impacts are expected to occur. In addition, the number of trips generated by construction activities is less than the number of trips generated by existing uses on-site.
The City of Los Angeles will require the proposed project to devise and implement a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan in compliance with LAMC requirements.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-25 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan will identify all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project. The traffic control details will be illustrated on plans which will be submitted to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation for their required review and approval. Any necessary traffic transitions, k-rail (concrete barrier) installations, temporary sidewalk installations, etc. will also be identified. While the traffic control plans are not yet available as the exact extents of these areas has not yet been determined, the project will be conditioned to comply with the LAMC requirements. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall include plans to accomplish the following:
• Maintain existing access for land uses in the proximity of the project site during project construction and coordinate with adjacent businesses and emergency service providers to ensure adequate access exists to the project site and neighboring businesses;
• Schedule deliveries and pick-ups of construction materials for non-peak travel periods, to the maximum extent feasible;
• Coordinate haul trucks, deliveries and pick-ups to reduce the potential for trucks waiting to load or unload for protracted periods of time;
• Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes along Santa Monica Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, Constellation Boulevard and Century Park West, to the extent feasible;
• Two flag persons shall be required at the job site to assist the trucks in and out of the project area. Flag person(s) and warning signs shall be in compliance with part II of the latest edition of “Work Area Traffic Control Handbook”. Flag persons with radio controls are required during the hauling operation;
• Prohibit parking for construction workers except on the project site and any designated off-site parking locations. These off-site parking areas will require the approval of the City of Los Angeles;
• “Truck Crossing” warning signs shall be placed 300 feet in advance of the exit in each direction;
• A copy of the approval letter from the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners, the approved haul route and the approved grading plans shall be available on the job site at all times;
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-26 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Any desire to change the prescribed routes must be approved by the concerned governmental agencies by contacting the Street Use Inspection Division at (213) 485-3711 before the change takes place;
• The owner or contractor shall keep the construction area sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times shall provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind, at the sole discretion of the grading inspector;
• Hauling and grading equipment shall be kept in good operating condition and muffled as required by law;
• The Traffic and Coordinating Section of the Los Angeles Police Department shall be notified prior to the start of hauling, (213) 893-8124/473-7800;
• All loads shall be secured by trimming, watering and shall be adequately covered to prevent spillage and dust;
• Streets shall be cleaned of spilled materials at the termination of each workday;
• A log noting the dates of hauling and the number of trips per day shall be available on the job site at all times;
• The vehicles used for hauling shall be bottom dump trucks;
• A surety bond shall be posted in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer for maintenance of haul route streets. The forms for the bond shall be issued by the West Los Angeles District Engineering Office, 1828 Sawtelle Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90025;
• A construction liaison shall be available and a construction hotline number shall be established; and
• Traffic control devices, and specifically stop signs, shall be installed at each driveway exit point prior to building occupancy.
Moreover, also in compliance with LAMC requirements, the City’s Department of Public Works will review and be responsible for approval of the truck haul routes to be used during construction. In addition, while construction of the project may require temporary sidewalk closures as identified above, alternative sidewalk routes would be available. A pedestrian access plan for the adjacent public right-of-way as well as for the internal pedestrian circulation within the project site will be prepared.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-27 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Furthermore, as discussed in Sections IV.I.1, Fire Protection, and IV.I.2, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, blockage or slowing of emergency vehicles would not be anticipated. In addition, the Police Department would be notified of any traffic slowing or lane closures and traffic management personnel would be trained to assist emergency response vehicles. Thus, with compliance with regulatory requirements, construction-related traffic and access impacts would be less than significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-28 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 9: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE CENTURY CITY NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) was designed to guide development and redevelopment in the area and to ensure adequate transportation and other public facilities for the high-intensity center of Century City, while addressing compatibility with nearby low-density residential areas. Section 7 of the CCNSP also includes specific provisions relating to the “Century Square Shopping Center,” now called the Westfield Century City Shopping Center. When the CCNSP was adopted in 1981, the Shopping Center was defined by its then-existing boundaries. Because Westfield has acquired two adjoining properties which will be incorporated into the Shopping Center and the project site as a whole, amendments are needed to the CCNSP to reflect the addition of those properties. The amendments would also ensure that the height measurements of these two additional parcels will be consistent with the height measurement of the Shopping Center and permit averaging of floor area ratio (FAR) across the extended property lines. These amendments will ensure that the proposed project remains consistent with the requirements of the CCNSP. Please refer to Appendix C for the project’s proposed amendments to the CCNSP.
1. HEIGHT AMENDMENTS
Currently, three zoning designations apply different height restrictions to the project site under the CCNSP. The 1801 Avenue of the Stars parcel has Height District C2-2-O, which allows for unlimited building height. The existing Shopping Center has both Limited Height District C2-1L-O, which restricts building heights to a maximum of 75 feet and six stories, and Very Limited Height District C2-1VL-O, which restricts building heights to a maximum of 45 feet and three stories. For the existing Shopping Center, the CCNSP provides that heights located within the C2-1VL zone are to be measured from the plaza level. The 1930 Century Park West parcel also has Very Limited Height District C2-1VL-O, which restricts building heights to a maximum of 45 feet and three stories, but absent the requested amendment that height would not be measured from the plaza level. A multi-story parking garage is proposed at 1930 Century Park West which would be lower than the height of the building which currently exists on that parcel.
The project’s proposed amendments to the CCNSP would extend the definition of “Shopping Center” in the CCNSP to include the 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West properties, thereby treating the entire project as a unified site. This would permit the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-29 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
heights of all structures within the Shopping Center to be consistently measured from the plaza level. The amendments would also remove the limitation on the number of stories within the C2-1VL-O zone, so long as the current 45-foot height limitation is not exceeded.
Permitting the heights of all structures within the Shopping Center to be measured from the plaza level would be consistent with the CCNSP’s current requirement for measuring Shopping Center structures within the 1VL zone. All structures within the project site would be measured from the plaza level, and thus all structures within the project’s C2-1L zone would comply with the CCNSP’s 75-foot height limit. Similarly, removing the story limitation within the 1VL zone would also be consistent with the CCNSP’s current requirements because the 45-foot height limit would not be eliminated. With approval, all proposed and existing structures within the project site would comply with the CCNSP.
2. FAR AMENDMENTS
The project site is divided into “Core” and “Buffer” Areas. The majority of the project site is located in the Core Area, which allows for a maximum FAR of 6 to 1. The western portion of the project site is located in the Buffer Area, which allows for a maximum FAR of 4.5 to 1. In proposing to treat all of the project as a unified site, the proposed project’s CCNSP amendment would allow for the transfer of floor area and density between lots within the site. This would allow for density to be spread out across the property without exceeding the FAR limits established by the CCNSP. The proposed project would be well below these limits. The Core Area of the project site would be built out at an FAR of 2.8 to 1, and the Buffer Area would be built out at an FAR of 1.1 to 1, within the CCNSP’s limitations. Overall, the project would have a 2.4 to 1 FAR. With approval of the proposed amendment, the proposed project’s FAR would comply with the CCNSP.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-30 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 10: CENTURY CITY NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN CUMULATIVE AUTOMOTIVE TRIP GENERATION POTENTIAL
The Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) limits development in Century City through the assignment of development rights called Cumulative Automobile Trip Generation Potential (CATGP) Trips to parcels within the CCNSP. A project in the CCNSP can only be developed if it has sufficient CATGP Trips for the given land use. The concept of CATGP Trips is distinct from traffic impact analysis trips. Whereas CATGP Trips are meant to regulate the overall intensity of development, traffic impact trips measure the true traffic impacts for a project based on actual trip data counts. Projects currently developed within the CCNSP are limited to three sources of CATGP Trips. A project may use the original CCNSP CATGP Trips assigned by the City to parcels in 1981, during CCNSP Phase I or CATGP Trips assigned by the City to parcels during Phase II of the CCNSP. A project may also use Replacement CATGP Trips generated when uses on a parcel are changed or buildings on that parcel are demolished (Replacement CATGP Trips). Finally, a project may have CATGP Trips transferred to the project site from another parcel.
According to the Century City Trip Allocations Chart maintained by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning (Planning Department) dated May 1, 2008 (CATGP Trip Chart), a total of 1,538 CATGP Trips are currently available to the project: 278.605 CATGP Trips are allocated to the Westfield Century City Shopping Center (28.757 CATGP Trips were allocated to the Shopping Center during Phase I of the CCNSP, and 249.848 Replacement CATGP Trips are available) and 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips are allocated to the 1930 Century Park West property.
In addition, as discussed further below, covenants have been recorded which reflect the number of Replacement CATGP Trips to be generated upon the demolition of 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West. According to a covenant approved by the City and recorded on March 22, 2007, demolition of the building at 1930 Century Park West would result in the creation of 871 Replacement CATGP Trips, in addition to those which are currently shown on the Trip Chart. The City also approved a separate covenant, recorded on March 22, 2007, providing that demolition of 1801 Avenue of the Stars would generate 4,182.052 Replacement CATGP Trips.
Furthermore, a covenant was recorded on June 24, 2008, transferring 1,644 unused Replacement CATGP Trips from 2000 Avenue of the Stars to the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site and transferring 4,272.432 unused Replacement CATGP Trips from 2000 Avenue of the Stars to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-31 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the Westfield Century City Shopping Center. Together, these transfers add a total of 5,916.432 Replacement CATGP Trips which can be used for the project.
The Planning Department approved the 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips currently available at 1930 Century Park West more than seven years ago, in a covenant recorded on March 16, 2001. This was prior to Westfield’s purchase of the 1930 Century Park West property on January 23, 2003. The 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips were first reflected in the Planning Department’s CATGP Trip Allocation Chart beginning on October 2, 2001 and have been included in every Planning Department CATGP Trip Chart since that time.The Planning Department concluded that 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips allocated to the 1930 Century Park West property in 2001 were properly generated from the conversion of a ground floor drive-through bank facility to office use. Prior to the City’s recording of these CATGP Trips, the Planning Department extensively reviewed the building’s records and plans to determine the number of Replacement CATGP Trips that should be generated from such a change of use. As documented in a Planning Department memorandum dated March 21, 2001, included in Appendix D of this Final EIR, Planning Department staff confirmed the use of the building’s ground floor as a drive-through bank facility, and reviewed the building’s plans to verify that the square footage of the ground floor was 7,077 square feet. Planning Department staff also conferred with the Department of Transportation (DOT) staff, who confirmed that the CCNSP’s CATGP Trip rate for a “Drive-Through Bank Facility,” 192 CATGP Trips per one thousand square feet, should be applied to the entire ground floor bank area. The Planning Department thus concluded that, as mandated by the CCNSP, conversion of the building’s 7,077 square-foot ground floor from a drive-through bank use to office use would leave 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips remaining on the site.
Moreover, application of the CCNSP’s CATGP Trip rate for drive-through banks actually resulted in fewer Replacement CATGP Trips for the property than applying DOT’s vehicular trip rate for drive-through banks. The Sixth Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual (ITE) used by the DOT in 2001 states that the average vehicular trip rate for a drive-through bank facility is 265 vehicular trips per one thousand square feet. Had the ITE rate been applied to the drive-through bank facility, over 1,776.327 Replacement CATGP Trips would have been generated after conversion of the drive through bank facility’s conversion to office use. This would have resulted in 516.621 more Replacement CATGP Trips than currently allocated to the property.
1. Project Phasing and Required Trips
Because the proposed project will be phased, additional Replacement CATGP Trips will become available as existing uses are replaced. A tentative proposed phasing plan has been analyzed for the proposed project. While the details of particular phases are subject to change depending on market conditions, the same principle – utilizing Replacement CATGP Trips from
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-32 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the demolition of existing structures in order to build replacement buildings on the project site – will apply.
This principle is illustrated by the following scenario. During Phase A of the proposed project, the existing structure located at 1801 Avenue of the Stars would be demolished. A new anchor store would be constructed at this location, together with new residences. If one of the existing anchor stores on site moves to the new location, it would remain open during construction of the new location but would close when the move occurs.
In the above scenario, the new retail use at 1801 Avenue of the Stars would be 194,254 square feet, and thus would require 5,439 CATGP Trips.2 The construction of the residences would require 7.55 CATGP Trips per dwelling unit. As 262 units would be built, 1,978 CATGP Trips would be required. This is a total of 5,439 CATGP Trips plus 1,978 CATGP Trips for a total of 7,417 CATGP Trips needed for Phase A.
In the above scenario, the Replacement CATGP Trips associated with demolition of the existing 1801 Avenue of the Stars building – as agreed by recorded covenant with the City dated March 22, 2007 – is 4,182.052. The square footage of the large anchor store in the core area of the Shopping Center is 212,000 square feet. If this anchor store is closed during Phase A, that would result in an additional 5,936 Replacement CATGP Trips. This is a total of 10,118 Replacement CATGP Trips. Since Phase A would only require 7,417 CATGP Trips, upon completion of Phase A, 10,155 CCNSP CATGP Trips would remain available to the entire project site, which includes the 7,454 CATGP Trips currently available for use on the site.
Phase B of the proposed project would demolish the 1930 Century Park West building and portions of the Shopping Center’s retail on the Santa Monica frontage. It would also entail the construction of a parking garage at 1930 Century Park West and replacement retail on Santa Monica. Using the CATGP Trip rates discussed above, the demolition of the 62,246.5 square- foot office structure located at 1930 Century Park West would result in the creation of an additional 871 Replacement CATGP Trips. (The City agreed to this calculation in a covenant, which was recorded on March 22, 2007.) Demolition of 64,281 square feet of Santa Monica retail would generate 1,800 Replacement CATGP Trips. Thus the demolition for this phase would generate 2,671 Replacement CATGP Trips. Construction of the parking garage would not require any CATGP Trips. Construction of the new retail, which would total 125,415 square feet, would require 3,512 CATGP Trips.
2 CATGP Trips for office commercial structures are calculated at a rate of 14 CATGP Trips per one thousand square feet, and retail commercial structures at a rate of 28 CATGP Trips per one thousand square feet.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-33 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Phase C would involve partial demolition of retail in the Shopping Center’s core area and along the Macy’s department store edges, totaling 143,578 square feet, as well as construction of 265,642 square feet of retail in the core area. The demolition would generate 4,020 Replacement CATGP Trips; construction would require 7,438 CATGP Trips.
Phase D would also involve the partial demolition and construction of retail in the core area. Demolition of the remaining 39,196 square feet of retail in the core area would generate 1,097 Replacement CATGP Trips. The construction of 213,625 square feet of retail would require 5,982 CATGP Trips. Therefore, 4,885 CATGP Trips would be required to complete construction of Phase D.
Finally, Phase E entails the construction of 19,000 square feet of retail and 106,523 square feet of office space. Construction of these uses would require a total of 2,023 CATGP Trips. Building permits could not be obtained until such CATGP Trips were available.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-34 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 11: SHADING IMPACTS
The site lies within a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise office buildings, hotels, entertainment uses, and residential uses. Specifically, commercial and multi-family uses and the Los Angeles Country Club are located to the north of the project site along Santa Monica Boulevard, with single-family residential uses further to the north of these uses. High-rise office buildings, hotels, and parking structures, including the 36-story MGM Tower, the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel, and the 39-story Fox Plaza building, are located to the south of the site. Mid- and high-rise office buildings, including the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, and a 20-story office building, are located to the east of the project site. Single-family residential uses are located to the west of the Shopping Center across Century Park West. In addition, residential uses within mid- and high-rise buildings have been approved at other properties to the east and south of the project site.
Shade-sensitive uses in the area include the multi-family and hotel uses along Santa Monica Boulevard to the north, residential neighborhoods north of Santa Monica Boulevard, the residential neighborhood west of Century Park West, the Century Woods multi-family neighborhood located to the south of Constellation Boulevard, and the residential neighborhoods south of Olympic Boulevard. Residential neighborhoods in the City of Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School, east of the project site, are also considered shade-sensitive uses. Shade-sensitive recreational uses in the area include the Los Angeles Country Club golf course; outdoor recreational and dining areas at the Century Plaza Hotel, including the outdoor swimming pool; and the Roxbury Recreation Center in the City of Beverly Hills.
As shown in Figures 40 through 43 of Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, the concentration of high-rise buildings in Century City creates a varying pattern of shadows that rotates in a sweeping arc within and beyond the boundaries of Century City toward the west, north, and east, according to the movement of the sun throughout the year. Century City’s shadows primarily extend beyond Century City into the surrounding area during the early morning and late afternoon hours. Shading increases with proximity to Century City’s commercial core that is centered to the east of Avenue of the Stars.
The Draft EIR evaluates shading impacts in accordance with both the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) and the more stringent Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) Shade/Shadow policies. Under the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), shading impacts are considered significant if a project would shade shadow-sensitive uses for more than
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-35 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
three hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time (PST), between early November and early March or more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early March and early November.3 Under the CCNSP shading impacts of concern are limited to those occurring on single-family residences located outside the boundaries of the CCNSP and the Century City South Specific Plan (CCSSP). While the land uses and locations of concern under CCNSP policies are limited in comparison to those set forth in the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), the length of day in which shading is of concern extends from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., during all seasons. Shading impacts are also based on a two-hour period, which is shorter and more stringent than the minimum duration of significant shading impact under the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). With the exception of the new residential tower, the buildings within the project site would not exceed 75 feet in height as measured from the plaza level and thus would generate minimal off-site shading. Thus, the analysis of shading within the Draft EIR focuses on the foot print and height of the proposed 49-story residential tower. Additionally, in order to evaluate typical shadows during each season of the year, project shadows are identified for the winter and summer solstices as well as the spring and fall equinoxes.
The shadow analysis within the Draft EIR identifies shadows that can be expected on any given day during each season; however, it should be noted that due to changing climatic conditions throughout the year, direct sunlight is not available every day of every season. Within the Los Angeles area, varying cloudy and partly cloudy weather limits the days on which shadow impacts would actually be experienced. As such, the identified shadow impacts represent a worst case scenario for each season. Table III-3 on page III-37 summarizes the number of clear, partly cloudy, and cloudy days that can be expected in the project area during each season of the year. On partly cloudy and cloudy days, shading impacts would be reduced or even negligible depending on specific weather conditions.
As shown in Figures 40 through 43 of Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare and Shading, of the Draft EIR, shadow patterns vary throughout the day and seasons of the year. As illustrated in Figures 40 and 41, the project’s shadow would extend across portions of the golf course between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. during the winter solstice and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to just after 12:00 P.M. during the spring equinox. However, the majority of the areas of the golf course that would be shaded by the project are already shaded by existing buildings within Century City during various timeframes throughout the day. Additionally, the proposed residential tower has been oriented such that the shadows cast on the golf course would be narrow and thus move quickly across the southern areas of the golf course. Therefore, the project would cast new shadows on any given area within the golf course for substantially less time than three hours. Nonetheless, the total amount of time that new shading would occur over the entire expanse of the golf course would add up to more than three hours. Thus, it was
3 These dates have been updated to reflect the current daylight savings schedule.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-36 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-3
Mean Number of Clear, Partly Cloudy and Cloudy Days in Los Angeles
Partly Season Clear Days Cloudy Days Cloudy Days Winter (Jan-Mar) 39.6 24.3 26.2 Spring (Apr-Jun) 37.0 32.1 21.9 Summer (Jul-Sep) 61.7 24.7 5.6 Fall (Oct-Dec) 47.6 24.7 19.7 a Data is specific to the Los Angeles Civic Center (downtown area). Comparable data for the City and County of Los Angles can be found at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/clpcdy.txt.
Source: Los Angeles Almanac, available at http://laalmanac.com/weather/we06a.htm, accessed June 11, 2008. conservatively assumed that such shading impacts to the golf course during the winter solstice and spring equinox would be significant. As also discussed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare and Shading, of the Draft EIR, the project would not shade any detached single-family dwelling outside the CCNSP area for more than two hours, nor would the project shade any other sensitive uses for more than three hours. Thus, as concluded in the Draft EIR, significant impacts to shadow-sensitive uses other than the golf course would not occur during the winter solstice or spring equinox.
Figures 42 and 43 within the Draft EIR depict the shading patterns that would be generated by the project during summer solstice and fall equinox, respectively. As shown therein, no new shading would occur on any single-family residence outside the CCNSP area for more than two hours and no new shading would occur on other shade-sensitive uses, including the golf course, for more than four hours. Thus, as concluded in the Draft EIR, shading impacts during the summer solstice and fall equinox would also be less than significant.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impacts to the golf course that were identified. Specifically, to eliminate the impact that was conservatively concluded to be significant during the winter solstice and spring equinox, the residential tower would need to be reduced from the proposed height of 587 feet above grade to approximately 200 feet above grade. A building of this height would not provide for the program of uses proposed by the project; the inability to provide for the proposed uses, together with the investment that would be necessary to construct a state-of-the-art landmark building, would result in a project that would not be feasible and would not meet the basic project objectives. In addition, the cumulative shading impacts affecting the Los Angeles Country Club golf course, resulting from the proposed project together with the related projects, would be significant based on the conservative approach to the shading analysis that considered the golf course as a whole.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-37 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
In response to public comments received from certain residents of the Comstock Hills residential area regarding shading from the proposed project, an analysis that specifically focuses on project-related shading on this area was conducted. The Comstock Hills residential area is located a minimum of 342 feet from 1801 Avenue of the Stars, as measured from 1801 Avenue of the Stars to the beginning of the single-family residential zone located to the north, and is separated from the project site by Santa Monica Boulevard, a Major Class II Highway with three lanes in each direction and neighborhood access roads along the north and south sides of the main roadway, as well as intervening commercial uses north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The same thresholds utilized in the Draft EIR, specifically those defined by the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) and the CCNSP Shade/Shadow policies, have been used for this focused analysis. As the CCNSP threshold requires analysis during a longer period of the day (8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.), this discussion focuses on project-generated morning shadows that are cast beginning at 8:00 A.M.
Figures III-1 through III-4 on pages III-39 through III-42 below illustrate the shadows affecting the Comstock Hills area for each season of the year. These graphics illustrate shadows generated by the project as well as other existing structures and approved development in the immediate area. A summary of project impacts is provided in Table III-4 on page III-43, followed by a more detailed discussion of shadow affects during each season.
Winter shadows (shown in Figure III-1) represent the worst case impacts of the year, as shadows are longest in the winter months due to the low position of the sun in the sky. Project shadows during the winter would affect residential areas south of Devon Avenue and portions of the area east of Warnall Avenue. While these portions of the Comstock Hills area considered as a whole would be shaded for up to 1 hour and 30 minutes (from 8:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.), no single residence would be shaded for more than 30 minutes since the shadows would move very quickly in an easterly direction toward the golf course. Thus, impacts during this season would be well below the significance threshold. Furthermore, as discussed above, many days during the winter season experience overcast conditions associated with the rainy season and prevailing on-shore winds, therefore the projected shadow impacts would not be experienced every day in the winter.
Spring shadows (shown in Figure III-2) associated with the project would reach residential areas east of Warnall Avenue and south of Eastborne Avenue. Similar to winter shadows, while these portions of the residential area, considered as a whole, would be shaded for up to 1 hour and 30 minutes (from 8:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.), no single residence would be shaded for more than 30 minutes. Thus, impacts during this season would be well below the significance threshold. Additionally, overcast conditions would limit the number of spring days on which shadow impacts would actually be experienced.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-38 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress 8am This part of residential neighborhood would be shaded for less than 1hr 30min during Winter season. 8am 8am
9:39:30am 9:30am
8am
8am
8am 9:30am 9:30am
Existing Building Existing A.M. Shadow Winter season - 90 days Proposed Building New Proposed Project Maximum daily shading duration - 1hr 30 min A.M. Shadow Clear days -39.5 Partly Cloudy Days -24.3 Extent of Shadow Cloudy Days -26.2 NOTE: between 8A.M. and 9:30A.M. Century City North Specific Plan at Section 3.B.1.2.g and 3.C.1.b stipulates the following: A Project shall be designed in a way to reasonably assure that it will not cast a shadow for more than two hours, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., upon any detached single-family dwelling located outside the Specific Plan Area. Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide Standard: A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between early November and early March), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early March and late November).
As Demonstrated herein the project will not cast a shadow on any detached single-family dwelling for more than 2 hours.
Figure III-1 Winter Solstice Shadows in Vicinity N of Comstock Hills Area
Source: Google Earth Professional; Weather Almanac by Gale Research; and PCR Services Corporation, 2008
New Century Page III-39 This part of residential neighborhood 9:30am would be shaded for less than 8am 1:30 minutes during Spring season.
8am 9:30am
9:30am
9:30am
8am
9:30am
8am
Existing Building Existing A.M. Shadow Spring season - 91 days Proposed Building New Proposed Project Maximum daily shading duration - 1hr 30 min A.M. Shadow Clear days -37 Partly Cloudy Days -32.1 Extent of Shadow Cloudy Days -21.9 between 8A.M. and 9:30A.M. NOTE: Century City North Specific Plan at Section 3.B.1.2.g and 3.C.1.b stipulates the following: A Project shall be designed in a way to reasonably assure that it will not cast a shadow for more than two hours, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., upon any detached single-family dwelling located outside the Specific Plan Area. Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide Standard: A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between early November and early March), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early March and late November).
As Demonstrated herein the project will not cast a shadow on any detached single-family dwelling for more than 2 hours.
Figure III-2 Spring Equinox Shadows in Vicinity N of Comstock Hills Area
Source: Google Earth Professional; Weather Almanac by Gale Research; and PCR Services Corporation, 2008
New Century Page III-40 9:30am
This part of residential neighborhood would be shaded for less than 8am 10 minutes during Summer season. 9:30am
8am
9:30am 8am
8am
8am
Existing Building Existing A.M. Shadow Summer season - 92 days Proposed Building New Proposed Project Maximum daily shading duration - 10 min A.M. Shadow Clear days -61.7 Partly Cloudy Days -24.7 Extent of Shadow Cloudy Days -5.6 between 8A.M. and 9:30A.M. NOTE: Century City North Specific Plan at Section 3.B.1.2.g and 3.C.1.b stipulates the following: A Project shall be designed in a way to reasonably assure that it will not cast a shadow for more than two hours, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., upon any detached single-family dwelling located outside the Specific Plan Area. Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide Standard: A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between early November and early March), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early March and late November).
As Demonstrated herein the project will not cast a shadow on any detached single-family dwelling for more than 2 hours.
Figure III-3 Summer Solstice Shadows in Vicinity N of Comstock Hills Area
Source: Google Earth Professional; Weather Almanac by Gale Research; and PCR Services Corporation, 2008
New Century Page III-41 9:30am
This part of residential neighborhood 8am would be shaded for less than 60 minutes during Fall season. 9:30am
8am
9:30am 8am 8am
8am
Existing Building Existing A.M. Shadow Fall season - 92 days Proposed Building New Proposed Project Maximum daily shading duration - 60 min A.M. Shadow Clear days -47.6 Partly Cloudy Days -24.7 Extent of Shadow Cloudy Days -19.7 between 8A.M. and 9:30A.M. NOTE: Century City North Specific Plan at Section 3.B.1.2.g and 3.C.1.b stipulates the following: A Project shall be designed in a way to reasonably assure that it will not cast a shadow for more than two hours, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., upon any detached single-family dwelling located outside the Specific Plan Area. Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide Standard: A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between early November and early March), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early March and late November).
As Demonstrated herein the project will not cast a shadow on any detached single-family dwelling for more than 2 hours.
Figure III-4 Fall Equinox Shadows in Vicinity N of Comstock Hills Area
Source: Google Earth Professional; Weather Almanac by Gale Research; and PCR Services Corporation, 2008
New Century Page III-42 III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-4
Summary of Project-Generated Shadow Impacts Affecting Comstock Hills in the Morning Hours
Season Representative Date Max. Duration of Shading / Area Impacted Winter Winter Solstice Less than 1 hour 30 minutes / entire area south of Devon (December 21) Avenue and east of Warnall Avenue
Spring Spring Equinox Less than 1 hour 30 minutes / entire area east of Ensley (March 21) Avenue and south of Eastborne Avenue
Summer Summer Solstice Less 10 minutes / commercial area east of Ensley Avenue (June 21) and just north of Santa Monica Boulevard
Fall Fall Equinox Less than 1 hour / entire area east of Ensley Avenue and (September 21) south of Eastborne Avenue
Note: No single-family dwelling will be shaded for more than 30 minutes.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2008.
Summer shadows (shown in Figure III-3) result in the most limited impacts of the year due to the high position of the sun, with shadows extending to areas just north of Santa Monica Boulevard (generally south of the alley that runs behind the properties fronting Santa Monica). The affected area is primarily commercial in nature, and shadows would impact a limited residential area for less than 10 minutes starting at 8:00 A.M. Thus, impacts during this season would be well below the significance threshold. In addition, while the summer season in Los Angeles experiences, on average, the clearest days of any season of the year, nearly one-third of summer days are typically cloudy or partly cloudy.
Fall shadows (shown in Figure III-4) would reach areas south of Eastborne Avenue and generally east of Ensley Avenue. While these portions of the Comstock Hills neighborhood, considered as a whole, would be shaded for up to 1 hour (from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.), no single residence would be shaded for more than 30 minutes. Thus, impacts during this season would be well below the significance threshold. Additionally, as demonstrated above, over one-half of fall days are usually overcast, thus limiting the number of days on which fall shadow impacts would be experienced.
In summary, project shadows affecting the Comstock Hills area would be limited and at times minimal, varying throughout the year. As demonstrated in Figures III-1 through III-4, the design of the proposed residential tower—with its north-south elongated orientation—would result in narrow shadows that move quickly across and past the neighborhood. This quick shadow movement produces short shading durations with a maximum 30-minute impact on any particular detached single-family dwelling. Since sensitive receptors are defined as individual
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-43 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments residences and not the neighborhood as a whole, impacts would be well below the more stringent CCNSP threshold of two or more hours of shading.
Relative to cumulative impacts, as also shown in Figures III-1 through III-4, nearly all shadows cast by existing structures and other approved development in the area would fall outside of Comstock Hills by 9:30 A.M. Thus, cumulative shadows affecting the neighborhood as a whole would generally be limited to 1 hour 30 minutes, and impacts to individual residences would occur for a shorter duration as the shadows travel quickly in an easterly direction, similar to project impacts. Cumulative shadow impacts on residential uses within the Comstock Hills area would thus be less than significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-44 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress
TOPICAL RESPONSE 12: WATER SUPPLY
State legislation addressing water supply, Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Costa) became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires that for specified projects subject to CEQA, the urban water supplier must prepare a water supply assessment that determines whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project is included as part of the most recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Specifically, a water supply assessment shall identify existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, and prior years’ water deliveries received by the public water system. In addition, it must address water supplies over a 20-year period and consider average, dry, and multiple dry years. The water supply assessment must be approved by the public water system at a regular or special meeting and must be incorporated into the CEQA document. The lead agency must then make certain findings related to water supply based on the water supply assessment. In addition, under SB 610, an urban water supplier responsible for the preparation and periodic updating of an UWMP must describe the water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet the total project water use of the service area. If groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier, the following additional information must be included in the UWMP: (1) a groundwater management plan; (2) a description of the groundwater basin(s) to be used and the water use adjudication rights, if any; (3) a description and analysis of groundwater use in the past five years; and (4) a discussion of the sufficiency of the groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the supplier. As described in more detail below, in accordance with SB 610, a water supply assessment was prepared for the project by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) in January 2007.
In accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the LADWP has prepared an updated Year 2005 UWMP. The UWMP details the LADWP’s efforts to promote the efficient use and management of its water resources.
LADWP is responsible for providing water within the City of Los Angeles limits and ensuring that the delivered water quality meets applicable California health standards for drinking water. As the proposed project is located within the City of Los Angeles, LADWP would be the water provider for the project. Water is supplied to the City from local groundwater, the Los Angeles Aqueducts (LAA), and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). In year 2006, approximately 60 percent of LADWP’s water supply was from the LAA, approximately 10 percent came from local groundwater, approximately 29 percent from the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-45 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
MWD, and a remaining one percent was from recycled water.4 In addition to the local groundwater sources used throughout the City, LADWP operates the Los Angeles-Owens River Aqueduct and is a member of the MWD.
The amount of water that MWD will be able to supply to Southern California in the near future is uncertain given the recent federal court case Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. vs. Kempthorne, et al. (NRDC). In Spring 2007, various environmental groups sought to halt the operation of water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (the Delta) to protect the Delta smelt and other endangered fish species living in the Delta. In May 2007, a federal court invalidated the Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which had held that the Delta smelt were in “no jeopardy” from operational changes of the State Water Project in the Delta. On May 31, 2007, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) voluntarily shut down the State Water Project’s pumps for 17 days in an effort to protect the Delta smelt. In an August 2007 oral decision, the federal court agreed to institute interim protective measures that restrict water operations in the Delta, including reducing the amount of water being pumped out of the Delta between the end of December and June. In December 2007, the federal court issued an interim remedial order, requiring the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to revise its Biological Opinion by September 15, 2008 and conditioning Delta operations on various requirements. LADWP estimates that MWD may receive 20 to 30 percent less water from the State Water Project as a result of this interim remedial order. However, this remedial order sunsets in September 2008, at which time a new Biological Opinion will govern operations of the Delta. At this time, it is not known how the future Biological Opinion will impact MWD’s ability to supply water to Southern California.
At present, both the California state government and MWD are evaluating Delta operations and options to address Delta smelt impacts and other environmental concerns. The Governor’s Delta Vision Process and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan are both focused on finding and implementing long-term solutions for the Delta. MWD is also actively engaged in improving Delta water operations. In May 2007, MWD’s Board adopted a Delta Action Plan as a framework to address water supply risks in the Delta both for the near- and long-term. The near- and mid-term actions outlined in the Delta Action Plan are intended to implement measures to reduce fishery and earth-quake related risks, such as aggressive monitoring, ecosystem restoration, local water supply projects, and emergency preparedness and response plans.
In response to recent developments in the Delta, MWD is also engaged in identifying solutions that, when combined with the rest of its supply portfolio, will ensure a reliable long- term water supply for its member agencies. In the near-term, MWD will continue to rely on the
4 Water Supply Assessment for the New Century Plan project, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Water Resources Division, January 23, 2007.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-46 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
plans and policies outlined in its Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) and Integrated Water Resources Plan to address water supply shortages and interruptions (including potential shut downs of State Water Project pumps) to meet water demands. Campaigns for voluntary conservation, curtailment of replenishment water, and agricultural water delivery are some of the actions outlined in the RUWMP. If necessary, reduction in municipal and industrial water use and mandatory water allocation could be implemented. In addition, LADWP has recently prepared “Securing L.A.’s Water Supply”, which is a plan for creating sustainable sources of water for the future of Los Angeles. This plan is an aggressive multi-pronged approach that includes: investments in state-of-the-art technology; a combination of rebates and incentives; the installation of smart sprinklers, efficient washers and urinals; and long-term measures such as expansion of water recycling and investment in cleaning up the local groundwater supply. These strategies will ensure a reliable water supply for Los Angeles residents and businesses.
LADWP’s 2005 UWMP projections in five-year increments from 2010 to 2030 are based on projected population estimates provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). As discussed in detail in Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, the yearly water demand from the LADWP has increased linearly by approximately 17,000 AF per year (AFY). The City’s water demand for the year 2030 is forecasted to be approximately 776,000 AFY. The LADWP anticipates adequate water supplies would be available to the service areas under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions through 2030.
The existing uses on the project site include approximately 742,815 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, 90,578 square feet of cinema uses with 3,074 seats, 298,718 square feet of office uses at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, and 62,246 square feet of office uses at 1930 Century Park West. As shown in Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared by LADWP, the existing water use demand for the project site is approximately 157,298 gallons per day (gpd) or 176 AFY.
Pursuant to SB 610, LADWP conducted a water supply assessment for the proposed project. LADWP independently calculated the anticipated demands of the proposed project using the project information provided. The analysis considers whether sufficient water supplies would exist in addition to the existing and planned future demands on LADWP during a single- dry year, multiple dry years, and a maximum day demand.
As described in Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, a short-term demand for water would occur during construction associated with demolition, excavation, grading, and other construction-related activities on-site. As the project would occur in phases over a four- year period, construction activities would occur intermittently and would be temporary in nature. Thus, the demand for water supplies for construction activities such as soil watering would be temporary and would require minimal water. The demand for water is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the available water supply or the existing water distribution system.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-47 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Furthermore, the water demand generated by project construction activities would be offset by the reduction in water consumption resulting from the demolition of existing uses. Overall, demolition and construction activities would require minimal water and would not be expected to have any adverse impact on available water supplies or the existing water distribution system. Therefore, impacts associated with short-term construction activities would be less than significant.
Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in long-term water demand for operational uses, maintenance, and other activities on the project site. According to the Water Supply Assessment prepared by LADWP for the proposed project, the project water demand increase is estimated to be approximately 134 AF annually. Note that this is a conservative estimate since the Water Supply Assessment did not account for existing outdoor use within the project site. LADWP’s 2005 UWMP projects yearly water demand to reach 776,000 AF by 2030, or have an increase of 17 percent from 2005. Thus, the anticipated increase in water usage of 134 AF annually would fall within the available and projected water supplies for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through the year 2030 water demand projections of LADWP’s 2005 UWMP. Therefore, LADWP has concluded that it would be able to meet the water demand of the project as well as existing and planned future water demands of its service area. As such, project impacts on water supply would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the new Biological Opinion in the NRDC case, to be issued by September 2008, may impact MWD’s ability to supply water to Southern California in the future, however that impact cannot be determined at this time. Nonetheless, the consequences for the project’s water supply should be minimal. LADWP, and thus the project, only receives approximately one-third of its water supply from MWD; the remainder of LADWP’s water comes from local groundwater and the LAA. Additionally, restoring the Delta’s water capacity is a high priority for MWD, the Governor and the California Legislature; extensive plans are already underway for improving the operation of the Delta’s water pumps while also protecting the Delta smelt and other endangered fish species. In June 2007, MWD’s Board of Directors adopted an Action Plan to implement immediate short-term actions to stabilize the Delta and mid-term and long-term actions to find an ultimate solution to the Delta’s sustainability. The Governor has made the Delta and statewide water policy a high priority by establishing the Delta Vision Process and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, and the California Legislature is using SB 27 to find a long-term water supply solution for the Delta. As a result of these plans, MWD’s water supply may be restored to previous levels in the next few years. Consequently, NRDC is not expected to impact the project’s water supply. However the Applicant will continue to coordinate with LADWP to ensure adequate water supply to the project.
In addition, The New Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-48 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects. These measures will include:
• Installation of high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gallons per flush or less), or dual flush water closets, and high-efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gallons per flush or less), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all restrooms;
• Installation of restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute or less, of a self-closing design;
• Incorporation of a water recycling system to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety to the extent feasible;
• Installation of a demand (tankless or instantaneous) water heater system for the residential units, sufficient to serve the anticipated needs of residents;
• Installation of no more than one showerhead per shower stall, having a flow rate no greater than 2.0 gallons per minute or less, in each of the residential units;
• If provided by owner or tenant upgrade packaging, installation of only high-efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less) and high-efficiency Energy Star-rated dishwashers in the residences;
• WeatherBASE irrigation, which regulates irrigation schedules based on landscape needs, local weather conditions, plant type, soil type, and sun exposure, and has a rain shutoff;
• Flow sensor and master valve shutoff for irrigation systems;
• Matched precipitation (flow) rates for sprinkler heads;
• Drip/microspray/subsurface irrigation where appropriate;
• Minimum irrigation system distribution uniformity of 75 percent;
• Proper hydro-zoning, turf minimization and use of native/drought tolerant plant materials;
• Use of landscape contouring to minimize precipitation runoff;
• Installation of a separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff for irrigated landscape areas totaling 5,000 square feet and greater;
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-49 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Domestic water heating system located in close proximity to points of use, as feasible;
• Use of tankless and on-demand water heaters as feasible;
• Operation of cooling towers at a minimum of 5.5 cycles of concentration;
• Individual metering and billing for water use of all residential uses and exploring such metering for commercial spaces; and
• Separate metering or submetering for all irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or more.
Further, the New Century Plan is the type of development encouraged by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles to reduce water demand. Chapter 20 of the California Water Plan Update states that “[c]ompact, mixed-use developments can reduce water demand, even with moderate increases in density” since “it may reduce the total development footprint in the state and reduce urbanization impacts to habitat, watershed functions, and groundwater recharge areas.” The California Water Plan recommends that the state and local governments provide incentives to developers to build infill and compact development forms. The New Century Plan is this type of development.
In summary, based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared by LADWP, sufficient water supplies are expected to be available to accommodate the demand generated by the project and related projects. In addition, the project will implement a comprehensive list of project design features to reduce the demand for water generated by the project. No significant impacts to the City’s water supply would occur as a result of the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-50 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G STATE AGENCIES 1 Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research X State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 10th Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 2 Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission X 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, California 95814
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-51 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
REGIONAL AGENCIES 3 Jacob Lieb Program Manager, Environmental Planning Division Southern California Association of X X X X X X Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435
COUNTY AGENCIES 4 Susan F. Chapman Program Manager, Long Range Planning Los Angeles County Metropolitan X Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-52 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
5 Edward Guerrero Jr. Transportation Engineer City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation X 7166 West Manchester Avenue Los Angeles, California 90045 6 Larry Sakurai Principal Planner City of Beverly Hills X X X X 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 7 Scott Diamond President Beverlywood Homes Association X X X X No address provided
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-53 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
8 Edward G. Lewis Chairman Century City Homeowners Alliance X X X X X X 2122 Century Park Lane, Suite 303 Los Angeles, California 90067
9 Robert Schnell President Century Woods Condominium Association X X X X X 2100 Century Park West Los Angeles, California 90067
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-54 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
10 Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association c/o Gregory M. Pulis X X X X X X X 10331 Dunleer Drive Los Angeles, California 90064 11 Coalition of Homeowner Associations No address provided X X X X X X X X X X X X X
12 Marcia Selz, Ph.D., Founder Coalition of Homeowner Associations in Council District 5 X X X 302 North Parkwood Drive Los Angeles, California 90077
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-55 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
13 Jan Reichmann, President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association X X X X X 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
14 Jan Reichmann. President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association X 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-56 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
15 Jan Reichmann, President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association X 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
16 Daniel J. Fink, Co-President Roxbury Beverwil Homeowners Association X X X X X 9736 Saturn Street Los Angeles, California 90035
17 Terry A. Tegnazian, President Westwood Hills Property Owners Association X X X X [email protected]
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-57 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
18 Stan M. Barankiewicz II Orbach, Huff & Suarez, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars X X X X X X Los Angeles, California 90067
19 Rima Bronte No Address Provided X
20 Shannon Burns 2305 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064 X
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-58 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
21 Jean Bushnell 10348 Eastborne Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 X X X X
22 Hugh Cadden 2101 Selby Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025 X
23 Elanor Capuano 1459 Club View Drive Los Angeles, California 90024 X X X X X
24 A. J. Carothers 1379 Midvale Avenue, Ste 308 Los Angeles, California 90024 X X X X X
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-59 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
25 Norman Carter 8770 Crescent Drive Los Angeles, California 90046 X X
26 David Vincent Gagne [email protected] X
27 Julian Geller 2282 Century Hill Los Angeles, California 90067 X
28 Sandra L. Genis Sandra Genis, Planning Resources 1586 Myrtlewood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Costa Mesa, California 92626
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-60 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
29 Jeanne Grant 10569 Kinnard Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90024
30 Chris Hannan [email protected] X X
31 Ronald Kaplan 1729 Ensley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 X X X X X
32 Kristin Kopelson, MS, RN, NP 1681 Comstock Avenue X X X X Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-61 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
33 Bonnie Levine 1711 Ensley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 X
34 Joan and Steve Little 1527 Club View Drive Los Angeles, California 90024 X X
35 Annette Mercer 2647 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064 X X X X X X X X X X X X
36 Mary Lou Rane, Ph.D. 10332 Eastborne Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 X X X X X X
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-62 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
37 Linda Rosenthal [email protected] X
38 Vicki Schiller 10841 Wellworth Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 X X
39 Judy & Fred Schwartz [email protected] X X X
40 Diane Siegel Kinnard Avenue [email protected] X X X
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-63 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
41 Shannon Westmore 1505 S. Bentley Avenue Apartment 302 X Los Angeles, California 90025 42 Laura Winikow Board Member Comstock Hills Homeowners X X X X X Association [email protected] 43 Bill Papoutsis (Late) [email protected] X X X X
44 Caroline M. Spencer (Late) 10316 Wilkins Avenue X X X X X X X Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-64 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
45 Al Anton 2116 Veteran Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90025 46 Barbara Bray 2302 Camden Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90064 47 Elia Chamat 1300 Midvale Avenue #501 X Los Angeles, California 90024 48 Fiel Dignadice 6643 Cleon Avenue X Los Angeles, California 91606 49 Lois Fields 10580 Wilshire Boulevard X Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-65 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
50 Miriam Gutter 2327 Greenfield Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90064 51 Gedda Ilves 1906 Parnell Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90025 52 Frank Lane 1745 Selby Avenue #3 X Los Angeles, California 90024 53 Elliot Lewis 10829 Wellworth Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90024
54 Jill Lewis 2112 Century Park Lane Apt. 207 X Los Angeles, California 90067
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-66 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
55 Helen Lutey 1964 Thayer Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90025 56 Alvin Markus 2077 Kerwood Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90025 57 Tom Nguyen 7626 Willow Glen Road X Los Angeles, California 90046 58 Patricia Rogers 2317 Midvale Avenue X Los Angeles, California 90064
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-67 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
59 Barbara Broide President Westwood South of Santa Monica Boulevard Homeowners Association X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P.O. Box 64213 Los Angeles, California 90064 60 Charles Edelsohn P.E. 10334 Wilkins Avenue X X X X Los Angeles, California 90024 61 Alfred Ruess 1733 Ensley Avenue X X X Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-68 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
62 Erin Ganahl Angel Law 2601 Ocean Park Boulevard X X X X X Suite 205 Santa Monica, California 90405 63 David M. Orbach Orbach, Huff, & Suarez LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars X X X X X Suite 575 Los Angeles, California 90067 64 Dorothy and Gerald Gartman No address provided X X X
65 William M. Ryan 1448 Comstock Avenue X X X X X X X Los Angeles, California 90024
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-69 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table III-5 (Continued)
Response to Comments Matrix
UALITY
Q ATERIALS M
ONSIDERATIONS
ATER ATER C
W ESOURCES
R
ETTING
S
AZARDOUS OILS
IRCULATION S H URFACE ISUAL C ECREATION
UMMARY /S /V R S PPOSITION ESOURCES UPPORT . ESCRIPTION
S O R O UPPLY
D ROTECTION NVIRONMENTAL N SE S P E
ROTECTION U
UALITY P Q ATER OISE LTERNATIVES THER ENERAL ENERAL THER ESTHETICS IR ISTORIC EOLOGY AND AZARDS AND YDROLOGY IBRARIES RAFFIC AND ETTER SUMMARY OF WRITTEN XECUTIVE NVIRONMENTAL AND IRE OLICE CHOOLS ARKS AND ROJECT A W S O A G N P G P F L L T L E A H H H E O P COMMENTS G
66 Catherine Ibay 3234 Woodbine Street X Los Angeles, California 90064 67 Marilyn Tusher 2557 Midvale Avenue X X X X X X X Los Angeles, California 90064
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-70 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 1
Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 10th Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
COMMENT NO. 1-1 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on April 28, 2008, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 211 04(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
SCH# 2006061096 Project Title New Century Plan Lead Agency Los Angeles City Planning Department Type EIR Draft EIR
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-71 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Description Westfield, LLC (the Applicant) proposes the New Century Plan within the Century City community of the City of Los Angeles. The proposed project would create an integrated center within the community by providing a broad array of shopping and dining choices, entertainment opportunities, residential uses, outdoor spaces and amenities. The project would remove two existing office buildings that together comprise approximately 360,964 square feet and would replace it with approximately 358,881 square feet of net new shopping center space, 106,523 square feet of office uses, and approximately 262 multi-family residential apartment or condominium units.
Lead Agency Contact Name Jimmy C. Liao Agency Los Angeles City Planning Department Phone (213) 978-1331 Fax email Address 200 No. Spring Street, Suite 750 City Los Angeles State CA Zip 90012 Project Location County Los Angeles City Los Angeles, City of Region Cross Streets Santa Monica Boulevard between Avenue of the Stars and Century Park West Parcel No. 4319-003-064,061,063 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways I-405/I-10 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Commercial / C2-2-0; C2-1L-O; C2-1VL-O / Regional Commercial Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Other Issues; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Department Agencies of Parks and Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Department of Toxic Substances Control
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-72 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Date Received 03/13/2008 Start of Review 03/13/2008 End of Review 4/28/2008
RESPONSE NO. 1-1 This comment acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In particular, this comment acknowledges receipt of the Draft EIR by the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, and review of the Draft EIR by those State agencies with jurisdiction over the project, in accordance with CEQA. Attached to this letter is a letter from the State Native American Heritage Commission, which is presented as Comment Letter No. 2 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-73 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 2
Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, California 95814
COMMENT NO. 2-1 The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California’s Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a ‘significant effect’ requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations § 15064.5(b)(c [sic] (CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including …objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect.
RESPONSE NO. 2-1 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Section IV.C, Historic Resources, and Appendix C, Historic Resources Technical Report, of the Draft EIR, which address potential impacts to historic resources. In addition, please refer to Section V, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of potential impacts to archeological and paleontological resources. As indicated therein, with implementation of mitigation measures, no significant impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would occur.
COMMENT NO. 2-2 To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action:
9 Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS) for possible ‘recorded sites’ in locations where the development will or might occur. Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation (916/653-7278)/ http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov. The record search will determine: If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-74 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE.
the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
RESPONSE NO. 2-2 PCR conducted a cultural resources records search at the California Historical Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. A review of survey data collected and evaluated indicates that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been identified within the project site. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area, and the entire site has been subject to ground disruption and development over the years. Thus, surficial archaeological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. One historical archaeological site, CA-LAN-2479H, has been identified approximately one-half mile south of the project site. This site is the remains of early twentieth century Twentieth Century Fox installations identified during archaeological monitoring of construction on the current Twentieth Century Fox property. This site included remains to a depth of approximately 30 feet below the modern ground surface. While this find indicates the potential of the area to contain historical-period remains, this site represents the use-history of the Twentieth Century Fox lot and does not indicate a context in which similar resources are anticipated on the project site.
No prehistoric archaeological resources have been reported within a half-mile radius of the project site. In addition, construction of the new subterranean parking facility at 1930 Century Park West would utilize the same general below grade area that has already been graded for the existing parking facility located there. Similarly, the construction of the new subterranean parking at 1801 Avenue of the Stars would utilize the same general space already used for subterranean parking with some additional grading needed to provide a larger footprint at the lowest level. Thus, grading of areas that have not already been subject to grading with past development activities would be minimized. Furthermore, if unique archaeological resources were discovered, work in the area would cease and deposits would be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is determined that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented. As a result, project construction activities would not disturb, damage, or degrade potential unique archaeological resources or archaeological sites considered historic resources.
A detailed evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources is provided in Section IV.C, Historic Resources, of the Draft EIR. The analysis conservatively concludes that while clear
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-75 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
arguments against the eligibility of 1801 Avenue of the Stars for the California Register and as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument can be made, a conservative assessment may conclude that 1801 Avenue of the Stars is a potential historic resource as it was designed by the architectural firm of Welton Becket and Associates and is a representative example of an architectural type- specimen, a corporate Modern high-rise office building of the 1950s-1960s. The proposed project would remove the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building, which would result in a substantial adverse change to a potential historical resource based on the conservative assessment. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to this historic resource would be minimized but based on a conservative assessment would still be significant and unavoidable.
COMMENT NO. 2-3 9 If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic [sic] disclosure.
The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.
RESPONSE NO. 2-3 As the project site is fully developed, an archaeological inventory survey was not conducted. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 2-2, under the proposed project, grading of areas that have not already been subject to grading with past development activities would be minimized. Furthermore, if unique archaeological resources were discovered, work in the area would cease and deposits would be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is determined that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented.
COMMENT NO. 2-4 9 Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for: * A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request: USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle citation with name, township, range and section;
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-76 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact (APE) [sic]. In some cases, the existence of a Native American cultural resources may be known only to a local tribe(s).
RESPONSE NO. 2-4 A Sacred Lands File search was conducted as part of SB 18 consultation for the project. Results of the Sacred Lands File search indicated that no Native American cultural resources have been reported in the project vicinity. In addition, should such resources be discovered the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be followed.
COMMENT NO. 2-5 9 Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
A culturally-affiliated Native American tribe may be the only source of information about a Sacred Site/Native American cultural resource.
Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
RESPONSE NO. 2-5 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 2-2, with construction of the proposed project, grading of areas that have not already been subject to grading with past development activities would be minimized. In addition, if unique archaeological resources were discovered, work in the area would cease and deposits would be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Furthermore, if it is determined that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-77 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 2-6 9 Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. * CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens.
9 Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. 9 Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in §15370 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning and implementation.
Please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have any questions.
RESPONSE NO. 2-6 In the event of accidental discovery, procedures set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (d) would be followed. These procedures include that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
COMMENT NO. 2-7 Native American Contacts Los Angeles County April 1, 2008 LA City/County Native American Indian Comm Gabrielino/Tongva Council/ Gabrielino Tongva Nation Ron Andrade, Director Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 3175 West 6th Street, Rm. 403 761 Terminal Street; Bldg 1, 2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles ,CA 90020 Los Angeles, CA 90021 (213) 351-5324 office @tongvatribe.net (213) 386-3995 FAX (213) 489-5001 - Office (909) 262-9351 - cell (213) 489-5002 Fax
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-78 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Ti'At Society Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Cindi Alvitre Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Gabrielino 5450 Slauson, Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrielino Tongva Long Beach ,CA 90803 Culver City, CA 90230 [email protected] [email protected] (714) 504-2468 Cell 562-761-6417 - voice 562-925-7989 - fax
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Gabrielino Tongva [email protected] 310-570-6567
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel, CA 91778 [email protected] (626) 286-1632 (626) 286-1758 - Home (626) 286-1262 Fax
This list is current only as of the date of this document.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health & Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the proposed, SCH#2006061096; CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for New Century Plan; City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County, California.
RESPONSE NO. 2-7 The list referred to in this comment was used for consultation.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-79 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 3
Jacob Lieb Program Manager, Environmental Planning Division Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435
COMMENT NO. 3-1 Thank you for submitting the Notice of Completion and Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the New Century Plan - SCAG No. I20060417) to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372 (replacing A-95 Review). Additionally, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083(d) SCAG reviews Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15125(d) and 15206(a)(1). SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.
SCAG staff has reviewed this project and determined that the proposed project is regionally significant per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15125 and/or 15206. Upon completion, the proposed project would include approximately 358,881 square feet of net new shopping center space, a net increase of 104,440 square feet of commercial uses and approximately 262 multi-family residential apartment or condominium units.
RESPONSE NO. 3-1 This comment acknowledges receipt of the Draft EIR by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and provides an overview of the role of SCAG. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-80 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 3-2 The proposed project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to air quality and traffic thereby potentially generating significant amounts of traffic or interfering with the attainment or maintenance of state or national air quality standards.
RESPONSE NO. 3-2 The City concurs that the proposed project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to air quality. As stated on page 292 of the Draft EIR, peak daily emissions of construction and operation-related pollutants would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds. By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative impacts, in conjunction with related projects in the region, would occur. Therefore, the emissions of non-attainment pollutants and precursors generated by project construction and operation in excess of the SCAQMD project-level thresholds would also be cumulatively considerable. However, to determine whether these emissions would obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (i.e., interfere with the attainment or maintenance of state or national air quality standard) the Draft EIR followed the procedures established in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
As discussed on page 292 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. In turn, the AQMP relies upon growth projections adopted by the SCAG, which in turn, relies upon adopted General Plan growth projections. Consequently, compliance with the City’s General Plan typically results in compliance with the AQMP.
As discussed on page 288 of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the AQMP. The project would comply with all rules and regulations as implemented by the SCAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and would conform to the standards and guidelines of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Therefore, it was determined that the proposed project was consistent with the AQMP. Thus, given the project’s consistency with the AQMP, the project would not obstruct implementation of the AQMP (i.e., interfere with the attainment or maintenance of state or national air quality standards).
As stated on pages 623 and 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, project-related cumulative impacts on intersections, neighborhood street segments, freeway segments, and the regional transportation system have been analyzed. Further, as stated on page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, by comparing the future pre-project conditions to the future with project conditions, increases in system-wide traffic volumes in the project vicinity are anticipated. It is anticipated that the individual related projects would be required to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-81 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
extent feasible. However, as no such guarantee exists in order to ensure that every project implements the required mitigation measures, it has been conservatively concluded in the Draft EIR that cumulative development would yield a significant cumulative impact on operations.
COMMENT NO. 3-3 The Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and Compass Growth Vision (CGV) are applicable to your project. We have evaluated this project based on these plans. The RCPG, RTP and CGV policies can be found on the SCAG web site at: http://scag.ca.gov/igr/doc/IGR PoliciesFillinTable.doc.
The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. Please provide a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for our review. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Jennifer Brost Sarnecki at (213) 236-1829. Thank you.
RESPONSE NO. 3-3 An evaluation of the consistency of the project with relevant SCAG policies was completed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, the project would support the primary SCAG policies set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and would be substantially consistent with the goals and policies set forth in SCAG's 2004 Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Vision Report.
COMMENT NO. 3-4
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEW CENTURY PLAN SCAG NO. I20060417
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located within the Century City community of the City of Los Angeles. The proposed project would remove two existing office buildings comprised of 360,964 square feet and replace them with new residences, shopping uses, offices, and parking facilities. The proposed project would include approximately 358,881 square feet of net new shopping center space, a reduction in office uses, and approximately 262 multi-family residential units. Cumulatively considerable impacts have been identified for shading, air quality, construction noise and traffic. The proposed project would be designed and built to achieve at least the "certified" level of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, thereby reducing energy and water consumption thus reducing the associated greenhouse gas emissions.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-82 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 3-4 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 3-5
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should be addressed in the Final EIR.
Regional Growth Forecasts The DEIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts, which are the 2004 RTP (April 2004) Population, Household and Employment forecasts. The forecasts for your region, subregion, and city are as follows:
Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 19,208,661 20,191,117 21,137,519 22,035,416 22,890,797 Households 6,072,578 6,463,402 6,865,355 7,263,519 7,660,107 Employment 8,729,192 9,198,618 9,659,847 10,100,776 10,527,202
Adopted Los Angeles SubRegion Forecasts
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 4,176,079 4,237,887 4,298,891 4,357,359 4,413,425 Households 1,393,635 1,460,680 1,528,771 1,596,055 1,663,002 Employment 2,031,342 2,095,758 2,157,226 2,213,427 2,265,209
Adopted City of Los Angeles Forecasts 1
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 4,090,125 4,147,285 4,203,702 4,257,771 4,309,625 Households 1,372,873 1,438,731 1,505,615 1,571,712 1,637,475 Employment 1,994,358 2,057,435 2,117,623 2,172,642 2,223,338 1. The 2004 RTP growth forecast at the regional, county and subregIonal level was adopted by RC In April, 2004. City totals are the sum of small area data and should be used for advisory purposes only.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-83 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The Draft 2008 RTP Baseline Growth Forecast (built upon subregion/local jurisdiction input) will be released on November 1, 2007 by the Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD) along with the Draft 2008 RTP and RCPG for public review and comment. You may wish to review these forecasts to determine compatibility with the any [sic] Project Forecasts. The following 2035 forecasts are provided for your reference. The forecasts for the intervening years (2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030) will be included in the 2008 RTP Baseline Growth Forecast.
1 2035 Forecasts Population Households Employees City of Los Angeles 4,415,773 1,616,578 1,994,134 Los Angeles Sub-Region 4,509,435 1,638,823 2,037,472 SCAG Region 24,056,000 7,710,000 10,287,000 1. Source: Draft 2008 RTP Baseline Growth Forecast (http://scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/RTP_baseline_forecasts_1001.xls)
RESPONSE NO. 3-5 As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, of the Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the proposed residential units and residential population generated by the project would be well within the established forecasts for the West Los Angeles Community Plan area. As impacts regarding population, housing, and employment were found to be less than significant in the Initial Study, further analysis of these issues in the Draft EIR was not necessary.
Looking at the forecasts provided by SCAG, the population of the SCAG region is projected to increase by approximately 3,682,136 individuals between 2010 and 2030, while the population of the Los Angeles subregion and the City of Los Angeles are projected to increase by 237,346 and 219,500 individuals, respectively, during this same time period. Based on the 2005 West Los Angeles Community Plan household population data of 2.11 persons per unit, development of the proposed project's 262 residential units would generate approximately 553 residents. The increase of 553 permanent residents would represent approximately 0.02 percent of the anticipated growth within the SCAG region, 0.23 percent within the subregional area, and 0.25 percent of the anticipated growth within the City of Los Angeles. Thus, the residents of the project would be accounted for and could easily be absorbed within all three regions. Therefore, as discussed in the Initial Study, impacts related to population growth would be less than significant.
According to SCAG, the number of households in the SCAG region is projected to increase by approximately 1,587,529 between 2010 and 2030, while the number of households in the Los Angeles subregion and the City of Los Angeles are expected to increase by 269,367 and 264,602, respectively, during this same time period. The 262 residential units proposed by the project would represent approximately 0.02 percent of the anticipated housing growth in the SCAG region, 0.10 percent of the housing growth in the Los Angeles subregion, and 0.10 percent of the housing growth in the City of Los Angeles. Additionally, as stated in many adopted regional and local
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-84 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. While the project would not eliminate the housing shortage in the City, it would promote the goal of generating more housing. Thus, as discussed in the Initial Study, project impacts on housing would be less than significant.
According to SCAG, the number of employment positions in the SCAG region is projected to increase by approximately 1,798,010 between 2010 and 2030, while the number of employment positions in the Los Angeles subregion and the City of Los Angeles are expected to increase by 233,867 and 228,980, respectively, during this same time period. The project would result in a net increase of 358,881 square feet of commercial uses associated with the Westfield Century City Shopping Center, which would generate approximately 520 additional employment positions. These 520 employment positions would represent approximately 0.03 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the SCAG region, 0.22 percent of the employment growth in the Los Angeles subregion, and 0.23 percent of the employment growth in the City of Los Angeles. As these employment positions would be accounted for and could easily be absorbed within all three regions, impacts related to employment would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 3-6 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.
SCAG Staff Comments: Table 27 (Consistency with SCAG Policies) contains a comparison of this project to the RCPG Policies. SCAG staff commends the City's consistency analysis provided in Table 27 of the DEIR. As discussed on page 432, the 262 residential units, the estimated associated residential population of 553 residents as well as the forecasted employment would be consistent the forecasted growth in the West Los Angeles Community Plan. The DEIR states that the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG's forecasts. SCAG staff agrees with this consistency finding.
3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies.
SCAG Staff Comments: As stated on page 432, the project site will be served by existing infrastructure and transportation systems. A Metropolitan Transportation Authority transit area is located to the south of the project site at Constellation Boulevard, just east of Century Park West. The DEIR included a trip reduction factor of 15 percent to account for the project's proximity to this transit center. The
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-85 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
information cited from the 2004 Los Angeles County CMP could be used by SCAG to analyze the region's growth policies. SCAG staff agrees with the City's consistency finding for the proposed project.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING
The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.
3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.
SCAG Staff Comments: The proposed project is located in a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise office buildings, hotels, entertainment and residential uses. The proposed project would create an integrated center with a variety of amenities. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 3.04. As stated in Table 27, the proposed project would be served by existing infrastructure, minimizing costs. In addition, the project would maintain and expand retail, property, and other City tax revenues needed to support improvements. Therefore, the DEIR concludes that the proposed project is consistent with Policies 3.05 and 3.09. SCAG staff agrees with this conclusion.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE
The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-86 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job-rich subregions and job growth in housing-rich subregions. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the # of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit- oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns, which contain a range of urban densities. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.
SCAG Staff Comments: The DEIR states that the project would result in the redevelopment of a site located in an urbanized area, compatible with existing and future land uses. The project does not contain, nor is adjacent to vital resources and is not subject to high fire or flood hazards. The development is located in an activity center near a major transit facility. The DEIR correctly discloses that the proposed project is only partially consistent with Policy 3.21 due to the finding that the building located at 1801 Avenue of the Stars could be considered potentially eligible for the California Register as well as the City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument designation. Nonetheless, Table 27 describes the consistency determination in regard to the remaining policies intended to improve the quality of life. SCAG staff agrees with this determination.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-87 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL EQUITY The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promote the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policies stated below is intended to guide in the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers.
3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
SCAG Staff Comments: As discussed in the DEIR, the proposed project would not provide affordable housing units. Therefore, SCAG staff finds the proposed project to be inconsistent with Policy 3.24. The DEIR states that the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.27 since the project would improve the community's tax base allowing for greater provisions of public services. SCAG staff generally agrees with this finding.
RESPONSE NO. 3-6 This comment supports the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project is largely consistent with the Growth Management Chapter of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. As stated in many adopted regional and local planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. Thus, while the project would not provide affordable housing units, it would increase the housing supply with a variety of unit types, thereby promoting the goal of generating more housing in the City. In addition, SCAG’s Growth Management Goals are directed at local jurisdictions, not individual private developments. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, and not the New Century Plan, to “[p]rovide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels." The New Century Plan does not preclude the City of Los Angeles’s attainment of this goal, and in fact furthers this goal by providing housing for the Century City community.
The employment center of Century City, in which the project is located, contains multiple high rise office buildings occupied by professionals and white collar workers at higher income
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-88 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
levels. These employees include those who could afford to become future occupants of the project's residential component. In addition, the proposed project is in keeping with the quality of nearby residential uses. The condominiums located in Century City and the new related tower under construction, adjacent to the Century Plaza Hotel, are higher end units. The single-family homes in the adjacent communities are also higher end. These are occupied by professionals and affluent families, many of whom work in Century City. The residential units in the proposed project are expected to be occupied by a similar demographic. The project also hopes to attract some of the existing local residents who currently live in single-family homes but are interested in moving into high quality multifamily living on the West Side of Los Angeles.
The proposed housing is consistent with needs identified by this comment and by the City of Los Angeles for additional housing. The City has published its draft Housing Element (revised May 29, 2008), which identifies its Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation as 112,876 housing units for 2006-2014. The Housing Element Update targets 85,629 of these units for above moderate income levels, which is 76 percent of the City's total new construction goal.5 This project supplies 262 of those 85,629 units, which is certainly not in excess of the potential needs. In prior years, the City only met 84 percent of its estimated new housing construction need (as determined by the City's RHNA allocation) from 1998-2005; during this time, building permits were issued for 50,548 housing units.6
The location of the proposed housing is also consistent with City polices. The City's goals include "the construction of affordable and market rate housing units . . ".7 The Framework Element "encourages sustainable growth in higher-intensity commercial and mixed- used districts, centers and boulevards, and in proximity to transit centers. . . The goals and policies of the Framework Element establish a balanced approach to growth by linking it to the land uses and infrastructure that will support the type of infill development that incurs the least economic, environmental, and social costs. The Housing Element fulfills this strategy, as reflected in the overall housing goal established in Chapter 7, 'It is the overall housing goal of the City of Los Angeles to create for all residents a city of livable and sustainable neighborhoods with a range of housing types, sizes, and costs in proximity to jobs, amenities and services . . '".8 Though the Draft EIR is conservative as to the traffic impact of both the residential and office components of the project, locating housing in proximity to services and
5 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, p. 13 and 6-2. 6 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, p. 5-1. 7 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, p. 4. 8 Ibid.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-89 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
employment can reduce traffic. “Providing neighborhood services and a mix of uses within walking distance of transit creates the opportunity for ...non-work trips to occur without a car.".9
COMMENT NO. 3-7
AIR QUALITY CHAPTER The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project include:
5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community-based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulation can be assessed. 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional, and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts
SCAG Staff Comments: As stated in Chapter IV.B, Air Quality, maximum regional emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for VOC, CO and NOx during periods of heavy use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Therefore, regional construction emissions resulting from the project would result in a significant short-term impact. In addition, regional weekend emissions resulting from operation of the project are expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and VOC (page 278). As summarized in Table 16 on page 282, concurrent construction and operational emissions of CO, NOx, and VOC would be considered significant, since the levels of these emissions would exceed their respective SCAQMD construction and operational regional significance thresholds. Although concurrent construction and operational activities would occur for a short duration, these emissions would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Nonetheless, with implementation of the Project Design Features listed on pages 264 through 267, air pollution emissions would be reduced in a way that provides options to command and control regulations. Also, these project features, such as green building standards, would provide multiple benefits to air quality, transportation, and the economy. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the RCPG Air Quality Chapter core goals.
9 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, 4-5.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-90 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 3-7 This comment summarizes the conclusion of Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR and supports the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project is consistent with the primary SCAG policies regarding air quality set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 3-8
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION CHAPTER The Open Space and Conservation Chapter goals related to the proposed project include:
9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region. 9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. 9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. 9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection to lives and properties against natural and manmade hazards. 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipments. 9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands.
SCAG Staff Comments: As stated on page 438, the proposed project would provide common recreational facilities and open space areas. The project is not located in or near a potentially hazardous area such as a hillside or canyon. Furthermore, the project does not contain vital environmental resources. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Chapter goals.
RESPONSE NO. 3-8 This comment supports the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project is consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Chapter of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-91 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 3-9
WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS The Water Quality Chapter goals related to the proposed project include:
11.02 Encourage "watershed management" programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role of local governments in such efforts. 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed.
SCAG Staff Comments: The proposed project would try to obtain the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification thereby reducing dependence on imported water. A Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan would be developed as part of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirement to reduce on-site erosion, encouraging watershed management strategies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies 11.02 and 11.07.
RESPONSE NO. 3-9 This comment supports the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project is consistent with the primary SCAG policies set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide related to water quality. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 3-10
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies that are pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following:
Regional Transportation Plan Goals: RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-92 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments.
SCAG Staff Comments: As stated in Table 27, the proposed project would be located in an area with existing public transit service and would support alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking. The project would also support growth anticipated in the SCAG forecasts and reduce residents' long commutes that can adversely impact transportation performance indicators. As such, SCAG staff agrees with the consistency finding with the 2004 RTP goals.
RESPONSE NO. 3-10 This comment supports the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies in SCAG's 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 3-11
GROWTH VISIONING The proposed project is located within a Compass 2% Strategy Area. The Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy is a guideline for how and where we can implement the Growth Vision for Southern California's future. It calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation trends on only 2% of the land area of the region - the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas. Investing our planning efforts and resources according to the 2% Strategy will yield the greatest progress toward improving measures of mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability for local neighborhoods and their residents.
Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents. GVP1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. GVP1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. GVP1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development. GVP1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices
Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities. GVP2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-93 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
GVP2.2 Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. GVP2.3 Promote "people scaled," walkable communities. GVP2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods.
Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people. GVP3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. GVP3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. GVP3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. GVP3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth GVP3.5 Encourage civic engagement.
Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations. GVP4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas. GVP4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. GVP4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. GVP4.4 Utilize "green" development techniques
SCAG Staff Comments: As stated on pages 439 through 440, the proposed project would provide infill development within an existing urban area. The project would provide a mix of uses by developing 262 housing units in a job-rich area. The enhanced pedestrian corridors would promote people- scaled communities and LEED certification would promote sustainability. Principle 3 was not discussed in Table 27. The proposed project would not include affordable units, thereby neglecting to provide a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels, as recommended under Principle 3. Although the proposed project would provide mixed-use infill development within an activity center, due to the lack of affordable housing, the proposed project would only be partially consistent with SCAG's Compass Growth Vision Principles.
RESPONSE NO. 3-11 SCAG’s Compass Growth Vision Principles are directed at local jurisdictions, not individual private developments. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, and not the New Century Plan, to “[p]rovide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels.” Since the New Century Plan does not preclude the City of Los Angeles’s attainment of this goal, and in fact furthers this goal by providing housing for the Century City community, the project is consistent with Principle 3 of the Compass Growth Vision Principles.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-94 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 3-12 In addition to the principles listed above, SCAG suggests a review of the Draft 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which sets a path forward for a more sustainable southern California. The Draft RCP was released for public review and comment on December 6, 2007. The review period is tentatively scheduled to extend until the fall of 2008. The Draft RCP is available online at http://scag.ca.gov/rcp/. SCAG welcomes your comments and recommendations.
RESPONSE NO. 3-12 The Draft 2008 RCP has been reviewed. The project would support the goal of the Draft RCP for a more sustainable California. Refer to Section II, Project Description, Section IV.B, Air Quality, and Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR and Section II, Corrections and Additions, to this Final EIR for the numerous sustainability features that would be incorporated into the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 3-13
CONCLUSION SCAG staff has determined that the proposed project would be inconsistent with Policy 3.24 and only partially consistent with SCAG's Compass Growth Vision Principles due to the lack of affordable housing units.
All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA.
RESPONSE NO. 3-13 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 3-6 and 3-11. To ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and is included in Section IV of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-95 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 4
Susan F. Chapman Program Manager, Long Range Planning Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012-2952
COMMENT NO. 4-1 The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the New Century Plan project. This letter conveys recommendations from Metro concerning a number of issues in relation to the proposed project:
Metro is commencing an Alternatives Analysis for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor which will evaluate possible extension of the Metro Red/Purple Line Subway and other transit options. The FEIR should include acknowledgement that the project is within the study area of this Alternatives Analysis and that a future station is being considered to serve the project area.
RESPONSE NO. 4-1 The comments regarding the commencement of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study and its proximity to the New Century Plan Project is noted and will be incorporated as part of the Final EIR. As the study corridor extends from the existing Metro Rail Hollywood/Highland and the Wilshire/Western stations to the Pacific Ocean and the northern boundary follows the base of the Santa Monica Mountains along Hollywood, Sunset and San Vicente Boulevards, and the southern boundary follows Pico Boulevard, the New Century Plan project site is situated directly within the area envisioned to be served via alignment options currently under consideration.
The Draft EIR acknowledges the potential construction of the Metro Westside Extension Transit Corridor. Specifically, as stated in Section II on page 127 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, the Project has reserved areas within the 1801 Avenue of the Stars portion of the site to provide for vertical circulation (e.g., elevators and escalators) and a street-level portal/ticketing area connecting to a future Metro subway station in order to enhance connections to existing and proposed mass-transit systems. In addition, a knock-out panel(s) has been planned within the tower’s parking garage foundation near the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars to provide access to the future Metro subway station. This subway portal location would allow direct access to both the street level and to the Century City Specific Plan Pedestrian Corridor (located within the Westfield Century City Shopping Center). This dual connection would help to activate and reinforce pedestrian connections to cafes, eateries, and retail programming and would enhance and encourage non-vehicular transportation within the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-96 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
district. Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for additional discussion of the Project’s TDM Plan.
The completion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study is anticipated in Summer 2008, with recommendations to the Metro Board of Directors anticipated in Fall 2008.
COMMENT NO. 4-2 Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator should be contacted at 213-922-4632 regarding construction activities that may impact Metro bus lines. Other Municipal Bus Service Operators including Santa Monica and Antelope Valley may also be impacted and therefore should be included in construction outreach efforts.
RESPONSE NO. 4-2 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of the construction analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Specifically, Section IV.J.5.a, page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, identifies mitigation measures that are recommended to ensure that project impacts during construction remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure J-1 indicates that prior to the start of construction, the Applicant shall devise a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction of the proposed project. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall identify all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project. The Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator as well as any other affected municipal bus service operators will be contacted, as noted in the comment, regarding any construction activities that may impact existing bus lines.
COMMENT NO. 4-3 The existing bus layover, located on the southeast corner of Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard, was not designed to be used as a "transit plaza". There is no safe pedestrian access from either side of the bus layover. Buses, as they operate today, back out of layover stalls, hence causing site and safety issues for pedestrians. Also, more than one line serves the study area, and it would be difficult with the volume of buses passing through the layover facility to assign 'bus bays' to specific bus lines. Section (e) Transit Plaza, Page 555 of the New Century Plan DEIR should be rewritten to recommend improvements to existing bus stops located on Constellation Boulevard, creating a transit mall typesetting with improved passenger amenities along the north and south side of the sidewalk. All reference to a "transit plaza" in the existing bus layover area should be removed.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-97 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Metro looks forward to reviewing the Final EIR and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 213-922-6908 or by email [email protected]. The Final EIR should be sent to: Metro CEQA Review Coordination One Gateway Plaza MS 99-23-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Attn: Susan Chapman
RESPONSE NO. 4-3 As summarized in Section 6.5, beginning on page 43 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, with construction of the MGM Tower building (formerly referred to as the Constellation Place project), a Metro transit area for bus layover operations was designed and constructed at the southeast corner of the Century Park West/Constellation Boulevard intersection. The Metro transit area is situated directly across from the New Century Plan project site. The transit area was designed specifically to accommodate the layover of Metro buses, as well as other operators. The transit area provides a total of six bus layover positions. Access to the transit area is provided via an inbound only driveway along the east side of Century Park West, south of Constellation Boulevard (i.e., access via northbound right-turns only). Egress from the transit area is provided via an exit only driveway on Constellation Boulevard (i.e., egress via northbound right- turns only). In addition, another three overflow layover transit positions are provided along the east- west segment of MGM Drive between Century Park West and the north-south segment of MGM Drive. Active bus stops are also provided along both the north and south sides of Constellation Boulevard, which borders the project site to the south, as well as other roadways surrounding the site (particularly along the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage). Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian phasing (i.e., pedestrian walk/don’t walk indicators as well as pedestrian push buttons) are provided across the east leg of the Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard intersection.
While page 555, Section IV.J of Volume I of the Draft EIR, and page 43 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR refer to the bus layover area located at the southeast corner of Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard as a “transit area”, page 43 clearly notes that this area was designed to specifically accommodate the layover of Metro buses as well as other operators, and that a total of six bus bay layover positions are provided. While the term “plaza” was not intended to infer that bus passenger boardings and alightings occur today or could be accommodated given the current design of this area, all references have been revised as part of the Final EIR.
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) includes the definition of a Transit Center as a fixed facility that consolidates and supports passenger loading, including passenger rail stations and major bus transfer centers. Major bus transfer centers are defined as serving at least eight bus lines, including fixed route shuttles and providing a sheltered waiting area,
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-98 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
signage with a listing of bus routes to the center, and bus bays restricted to bus use. The CMP also includes the definition of a Transit Corridor as a series of transit nodes where frequent transit activity occurs. A transit node is defined as the intersection of two bus lines or fixed route shuttles, each with evening peak hour headways of ten minutes or less. Within the project study area, the CMP identifies the Avenue of the Stars/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection as a Transit Corridor Intersection. The Century Park East/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection is also identified as a Transit Corridor Intersection in the CMP.
As shown in Table 6-1, pages 38 through 41 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, over 25 bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the project site, with 12 of these transit lines and routes directly serving the site along one or more of the project frontages. A total of seven different public bus transit service providers operate in the immediate vicinity of the project site. For these reasons, it was determined that the CMP transit reduction adjustment of 15 percent was appropriate to incorporate into the project’s trip generation analysis. This reflects similar approaches and trends as those for commercial developments around transit centers and residential mixed-use developments around transit centers. Based on discussions with LADOT and review of the significant number of transit providers, transit routes, transit headways, as well as the integration of the Rapid Bus along the nearly completed Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway, this adjustment was incorporated into the project trip generation forecasts. Refer also to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for a discussion of the comparative analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR which shows that the actual combined shopping center driveway traffic counts are significantly lower than the existing shopping center trip generation forecast for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours and the weekend peak hour, even applying both a pass-by and transit reduction to the trip generation forecast. Thus, the project’s forecast trip generation, utilizing the ITE/WLATIMP trip generation rates, is a very conservative estimate of the project’s actual trip generation. The trip generation rates and forecast was reviewed and accepted by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.
Further, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has submitted a comment letter (dated April 28, 2008) regarding the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project. SCAG staff has reviewed the project and determined that it is located in an area with existing public transit service and would support alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking. The project was also determined to support growth anticipated in the SCAG forecasts and reduce residents’ long commutes that can adversely impact transportation performance indicators. Therefore, SCAG staff agrees with the consistency finding with the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
Refer also to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for a detailed discussion of the project’s TDM Plan. The specific comments regarding the recommendation to improve existing bus stops located on Constellation Boulevard to create a transit mall type setting and improve passenger amenities are noted and will be considered as part of the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-99 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Project’s TDM Plan. The TDM Plan will identify opportunities to reduce parking demand and vehicle dependency, as well as to promote alternative travel modes, including bus transit. Pages 123 through 126 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR contain a menu of potential TDM measures intended both for project site employees as well as other employees and residents of Century City. The comments regarding these recommendations will also be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-100 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 5
Edward Guerrero Jr. Transportation Engineer City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation 7166 West Manchester Avenue Los Angeles, California 90045
COMMENT NO. 5-1 The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed Chapter IV.J and Appendix G of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed New Century Plan expansion project of the existing Westfield Shopping Center located at 10250 West Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project consists in the removal of the two office buildings at (a) 1801 Ave of the Stars and (b) 1930 Century Park West, and the addition of new retail, office, and residential areas that will be incorporated into the existing shopping center. Therefore, the proposed project will result in the net reduction of 289,460 square feet of office space, and the net addition of 358,881 square feet of retail space plus 262 new residential dwelling units. Construction of the proposed project would be implemented through five phases (Phases A through E), and is anticipated to be completed and occupied by the year 2012.
In reviewing the DEIR and the assumptions made in the preparation of the traffic impact analysis, LADOT noted some errors that should be corrected. These corrections do not change the overall result of the proposed project, nonetheless, LADOT offers the following comments:
RESPONSE NO. 5-1 The comments noted in the April 23, 2008, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) letter are introductory in nature and the following responses have been prepared to fully address the Department’s specific comments.
COMMENT NO. 5-2
CHAPTER IV.J COMMENTS 1. On page IV.J-553, Figure IV.J-59, for the POST-SANTA MONICA TRANSIT PARKWAY LANE CONFIGURATIONS, the lane configuration of the two study intersections below need to be revised as followed: a. Santa Monica Boulevard / Century Park East: the northbound lane configuration is wrongly shown as 1 left-turn lane, 1 left-thru lane and 1 right-turn lane. The correct lane configuration should be 2 left-turn lanes plus 2 right-turn lanes.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-101 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 5-2 LADOT is correct in noting that Figure 59 on page 553 of Volume I of the Draft EIR contains an inadvertent error in the illustrated northbound lane configuration for the Century Park East/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (i.e., Intersection No. 44). The correct lane configuration is two northbound left-turn lanes and two northbound right-turn only lanes. The lane configurations for the subject intersection were displayed in Figure 5-2 of Appendix G of the Draft EIR. This figure has been revised and is included in Appendix A1 (refer to Appendix Figure A1) of the Final EIR. It is important to note that all intersection calculation worksheets contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis did reflect the correct lane configurations. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR conclusions result from this revision to the graphic.
COMMENT NO. 5-3 b. Santa Monica Boulevard / Westfield Mall Driveway: the westbound lane configuration is wrongly shown as 2 left-turn lanes, 2 thru lanes and 1 thru-right lane. The correct lane configuration should be 2 left-turn lanes plus 3 thru lanes.
RESPONSE NO. 5-3 LADOT is correct in noting that Figure 59 on page 553 of Volume I of the Draft EIR contains an inadvertent error in the illustrated westbound lane configuration for the Westfield Mall Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (Intersection No. 34). The correct lane configuration for the westbound approach is two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. The lane configurations for the subject intersection were displayed in Figure 5-2 of Appendix G of the Draft EIR. This figure has been revised and is included in Appendix A1 (refer to Appendix Figure A1) of the Final EIR. It is important to note that all intersection calculation worksheets contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis did reflect the correct lane configuration. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR conclusions result from this revision to the graphic.
COMMENT NO. 5-4 2. On page IV.J-575, paragraph 3, the text wrongly notes that ‘...the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,992 daily trips ends during a typical weekday...’ This is a typing error, and should be corrected to state that there is a net increase of 5,922 daily trips ends.
RESPONSE NO. 5-4 LADOT is correct in noting the typographical error contained on page 575 of Volume I of the Draft EIR (i.e., a net increase of 5,992 daily trips ends is shown on page 575 and the correct total is 5,922 daily trip ends). The correction is noted in the Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. In addition, the correct weekday net new daily project trip generation forecast of 5,922 vehicles (2,961 inbound and 2,961 outbound trips) is noted in Table 8-1 of the traffic impact study, page 63 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-102 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 5-5
APPENDIX G COMMENTS 3. In Figure 5-2 (Comparison of Santa Monica Transit Parkway - Lane Configurations) of the Traffic Impact Study Main Report, incorporate the changes noted in comment no. 1 for the two study intersections of (a) Santa Monica Boulevard / Century Park East and (b) Santa Monica Boulevard / Westfield Mall Driveway.
RESPONSE NO. 5-5 Refer to Response to Comment No. 5-2 for clarification of the illustrated lane configurations for the northbound approach of the Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East intersection (i.e., Intersection No. 44). The graphical illustration of the lane configurations has been revised and is included in Appendix A1 (refer to Appendix Figure A1) of the Final EIR. It is important to note that all intersection calculation worksheets contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis did reflect the correct lane configuration. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR conclusions result from this revision to the graphic.
Refer to Response to Comment No. 5-3 for clarification of the illustrated lane configurations for the westbound approach of the Westfield Mall Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (Intersection No. 34). The graphical illustration of the lane configurations has been revised and is included in Appendix A1 (refer to Appendix Figure A1) of the Final EIR. It is important to note that all intersection calculation worksheets contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis did reflect the correct lane configuration. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR conclusions result from this revision of the graphic.
COMMENT NO. 5-6 4. For the study intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard / Westfield Mall Driveway (study intersection no. 34), the eastbound thru traffic volume for the weekend peak hour is incorrectly shown as 1,339 vph in Figure 7-4 and in the various corresponding CMA worksheets throughout the report. This figure, and the various corresponding CMA worksheets, should be revised to show the correct volume as 1,399 vph.
RESPONSE NO. 5-6 The traffic volume shown on Figure 7-4 shown on the page preceding page 60 within Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR for the eastbound through traffic movement at the Westfield Mall Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (Intersection No. 34), is correct. It appears that LADOT inadvertently misread the eastbound through traffic volume (for the weekend condition) at the Westholme Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (Intersection No. 21) for the Westfield Mall Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (Intersection No. 34). The shown eastbound through volume at Intersection No. 34 is correctly shown as 1,339 vehicles. It is
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-103 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments important to note that all intersection calculation worksheets contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis did reflect the correct traffic volume. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR conclusions result.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-104 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 6
Larry Sakurai Principal Planner City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210
COMMENT NO. 6-1 Thank you for providing the City of Beverly Hills with a copy of the Notice of Completion for the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the New Century Plan (hereafter the "Project"). Given the project site's close proximity to the western border of the City of Beverly Hills (the "City") offers the following comments and requests to be kept on the project's Interested Parties list and to receive copies of all notices issued regarding this. Further, the City requests a copy of any notice of determination that may be filed with respect to the Project, pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21197 (t).
RESPONSE NO. 6-1 The commentor will be placed on the list to receive all notices regarding the EIR and future hearings. In addition, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations regarding the notice of determination.
COMMENT NO. 6-2
Hydrology and Surface Water Quality: The DEIR does not provide information on sewer/storm drain infrastructure construction/tie-in [sic] Therefore, at this time the City is unable to determine the impacts (if any) on City of Beverly Hills sewer and storm drain systems. The City of Beverly Hills' 1997 Sewer Master Plan identifies capacities at areas adjacent to other jurisdictions that may be impacted and may need to be revisited if current capacities are increased.
RESPONSE NO. 6-2 The City of Los Angeles public sewer conveyance system serving the project site does not join, add, or interrupt the sewer conveyance system of the City of Beverly Hills. The project site is serviced by sewers bounded on all four sides of the site. Specifically, the sewer main line on Santa Monica Boulevard begins service at the most southwesterly boundary of the proposed residential tower approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard and continues east towards Century Park East, where it then heads south. There are two sewer lines on Avenue of the Stars located approximately 700 feet and 800 feet south of the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-105 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
intersection of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard, where they join the main feeder line on Santa Monica Blvd. The sewer line on Century Park West begins roughly 700 feet north of the intersection of Constellation Boulevard and Century Park West where it turns on to Constellation Boulevard and heads east to join the main sewer line at Century Park East. At Century Park East, the sewer conveyance that services the project site is joined and heads south within the City of Los Angeles just west of the City of Beverly Hills boundary where it continues to Pico Boulevard and then turns and heads west away from the City of Beverly Hills. Therefore, the sewer conveyance system that would serve the proposed project would have no impact on the sewer capacity of the City of Beverly Hills.
The on-site storm drain system serving the proposed project does not join or add any additional discharge to the storm drain system of the City of Beverly Hills. The system drains south southwest via three reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) lines on Avenue of the Stars, Constellation Boulevard, and Century Park West as the main joining line.
The storm drain system serving the project flows south in a 30 inch RCP at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars heading south towards Olympic Boulevard within Avenue of the Stars. This line junctions with a 42 inch RCP. At Constellation Boulevard, the storm drain line curves southwest and expands to a 48 inch RCP then to a 51 inch RCP and heads towards Century Park West where it makes another curve and is expanded to a 42 inch RCP and joined by a 27 inch RCP that begins just south of the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Century Park West. The storm drain conveyance system eventually joins the Olympic Blvd line to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the storm drain system that would serve the proposed project would have no impact on the storm drain capacity of the City of Beverly Hills.
COMMENT NO. 6-3
Public Services: The City's parks, recreation services, and library facilities are in close proximity to the proposed 262 residential units, 360,000 square feet of retail space and 106,000 square feet of new office space. The DEIR should address the potential additional need generated for these services which, due to the project's close location to the City of Beverly Hills, may very well be more conveniently met by the City of Beverly Hills rather than the City of Los Angeles. The DEIR must disclose all such potential impacts on the City's public services, and provide all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project's impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 6-3 Section IV.I.5, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, provides information regarding all parks and recreational facilities located within three miles of the project site, including those facilities located within the City of Beverly Hills. A detailed analysis provided in Section IV.I.5 of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-106 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the Draft EIR found that impacts of the proposed project on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant with mitigation. Given the fact that the proposed project would include the development of a 46,000-square foot (1.05 acre) rooftop terrace located above the new retail at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, essentially providing its residents with a "neighborhood park", and that a majority of the parks and recreational facilities within the surrounding area are located in the City of Los Angeles, any impacts on parks and recreational services in the City of Beverly Hills would be less than significant.
Similarly, Section IV.I.4, Libraries, of the Draft EIR identifies the City of Beverly Hills Public Library as another library that could potentially serve project residents and states that, under the Metropolitan Cooperative Library System (MCLS), the City of Beverly Hills Public Library accepts library cards from Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) cardholders. In addition, the LAPL also accepts library cards from City of Beverly Hills Public Library cardholders. Section IV.I.4 of the Draft EIR also states that, with the range and depth of City of Los Angeles and UCLA library resources within a short distance from the project site, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the City of Beverly Hills Public Library.
COMMENT NO. 6-4
Traffic and Circulation: • The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must include an assessment of the following City of Beverly Hills and City of Beverly Hills-adjacent intersections that are located near the project site and that have a high potential to be adversely impacted by the Project during operation and potentially during construction as well: 1. Moreno Drive/South Santa Monica Boulevard 2. Moreno Drive/North Santa Monica Boulevard 3. Whittier Drive/Merv Griffin Way 4. Santa Monica Boulevard and Doheny Drive
RESPONSE NO. 6-4 Refer to Topical Response No. 2 for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area. The traffic analysis study area, as shown on Figure 60, page 560 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, included 55 intersections and eight street segments. These study locations provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for the traffic impact study. Of the 55 study intersection locations, a total of eight intersections located within the Beverly Hills city limits were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Study Intersection Nos. 48 through 55). The boundaries were defined by the limits of expected impacts on traffic from the project at the study intersections.
Based upon the City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles intersection impact threshold criteria, further analysis would not be necessary as review of traffic impacts at other
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-107 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
intersections closest to these locations were not deemed to be significantly impacted by the proposed project (e.g., Intersection No. 44, Century Park East/Santa Monica Boulevard; Intersection No. 49, Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard North; Intersection No. 50, Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard South; Intersection No. 51, Beverly Drive/Santa Monica Boulevard North; and Intersection No. 52, Beverly Drive/Santa Monica Boulevard South). In addition, as stated on page 94 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, the intersections located within the City of Beverly Hills were analyzed based on both the City of Los Angeles’ significant impact criteria and City of Beverly Hills’ significant impact criteria. According to the City of Beverly Hills’ Sliding Scale Method for calculating the level of impact due to traffic generated by the proposed project, a significant transportation impact is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in the following table.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Final v/c Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c > 0.800 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.040 >0.900 E or F equal to or greater than 0.020
The sliding scale method requires mitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed development causes an increase of the analyzed intersection v/c ratio by an amount equal to or greater than the values shown above. The City of Los Angeles’ impact criteria is significantly more strict as indicated in the table below, which indicates the significance thresholds are twice as stringent as the City of Beverly Hills’ thresholds.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Final v/c Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c > 0.700 - 0.800 C equal to or greater than 0.040 > 0.800 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.020 >0.900 E or F equal to or greater than 0.010
While the traffic analysis study area was determined to be adequate by the Lead Agency and specific requests for analysis locations were not received as part of the Draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, the four locations requested for analysis by the City of Beverly Hills have been included as part of the Final EIR. It should be noted that three of the four intersections requested for analysis by the City of Beverly Hills were not required for analysis by the City of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-108 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Beverly Hills for the Beverly Hilton Revitalization Plan and the 9900 Wilshire projects, even though these two projects are located immediately adjacent to and/or in closer proximity than the New Century Plan project to these intersections. Refer to Appendix A2 (see Appendix Tables A2-A and A2-B) of the Final EIR for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour and weekend mid-day peak hour traffic counts and corresponding traffic analyses. As indicated in Appendix A2 (see Appendix Tables A2-A and A2-B) of the Final EIR, no significant impacts are expected at any of the four locations employing either the more strict City of Los Angeles significant impact threshold criteria or the City of Beverly Hills criteria, respectively.
COMMENT NO. 6-5 • Construction impacts including worker routes, haul routes, construction worker parking, access routes to parking areas, and other similar impacts must be disclosed unless the DEIR can definitively show that the Project would not impact the City. Adequate mitigation measures must also be provided regarding the Staging and Traffic Management Plan, as well as the truck haul routes.
RESPONSE NO. 6-5 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of the construction analysis contained in the Draft EIR including a description of proposed haul routes and construction worker parking. Specifically, Section IV.J.5.a, page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, identifies mitigation measures that are recommended to ensure that project impacts during construction remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure J-1 indicates that prior to the start of construction the Applicant shall devise a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction of the proposed project. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall identify all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project.
Section 17.0, on pages 141 through 147 of the Draft EIR traffic analysis (contained in Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR), provides a comprehensive analysis of both construction worker and construction truck trip generation, which includes haul route trips. As summarized on page 146 of Appendix G, taken together, the construction worker vehicles and trucks forecast in the year 2012 build-out scenario are anticipated to generate 1,220 trips per day (610 inbound, 610 outbound) assuming a worst case scenario in which Phase A overlaps with both Phase B and C construction activities. This forecast of daily trips also reflects the application of a passenger car equivalence (PCE) factor of 3.0 to account for the tandem trailer haul trucks (i.e., one tandem trailer haul truck has the same impact on intersection operations as three passenger vehicles) and a PCE factor of 2.0 to account for other construction-related trucks. It should be noted that the daily construction-related trips are significantly less than the trips generated to and from the existing on-site office buildings which are planned to be demolished as part of the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-109 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
During the commuter peak periods, the inbound construction worker trips are anticipated to occur prior to the A.M. commuter peak period. Similarly, the construction workforce is not expected to leave the site during the P.M. commuter peak hour. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, one quarter of the construction workforce was assumed to leave the site during the P.M. commuter peak hour. It is conservatively estimated that approximately 121 outbound construction worker trips may be generated during the P.M. peak hour (i.e., 25 percent of the 485 construction worker outbound trips). The construction work force would likely be generated from all parts of the Los Angeles region and thereby is assumed to arrive and depart from all directions (e.g., each direction along the I-405 and I-10 Freeways and from the local areas). Based on a distribution of 20 percent to any one particular segment, an increase of no more than 24 vehicles is forecast at study intersections during the P.M. peak hour. The trips generated by construction activities are less than those trips that had been generated by the existing uses on-site. Therefore, the traffic impacts due to project construction activities are forecast to be less than significant based on the City’s significance criteria. However, as noted in the Draft EIR, it is acknowledged that due to the other projects being constructed simultaneously, cumulative construction traffic impacts are significant and unavoidable. Please refer to Topical Response No. 7 for a discussion of access routes to parking areas.
COMMENT NO. 6-6 • The baseline traffic data/counts used in the DEIR appear to be from the 2004 CMP for Los Angeles County. This data is approximately four years old, and does not provide a sufficiently accurate baseline condition. To that end, more current baseline traffic counts need to be collected, and the traffic study revised and recirculated for public review. Although the DEIR attempts to account for certain projects constructed after 2004, the steps taken are not sufficient. The DEIR states that "weekday traffic volumes associated with the other development projects (built related projects) that were constructed between the weekday traffic count data base year and the year 2006 were also estimated ..." (DEIR, p. 559) This method is not a sufficient substitute for conducting more recent traffic counts, and still does not account for other baseline changes that occurred between 2006 and 2008. Failure to provide more accurate and current information calls into question whether the DEIR meets CEQA full disclosure policies such that it is unclear not only whether the true scope of Project impacts have been shown, but also whether all feasible mitigation has been required.
RESPONSE NO. 6-6 Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. The New Century Plan project’s traffic impacts were reanalyzed using this second set of traffic count data, and the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-110 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
summary of this analysis is included in Appendix A3 of the Final EIR. As shown in Appendix A3 (refer to Appendix Tables A3-A and A3-B for the proposed project site access and optional site access summaries, respectively), the New Century Plan project would not generate any significant impacts during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours utilizing the new traffic count data for the baseline conditions of this analysis. However, it should be noted that two weekend peak hour significant impacts would continue to be forecast for the proposed project. Thus, the Draft EIR’s traffic impact conclusions may overstate the New Century Plan project’s anticipated traffic impacts.
COMMENT NO. 6-7 • Traffic Mitigation Measure J-5: The TDM plan is to decrease the number of vehicle trips generated by people traveling to and from the Project site. However, the specific "special facilities, services and actions" to be proposed in this plan have not been sufficiently identified. Without specific standards and greater detail, it appears that identification of the mitigation is improperly deferred to a later time rather than being fully disclosed in the DEIR.
RESPONSE NO. 6-7 Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the project’s TDM Plan. As stated, the Applicant will provide a detailed TDM Plan for approval by the City prior to the issuance of initial permits for the Project. The TDM Plan will specify requirements for each phase of the proposed project. The applicant’s commitment to support the TDM Plan could include support for the formation of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) and a Century City shuttle circulator. At each phase of the proposed project, the applicant would be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding, and that the applicant is continuing to fulfill its TDM commitments. It is not until Phase E that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of six percent trip reduction in the Project’s commercial trip generation, which is necessary to mitigate anticipated significant traffic impacts at four intersections. As stated on page 625 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, in order to provide a conservative analysis, it has been assumed that the required level of trip reduction will not be attained and that significant and unavoidable traffic impacts may occur. The Draft EIR, therefore, provides for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved.
COMMENT NO. 6-8 • The DEIR references "...construction of the nearby projects to the east along Santa Monica Boulevard may also occur at the same time as the proposed projects." (p.88) o Is the Santa Monica Boulevard Improvement (SMB/Wilshire intersection) CIP project included on the project list; the New Century project is approx 0.625 miles from this
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-111 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
intersection? If the project has been completed, this statement should reflect the project status or be eliminated.
RESPONSE NO. 6-8 The north and south intersections of Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard have been included for analysis purposes in the Draft EIR and are identified as Intersection Nos. 49 and 50, respectively. It is important to note that the two referenced projects within Comment No. 6-9 (i.e., the Beverly Hilton Revitalization Plan and the 9900 Wilshire projects) were included in the future analysis conditions of the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project. Specifically, Table 9-1, page 77 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, lists Related Project No. B22, 9900 Wilshire Boulevard project, and Related Project No. B36, Beverly Hilton project. The future forecast vehicular trip generation for both projects is shown on Table 9-3, page 88 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR traffic analysis can be considered conservative as future roadway improvements proposed as part of the above two related projects and the other analyzed related projects as well as any of the City of Beverly Hills Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were not assumed in the future analysis conditions. Thus, roadway improvements approved as part of the Beverly Hilton project (i.e., an additional eastbound through lane and a dedicated eastbound right- turn only lane) have also not been assumed in the analysis of operations for the Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard North study intersection.
COMMENT NO. 6-9 o The City of Beverly Hills has approved and is considering approval for the projects at 9900 Wilshire Boulevard (approximately 250 condominiums) and 9876 Wilshire Boulevard (The Beverly Hilton Revitalization Plan), respectively. These are significant projects with lengthy construction schedules. The projects need to be included in the Cumulative Projects List and the impacts that might arise from overlapping construction periods, as well as when all projects are operational, must be addressed. The City reserves the right to review and comment on any proposed haul routes that are developed for the project, and requests that a mitigation measure require that the approval of the Project's haul route(s) shall be obtained from the City of Beverly Hills prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 6-9 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-8 for a discussion of the Beverly Hilton Revitalization Plan and the 9900 Wilshire projects which were included in the Draft EIR traffic impact study as part of the future analysis conditions. Refer to Topical Response No. 8 and Response to Comment No. 6-5 for a discussion of the construction analysis contained in the Draft EIR including a description of the proposed haul routes.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-112 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 6-10 • The cumulative projects list should also include recent projects adopted or in-progress at the City of Beverly Hills (William Morris), as well as in the Century City area (such as the proposed Creative Artists Agency building on Constellation Boulevard), It appears that only a 45,000 square foot portion of the William Morris project at 231-265 N. Beverly Drive was analyzed, although the project actually indicates approximately 200,000 square foot office and retail space. Further, large projects planned in the City of West Hollywood, including but not limited to the Melrose Triangle project at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Doheny Drive, which as noted above should be a study intersection in the traffic study, should also be included.
RESPONSE NO. 6-10 As stated on page 72, Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, the forecast of future pre-project analysis conditions was prepared in accordance to procedures outlined in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for developing the future traffic volume forecast:
“(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the [lead] agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.”
Accordingly, the Draft EIR traffic analysis provides a highly conservative estimate of future pre-project traffic volumes as it incorporates both the “A” and “B” options outlined in CEQA Guidelines for purposes of developing the forecast. The list of related projects was compiled at the time of the Draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) in June 2006.
The forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. The list of related projects was based on information on file at the City of Los Angeles Planning Department and LADOT, as well as recently accepted traffic impact analysis reports prepared for projects located in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-8 for a discussion of the list of related projects in the project site area. Figure 9-1 (preceding page 80) of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR shows the location of the related projects. The
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-113 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Creative Artists Agency building on Constellation Boulevard is included on the list of related projects as Related Project No. 15 and is located at 2000 Avenue of the Stars. The William Morris project description was obtained based on the approved EIR for the 10131 Constellation Boulevard Residential project. The project was included as Related Project No. B3 in Table 2 of the Draft EIR.
As stated on page 90 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, the existing arterial street system traffic volumes were increased at an annual rate of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per year to the year 2012 (i.e., the anticipated year of project build-out). The arterial street system ambient growth factor was based on general traffic growth factors provided in the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (the “CMP manual”) and determined in consultation with LADOT staff. The CMP’s traffic growth rate is intended to anticipate future traffic generated by development projects in the project vicinity or changes in project descriptions that may have occurred after the list of related projects was compiled at the time of the Draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) in June 2006. Thus, the inclusion in this traffic analysis of both a forecast of traffic generated by known related projects plus the use of an ambient growth traffic factor based on CMP traffic model data likely overstates future pre-project analysis conditions and future traffic volumes at the arterial street system study intersections and accounts for related projects that may have been proposed after issuance of the NOP.
COMMENT NO. 6-11 • The West Los Angeles Community Plan Policy, Goal 14, states the goal of deterring cut- through traffic in neighboring residential streets. This is also a goal of the City of Beverly Hills. At this time, it is difficult to determine whether there is the potential for impacts on the City of Beverly Hills' streets because of the 2004 traffic baseline issue discussed above. The City requests that potential impacts on the City's residential streets be analyzed in conjunction with the updated traffic study requested above, and recirculated for public review and comment to ensure that all impacts have been disclosed, that feasible mitigation has been identified, and that the public has had an opportunity to review and comment on the significant new information.
RESPONSE NO. 6-11 Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-6 and Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction (which found that the project would result in only two significant traffic impacts during the weekend peak hour). Section 14.0, beginning on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis prepared as part of the Draft EIR. A total of eight street segments were analyzed for
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-114 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
potential impacts. None of the studied street segments in proximity to the proposed project were determined to be significantly impacted by the Project.
COMMENT NO. 6-12 • It appears that traffic counts were taken prior to the Santa Monica Boulevard Parkway Project. The DEIR should clearly address this issue and include mention of the parkway project in the revised study requested above.
RESPONSE NO. 6-12 Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-6 and Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction.
COMMENT NO. 6-13 The City of Beverly Hills appreciates your consideration of our continued interest in the development of projects in adjacent jurisdictions. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the City's policy's [sic] with regard to environmental review, please feel free to contact Larry Sakurai, Principal Planner, in the City's Planning Division at (310) 285-1123. Please place Larry's name as the contact person on your contact list for this project.
RESPONSE NO. 6-13 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Larry Sakurai will be included on the mailing list for the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-115 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 7
Scott Diamond President Beverlywood Homes Association No Address Provided
COMMENT NO. 7-1 I am President of the Beverlywood Homes Association ("BHA"), one of the largest homeowner associations in West Los Angeles. The more than 1,350 single family residences that comprise BHA are located between Robertson on the east to Roxbury on the west and from Beverlywood on the south to its northern border just a few blocks south of Pico. I am writing on behalf of BHA with respect to the above referenced project that I will collectively refer to herein as either the "Westfield Development" or "the above project."
Allow me to begin by stating that I am both surprised and disappointed that out of the 55 selected intersections that have been studied in the DEIR regarding the impact of the Westfield Development on vehicular traffic, not one intersection on Pico Boulevard, east of Century Park East, has been analyzed. Nor, has a single intersection south of Pico Boulevard, east of Century City been addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 7-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area. The traffic analysis study area, as shown on Figure 60, page 560 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, included 55 intersections and eight street segments. These study locations provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for the traffic impact study.
While specific intersections within the boundaries of the Beverlywood Homes Association were not formally studied in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, it can be and was concluded by LADOT that further analysis would not be necessary as the intersections closest to that area were not deemed to be significantly impacted by the proposed project (e.g., Intersection No. 47: Century Park East/Pico Boulevard and Intersection No. 48: Spalding Drive/Olympic Boulevard). In order to provide further information, however, research was conducted of recent LADOT manual traffic count files so that a supplemental analysis of several intersections near the Beverlywood Homes Association area could be included in the Final EIR. The LADOT weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts were conducted in May and June 2007, after very substantial completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-116 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Research of recent City manual traffic count files produced data for the following locations:
• Beverwil Drive/Pico Boulevard • Beverly Drive/Pico Boulevard • Robertson Boulevard/Pico Boulevard • Robertson Boulevard/Hillsboro Avenue/Cadillac Avenue
New weekend (Saturday mid-day) traffic counts were conducted in early June 2008 at the above locations. While the traffic analysis study area was determined to be adequate, the above four locations have been included as part of the Final EIR. Refer to Appendix A4 of the Final EIR for the weekday A.M. and P.M. and weekend peak hour traffic counts and corresponding traffic analyses. As indicated in Appendix A4 (refer to Appendix Table A4) of the Final EIR, no significant impacts are expected at any of the four locations employing the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria.
COMMENT NO. 7-2 The community that I represent is protected by the Century City Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan ("CCNTMP"), which has been adopted by the Los Angeles City Council. Yet the DEIR is entirely devoid of any analysis of the environmental impact of the above project on the residents of BHA (and adjacent neighborhoods), including its impact on the CCNTMP. This, despite the fact, that BHA is located just over one mile from Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 7-2 The City of Los Angeles has completed the Century City Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (CCNTMP). Recent field reviews conducted as part of the Final EIR indicate the installation of many neighborhood traffic calming measures throughout the Beverlywood Home Association area. For example, along Beverwil Drive/Castle Heights Avenue (between Monte Mar Drive and Beverlywood Street) all-way stop control is provided at the intersections with Sawyer Street, Cisco Street and Beverlywood Street. A total of eight speed humps have also been installed along this segment of Beverwil Drive/Castle Heights Avenue. Another example occurs along Monte Mar Drive/Hillsboro Avenue (between Beverwil Drive and Robertson Boulevard) where all- way stop control is provided at a total of six intersections. In addition, two speed humps have been installed on Monte Mar Drive between Beverwil Drive and Beverly Drive, two speed humps have been installed on Monte Mar Drive between Beverly Drive and Bagley Avenue, and a total of four speed humps have been installed on Hillsboro Avenue between Sawyer Street and Robertson Boulevard. Speed limit signs have also been installed along certain segments. Along Beverlywood Street (between Castle Heights Avenue and Robertson Boulevard), all-way stop control is provided at a total of four intersections. In addition, two speed humps have been installed on Beverlywood Street between Canfield Avenue and Robertson Boulevard and an additional speed hump has been installed between Castle Heights Place and Beverly Drive. Speed limit signs have also been installed along certain segments of Beverlywood Street. Additionally, two residential permit parking districts have been implemented just north of the Beverlywood Homes Association area
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-117 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
(i.e., District No. 25 and District No. 85). Given the implementation of these and other neighborhood traffic management measures throughout the association area, the reviewed and approved trip distribution patterns associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT.
Refer also to Section 8.2, beginning on page 62 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, for a summary of the project trip distribution. Figures 8-1 and 8-2, pages 64 and 65 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR illustrate the anticipated trip distribution associated with the commercial and residential components of the proposed project, respectively.
COMMENT NO. 7-3 A November 26, 2007, press release from the office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, expressed the necessity of the "Olympic West Pico-East" Initiative - spear-headed by the mayor and endorsed by Councilmember Weiss - to relieve the unbearable traffic congestion that afflicts the Westside. In the press release, the mayor referred to the Westside as the "gridlock epicenter" of Los Angeles. According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, Supervisor Yaroslavsky, has advised his staff not to schedule any appointments on the Westside after 2:00 PM because of the horrific traffic that grips the Westside each and every work day. At this time, the Westside cannot handle any additional traffic until substantial improvements in the city's infrastructure have been implemented; Westside streets especially cannot absorb more than 13,000 additional weekly trips forecasted in the DEIR. (See Executive Summary, page 79.)
RESPONSE NO. 7-3 Table 55, beginning on page 562 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. and weekend peak hour Levels of Service (LOS) for the intersections studied as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. Table 69, beginning on page 630 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the future year 2012 weekday A.M. and P.M. and weekend peak hour LOS. The comments related to the existing congestion levels within the Westside area are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
As a point of clarification, the project is not forecast to generate over 13,000 additional weekly trips. As stated on page 79, Volume I of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,922 vehicle trips during the weekday 24-hour period and a net increase of 7,466 vehicle trips during the weekend 24-hour period.
COMMENT NO. 7-4 Vehicular traffic generated from completed projects in and around Century City continues to overwhelm neighborhood streets both in Beverlywood and around the entire Westside. In spite of the fact that the DEIR completely failed to address the environmental impact of the above project
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-118 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
on any communities south-east of Century City, it is apparent that BHA and our neighbors will experience yet another unacceptable increase in cut-through traffic from this latest project.
RESPONSE NO. 7-4 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for a discussion of the additional traffic analyses prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations either immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Beverlywood Homes Association area. In addition, given the implementation of many neighborhood traffic management measures installed throughout the association area, the reviewed and approved trip distribution patterns associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT.
COMMENT NO. 7-5 Specifically, the DEIR acknowledges that afternoon peak rush hour vehicular traffic, already stretched beyond its capacity, will be further exacerbated at two major intersections for those traveling westbound -at Olympic-Westwood and at Santa Monica-Overland - while those traveling eastbound will be further delayed at Santa Monica-Century Park East. (See Executive Summary, page 80.) This will clearly result in vehicular traffic instead traveling southbound through BHA and adjacent neighborhoods, as commuters seek to avoid the increased east-west traffic. In fact, this has already occurred after completion of each of the other Century City projects, even though BHA is protected by the CCNTMP; over the past three years, the streets of BHA have seen ever increasing cut-through vehicular traffic, resulting in staggering rush hour numbers.
RESPONSE NO. 7-5 As a point of clarification, the commentor has inadvertently mistaken the Century Park East/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection as being significantly impacted by the proposed project during the P.M. peak hour. However, as noted on page 80 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, the Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection is anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for a discussion of the additional traffic analysis prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations either immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Beverlywood Homes Association area as well as for a detailed discussion of neighborhood traffic management measures that have been implemented in order to minimize the potential for motorists to use local roadways as cut-through routes. Section 14.0, beginning on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis prepared as part of the Draft EIR. A total of eight street segments were analyzed for potential impacts. None of the studied street segments in proximity to the proposed project were determined to be significantly impacted by the project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-119 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 7-6 Unfortunately, the solutions provided in the DEIR (and appendices thereto) are cut and paste boilerplate that mirror other EIR's from recent city projects without any concrete, plausible and/or realistic solutions. As but one example, setting up a Century City traffic committee to address the issue of traffic is hardly a solution, especially given that the CCNTMP is currently in place. Besides, such a committee is already supposed to exist. If this committee ever convenes, its' mitigations need to be implemented and then evaluated prior to this or any future Century City DEIR being approved. Otherwise, the suggested mitigations will ultimately prove as illusory as those contained in prior approved EIR's.
RESPONSE NO. 7-6 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. For measures to be implemented throughout Century City, the applicant is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) for all of Century City which could develop and deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist with physical improvements to waiting areas and transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver car trips. Further, the Draft EIR does not propose that the project will set up a Century City traffic committee to address the issue of traffic.
COMMENT NO. 7-7 However, before BHA can even begin to formulate a complete response to this DEIR, a complete, thorough, current as of 2008 and accurate analysis of the impact of the above project on vehicular traffic at the following intersections must be conducted: (I) Pico-Roxbury, (2) Pico- Beverwil, (3) Pico-Beverly, (4) Pico-Doheny, (5) Pico-Robertson, (6) Pico-La Cienega, (7) Beverwil-Cashio, (8) Beverwil-Monte Mar, (9) Beverwil-Castle Heights, (10) Beverwil- Beverlywood, (11) Castle Heights-National, (12) Beverly-Cashio, (13) Beverly-Monte Mar, (14) Robertson-Cashio, (15) Robertson-Airdrome, (16) Robertson-Monte Mar, (17) Robertson Hillsboro, (1S) Robertson-Cattaraugus, (19) Robertson-National, (20) La Cienega-Cashio, (21) La Cienega- Airdrome, (22) La Cienega-Cashio, (23) La Cienega-1Sth , (24) La Cienega- Cadillac, (25) Access to the 10 Freeway from Robertson and vice versa, and (26) Access to the 10 Freeway from La Cienega, and vice versa.
Once again, the impact on each of these intersections must be addressed before a complete and thorough response from BHA to any DEIR for the above project can be formulated. Current
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-120 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
2008 traffic studies (including manual counts of vehicular turn movements) must be conducted at all of the previously analyzed 55 locations as well as the above additional 26 locations.
RESPONSE NO. 7-7 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for a discussion of the additional traffic analysis prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations either immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Beverlywood Homes Association area. In addition, given the implementation of many neighborhood traffic management measures installed throughout the association area, the reviewed and approved trip distribution patterns associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT. Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction.
COMMENT NO. 7-8 Out-dated studies ranging from two to six years old (see DEIR section 7.1.1), even when increased by an annual 1.5% ambient growth factor, do not reflect current traffic patterns in or around BHA and its surrounding neighborhoods as evidenced by late 2007 DOT traffic surveys.
RESPONSE NO. 7-8 Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new, recent weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-6 for additional discussion regarding this supplemental analysis. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for a discussion of the additional traffic analysis prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations either immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Beverlywood Homes Association area.
COMMENT NO. 7-9 Moreover, the cumulative effect of the past 10 years of development in Century City, Beverly Hills and along the Wilshire corridor must be assessed and considered in light of the additional adverse impacts of the above project on neighborhood and arterial vehicular traffic, noise and pollution.
RESPONSE NO. 7-9 Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-10 for additional discussion of the cumulative conditions analysis methodology. Development projects that have been completed within the past
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-121 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments ten years are included in the Draft EIR traffic, noise and air quality analyses as the impacts of such projects are provided in the cumulative analyses or are accounted for in the existing conditions analysis.
Table 9-1, beginning on page 73 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, provides a list of the related projects included as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. A total of 108 related projects were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis.
Table 10-3, beginning on page 97 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the cumulative analysis, which includes the future pre-project (cumulative) conditions. By comparing the first two columns of the level of service summary table (i.e., Column [2] to Column [1]), it is apparent that the cumulative growth exceeds the City’s thresholds of significance for intersections. The analysis of potential project-related impacts is based on the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria presented below:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Final v/c Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c > 0.700 - 0.800 C equal to or greater than 0.040 > 0.800 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.020 >0.900 E or F equal to or greater than 0.010
The City’s Sliding Scale Method requires mitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed development causes an increase of the analyzed intersection v/c ratio by an amount equal to or greater than the values shown above. As stated on pages 623 and 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, project-related cumulative impacts on intersections, neighborhood street segments, freeway segments, and the regional transportation system have been analyzed. Further, as stated on page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, by comparing the future pre-project conditions to the future with project conditions, increases in system-wide traffic volumes in the project vicinity are anticipated. It is anticipated that the individual related projects would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to the extent feasible. However, as not such guarantee exists in order to ensure that every project implements the required mitigation measures, it has been conservatively concluded in the Draft EIR that cumulative development would yield a significant cumulative impact on operations. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-8 for further discussion of the supplemental traffic analysis prepared as part of the Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-122 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 7-10 With respect to the construction route that has yet to be approved, any construction truck trips or worker truck trips traveling through any residential community must be prohibited. Furthermore, it would be detrimental to Westside traffic to allow any construction truck trips or worker truck trips during peak rush hour periods. Such trips should be mandated to occur before 7:30 A.M. in the morning and either before 4:00 PM or after 7:00 PM in the evening. As such, the proposed Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan should be prepared and circulated as part of any revised DEIR so that the public can have an opportunity to assess the impact of this additional environmental burden.
RESPONSE NO. 7-10 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. In addition, it should be noted that all roadways included as part of the haul route are either designated Major Highways or Secondary Highways.
COMMENT NO. 7-11 Regarding the analysis in the DEIR that concludes that conversion to luxury condominiums will actually decrease daily trips to and from the above project, at least four things must be further and fully addressed. First, why do trip ratios for similar projects on Wilshire Boulevard, in Beverly Hills and in Century City appear to be inconsistent with each other and/or this DEIR?
RESPONSE NO. 7-11 As a point of clarification, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project (i.e., the net increase in commercial square footage and the residential component) overall will result in a decrease in vehicular trip generation only during the weekday A.M. peak commuter hour. This net decrease in morning peak hour trip generation is due to the demolition of two existing office buildings as part of the development of the project. A net increase in vehicular trip generation is expected to occur with the project during the weekday P.M. and weekend peak hours.
Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for a discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast. The trip generation rates and forecast was reviewed and accepted by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Through the scoping process for the Draft EIR traffic analysis, the characteristics of the proposed project were carefully considered and reviewed by the department. The A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation forecasts were based on ITE Land Use Code 232 (High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse) average trip generation rates and were determined to be most representative of the characteristics of the residential tower. As no weekend trip rates are provided in the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, weekend average trip rates provided for ITE Land Use Code 232 in the ITE “Trip Generation” publication were used to forecast the weekend peak hour traffic volumes.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-123 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
While the comment does not contain references to specific projects for which a formal comparison of residential trip generation rates could be prepared, research was conducted for site specific trip generation studies of comparable residential high-rise developments in the Century City area. Appendix A4 of the Final EIR contains a copy of trip generation studies completed by Overland Traffic Consultants of two local high-rise condominium developments. The sites surveyed included the Blair House (128 units) and the Wilshire Regent (208 units) both located along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor. In addition, Appendix A4 of the Final EIR also includes a copy of two additional high-rise condominium development trip generation studies prepared by KAKU Associates, Inc. in 2005 (i.e., 496 units at 2160/2170 Century Park East and 93 units at the Remington). These studies showed that the published Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for high-rise condominiums are conservative when compared to Century City area site specific surveys (i.e., that the ITE trip generation rates result in more vehicular trips than are actually being measured in the field). In addition, a site specific trip generation survey of the Century Towers development located at 2220-2222 Avenue of the Stars (307 units) was completed and is also included in Appendix A4 of the Final EIR. The weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips rates associated with the Century Towers development were 0.267 trips/unit and 0.221 trips/unit, respectively, whereas the rates used in the Draft EIR traffic analysis are 0.34 and 0.38 trips/unit, respectively. The Draft EIR traffic analysis incorporates the higher ITE weekday and weekend peak hour high-rise condominium trip rates and were reviewed and approved by LADOT.
As additional information, a review was conducted of condominium trip generation rates employed in the traffic analyses associated with the 9900 Wilshire and the Beverly Hilton Revitalization Projects (both within the City of Beverly Hills). For both of these projects, the trip generation rates contained in the Draft EIR were derived from trip generation surveys conducted at a total of six other condominium developments. The weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip rates derived from the site specific surveys were 0.280 trips/unit and 0.330 trips/unit, respectively. Thus, the New Century Plan Project Draft EIR traffic analysis is conservative in that the higher ITE high- rise condominium trip generation rates were utilized (i.e., 0.34 and 0.38 trips/unit for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively).
COMMENT NO. 7-12 Second, why hasn't a comprehensive analysis of all trips allocated to all properties in the CCNSP and CCSSP been undertaken, so that the public can determine exactly which locations have bought, sold or otherwise transferred and/or received exactly how many trips and from what other location(s)? This needs to be undertaken as part of this DEIR or the public will not be able to meaningfully assess the statistics and analysis presented, nor will the public be able to place the Westfield Development in context with any of the other area projects.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-124 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 7-12 The City of Los Angeles maintains a comprehensive record of the number of CATGP Trips allocated to each property in the CCNSP. This document, called the Century City Trip Allocations Chart, is updated by the Department of City Planning each time a CATGP Trip is transferred or a Replacement CATGP Trip is generated. The Trip Allocations Chart includes records going back to 1982, and is a public document available for review upon request. For more information regarding CATGP Trips, refer to Topical Response No. 10.
COMMENT NO. 7-13 Third, given the existence of other high-rise luxury condominiums on nearby Wilshire Boulevard, why hasn't an analysis of any of these buildings been undertaken to confirm whether the number of daily trips differ for a luxury condominium versus a non-luxury condominium?
RESPONSE NO. 7-13 Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-11 for a detailed discussion of site specific trip generation surveys conducted for five other representative high-rise condominium towers in the vicinity of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 7-14 Fourth, how is the above project entitled to a trip reduction factor of 15% under the 2004 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, given that we are now in 2008 and the Westside is the "gridlock epicenter" of Los Angeles?
RESPONSE NO. 7-14 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-3 for a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the 15 percent transit reduction employed in the trip generation forecast for the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 7-15 Finally, homeowners in Los Angeles, including those in BHA, face a realistic prospect of forced water rationing as early as this summer. A long drought in the Colorado River Basin, the shrinking of the Sierra Nevada snow pack to 67% of normal and a ruling by a United States District Judge tightening state water deliveries to Southern California have created a climate far different than that as portrayed in the LADWP 2005 UWMP relied on in the DEIR.
RESPONSE NO. 7-15 As discussed in Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, the Department of Water and Power has conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the New Century Plan and determined that there is sufficient water supply to meet the demand generated by the project. Additionally, the New
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-125 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects. These measures will include:
• Installation of high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gallons per flush or less), or dual- flush water closets, and high-efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gallons per flush or less), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all restrooms;
• Installation of restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute or less, of a self-closing design;
• Incorporation of a water recycling system to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety to the extent feasible;
• Installation of a demand (tankless or instantaneous) water heater system for the residential units, sufficient to serve the anticipated needs of residents;
• Installation of no more than one showerhead per shower stall, having a flow rate no greater than 2.0 gallons per minute or less, in each of the residential units;
• If provided by owner or tenant upgrade packaging, installation of only high-efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less) and high-efficiency Energy Star-rated dishwashers in the residences;
• WeatherBASE irrigation, which regulates irrigation schedules based on landscape needs, local weather conditions, plant type, soil type, and sun exposure, and has a rain shutoff;
• Flow sensor and master valve shutoff for irrigation systems;
• Matched precipitation (flow) rates for sprinkler heads;
• Drip/microspray/subsurface irrigation where appropriate;
• Minimum irrigation system distribution uniformity of 75 percent;
• Proper hydro-zoning, turf minimization and use of native/drought tolerant plant materials;
• Use of landscape contouring to minimize precipitation runoff;
• Installation of a separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff for irrigated landscape areas totaling 5,000 square feet and greater;
• Domestic water heating system located in close proximity to points of use, as feasible;
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-126 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Use of tankless and on-demand water heaters as feasible;
• Operation of cooling towers at a minimum of 5.5 cycles of concentration;
• Individual metering and billing for water use of all residential uses and exploring such metering for commercial spaces;
• Separate metering or submetering for all irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or more.
Further, the New Century Plan is the type of development encouraged by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles to reduce water demand. Chapter 20 of the California Water Plan Update states that “[c]ompact, mixed-use developments can reduce water demand, even with moderate increases in density” since “it may reduce the total development footprint in the state and reduce urbanization impacts to habitat, watershed functions, and groundwater recharge areas.” The California Water Plan recommends that the state and local governments provide incentives to developers to build infill and compact development forms. The New Century Plan is this type of development. Refer to Topical Response No. 12 for more information regarding the project’s water supply.
COMMENT NO. 7-16 Even if the above project incorporates all possible water conservation measures, a 17% increase in water usage - if not more (as this figure appears extremely low given that luxury condominiums use substantially more water than offices) - is unacceptable given the water crisis that we face now and indefinitely into the future.
RESPONSE NO. 7-16 The 17 percent increase in water usage discussed on page 652 of the Draft EIR does not refer to the proposed project’s increase in water usage but rather Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) projected increase in water demand from 2005 to 2030. The proposed project’s increase in water usage is estimated to be approximately 134 acre-feet per year over existing uses. As stated in Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, LADWP concludes that it would be able to meet the water demand of the project as well as existing and planned future water demands of its service area. Additionally, please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-15 for the water conservation features planned for the project. Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for further discussion of water supply. In addition, as indicated in Table 74 of the Draft EIR, proposed residential uses would use approximately 70 acre feet of water per year, only 20 acre feet per year more than the existing office building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-127 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 7-17 Add to this 17% increase in water usage, the increase from each of the other high-rise luxury residential developments in the project area, the city and other local cities that have already been proposed and approved, and the cumulative impact of the collective water usage of each of these projects poses a threat to our water supply that has been improperly and incompletely analyzed by the DEIR.
RESPONSE NO. 7-17 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-16. Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, addresses cumulative impacts on water supply. As analyzed in Section IV.K, related projects would have an average daily water demand of approximately 1,841,795 gallons per day (gpd) or 2,063 acre-feet per year (AFY). The project in conjunction with the related projects would yield a total average water demand of approximately 1,961,348 gpd or 2,197 AFY. LADWP’s 2005 UWMP projects yearly water demand would reach 776,000 AF by 2030 or have an increase of 17 percent from 2005. With the anticipated water demand increase of 2,197 AFY from the development of the proposed project and related projects, the demand for water would fall within the available and projected water demand of LADWP’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). In addition, given that the UWMP plans and provides for water supplies to serve existing and projected needs, including those of future growth and development as may occur through related projects, and that the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 provide means to ensure that the water supply needs of notable development projects are carefully considered relative to LADWP’s ability to adequately meet future needs, it is anticipated that LADWP would be able to supply the demands of the proposed project and related projects through the foreseeable future. In sum, LADWP would have adequate amounts of water to meet the project's future water demands for the service area with the addition of the proposed project and related projects, and no significant cumulative impacts related to water demand would occur. Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for further discussion of water supply.
COMMENT NO. 7-18 In conclusion, the DEIR for the above project is flawed. These inadequacies must be corrected in order for the EIR to meet CEQA's minimal requirements. On behalf of BHA, I strongly recommend that a revised DEIR be prepared and circulated that fully and adequately addresses the additional analysis requested herein. However, even with mitigation, it appears that the project will have to be modified to avoid further burdening neighborhoods that are already overburdened by traffic, noise and pollution from intense development in Century City and elsewhere on the Westside, not to mention a city and a state that are facing an extreme water crisis. Once the additional analysis has been prepared and circulated, BHA will be in a better position to analyze what modifications will be necessary.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-128 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please include me on your mailing lists for any future documents and public hearing notices
RESPONSE NO. 7-18 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for a discussion of the additional traffic analysis prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations either immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Beverlywood Homes Association area. In addition, given the implementation of many neighborhood traffic management measures installed throughout the association area, the reviewed and approved trip distribution patterns associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT.
Please refer to Section IV.H, Noise of the Draft EIR for the analysis of noise within the Draft EIR.
Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for a discussion of water supply and to Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, for a comprehensive analysis of air quality impacts.
The Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA as implemented by the City of Los Angeles. The Draft EIR is thorough and properly discloses the potential impacts of the project. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-129 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 8
Edward G. Lewis Chairman Century City Homeowners Alliance 2122 Century Park Lane, Suite 303 Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 8-1 The Century City Homeowners Alliance is a non-profit corporation that represents the 1700 homeowners who live in Century City. The central purpose of our organization is to safeguard and enhance the quality of life and property values for all Century City residents.
It is our understanding that Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes as part of “The New Century Plan” to reconfigure or renovate existing buildings and outdoors areas within the Shopping Center to provide for new restaurants and retail spaces, along with landscaping and open space amenities. The project would relocate one of the anchor department stores to a new location and replace two existing office buildings that together comprise approximately 378,127 square feet of office space adjacent to the shopping center with new residential uses, shopping center uses, office uses, and additional parking facilities. Upon completion, an addition of an estimated 361,724 square feet of new shopping center space, 118,000 square feet of office space (reduced from the existing 378,127), 945,000 square feet of new residential space for approximately 262 condominium units, and 1,150 new parking spaces would be provided within the project site.
Construction would occur in phases over a four-year period commencing next year and ending in late 2012. The Alliance supports improving the quality of life in Century City and the surrounding area. Because of the past actions of Westfield Corporation in upgrading and improving the Century City Shopping Center and their ongoing commitment to our community, the Century City Homeowners Alliance is generally supportive of “The New Century Plan” and its EIR. There are however, four areas of concern in the EIR that we would like to address.
RESPONSE NO. 8-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Note though that some of the numbers cited for the project in this comment are incorrect. Specifically, as stated in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project would remove two existing office buildings that together comprise approximately 360,964 square feet, not 378,127 square feet as indicated by the commentor. Upon completion, the project would include approximately 358,881 square feet of net new shopping center space and 106,523 square feet of office uses, not 361,724 square feet of shopping center space and 118,000 square feet of office space as indicated by the commentor. In addition, a total of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-130 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
approximately 4,529 parking spaces would be provided within the project site, not 1,150 parking spaces as indicated by the commentor. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-2 through 8-10 for detailed responses to the commentor’s areas of concern.
COMMENT NO. 8-2 1. For last several years Century City has been undergoing extensive renovations and improvements. The size of the residential community alone within Century City will double within the next three to five years. Because our homeowners are in such close proximity to the project site, during the four-year construction period, we would like to be assured that the work hours for the project take in to account our desire to maintain some quiet enjoyment in our homes. We request that the work hours are held to a maximum of Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and no work on weekends.
RESPONSE NO. 8-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan.
COMMENT NO. 8-3 During the construction period, we are also concerned with mitigating noise, traffic, ingress and egress to our homes, and security.
RESPONSE NO. 8-3 Construction impacts are analyzed thoroughly in the Draft EIR. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to traffic, access, noise, and police protection. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 8 regarding construction impacts for an overview of these mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 8-4 Staging of any kind on Century Park West must be very limited and not interfere with the entrance and exit to the homes in Century Woods.
RESPONSE NO. 8-4 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. No significant impact to ingress or egress traffic movements at the Century Woods development driveway is expected with the construction of the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-131 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 8-5 We are also concerned with debris both airborne and on the ground. The health and safety of our homeowners and their families is a primary concern. A thorough study should be required to ensure that all buildings to be demolished and constructed do not contain any harmful substances. Demolition and construction should be undertaken in such a manner to minimize airborne debris. Construction debris should be removed on a daily basis.
RESPONSE NO. 8-5 As discussed in Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, a thorough analysis of the project site has been conducted, and the August 2007 report was provided in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. Asbestos containing material (ACM) and an underground storage tank (UST) have been identified on-site. In addition, the potential exists for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within fluorescent light ballasts and lead-based paint to be present on-site. However, mitigation measures outlined in Section IV.E of the Draft EIR would be implemented to ensure that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain less than significant. In addition, during construction, the applicant will implement a fugitive dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Furthermore, construction debris would be removed on a daily basis.
COMMENT NO. 8-6 2. Elimination of the current set back and fountains in front of 1801 Avenue of the Stars is not acceptable. The existing set back and fountains in front of the 1801 Avenue of the Stars gateway building was a central and integral part of the original design intent of a master plan for Century City. Designed by internationally famous architects Welton Becket and Associates, the present set back and fountains in front of 1801 Avenue of the Stars is a visually prominent feature. The fountains are one of four well-known and major water features along Avenue of the Stars. Since they were the very first fountains to be constructed on Avenue of the Stars in the early sixties, they also have historical significance. Since the fountains were the first in Century City, they should be designated a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument. Both the set back and the fountains in front of 1801 Avenue of the Stars are identical in size, shape and dimensions to the setback and fountains in front of 1800 Avenue of the Stars across the street. The fountains were one of the very first structures to be constructed in Century City. The existing set back and fountains that are further joined and connected by the adjacent pedestrian bridge, contribute in a very important manner to the history of Century City and its visual character. Their size, location and visual symmetry were designed and intended to be located at the entrance to Century City as its gateway and hence they have continued to be referred to as the gateway fountains. In July of 1999, the City of Los Angeles adopted by ordinance the West Los Angeles Community Plan that designated Avenue of the Stars as a Scenic Highway. The gateway to Century City is from Santa Monica Blvd. The twin set backs and fountains in front of 1801 and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-132 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
1800 Avenue of the Stars must be saved and preserved in order to maintain the visual, historical, and cultural integrity of Century City. One of the goals of the project as stated in the EIR is to: “Create an architectural design that fits the character and scale of the surrounding district.” To eliminate the current set back and the fountains in front of 1801 Avenue of the Stars would be a travesty.
RESPONSE NO. 8-6 Refer to Figures II-9 through II-13 within Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR, which depict in greater detail the conceptual landscape and streetscape plan for the proposed project. A setback will be maintained in the design, and new fountains are proposed.
Regarding the potential “historical significance” of the fountains and landscaping, the issue was fully investigated in Section IV.C, Historic Resources of the Draft EIR and in the Historical Resources Technical Appendix (Volume II, Appendix C). Historic photographs, comparison of the construction plans with existing conditions, and visual inspection reveals that exterior alterations and modifications since the construction of 1801 Avenue of Stars in 1963 include the filling in of a fountain originally located within a large planter near the northwest corner of the plaza behind the building with earth and covered with grass. However, the existing earth berm, trees and decorative Malibu rocks in the planter are shown on the 1963 planting plan and are original landscape features. The primary features of the original landscape plan, including the fountain at the front of the building, landscaped plaza and street plantings are intact. The concrete walkway connecting 1801 and 1800 Avenue of the Stars is a 1970s addition by the City, and was not designed by Welton Becket and Associates.
As discussed in Section IV.C, Historic Resources the Draft EIR, while clear arguments against the eligibility of 1801 Avenue of the Stars for the California Register and as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument can be made, a conservative assessment may conclude that the building and its associated contributing features and objects are considered potentially eligible for the California Register and as a Los Angeles Historic – Cultural Monument. Thus, the Draft EIR identifies and discloses the impacts of the removal of the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building and its contributing features.
The comment is correct in noting the original design intent of the Gateway Buildings and their landscaping, however this intent was never fully actualized since it was predicated on Century City’s connection to the never-constructed Beverly Hills freeway and all of the traffic being funneled though Avenue of the Stars. As noted in Section IV.C, Historic Resources, of the Draft EIR, the master plan as originally envisioned was never fully realized, and the original design intent behind the Gateway ensemble are permanently truncated.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-133 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The setback of the building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars is proposed to be reduced along Avenue of the Stars in conformance with the principles of the draft Greening of Century City Pedestrian Connectivity Plan, which will be used by the City as the basis for a new Appendix to the Century City North Specific Plan. Bringing the proposed building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars closer to the street would encourage pedestrian interaction between the Westfield Century City Shopping Center and the surrounding sidewalks, thereby activating the sidewalks around the Shopping Center and enhancing the pedestrian experience in Century City.
COMMENT NO. 8-7 3. We have concerns about the overall height and increased density of the new proposed 49-story building to be located at 1801 Avenue of the Stars. The corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Blvd. at ground level is the highest point in Century City. To place a 49 story building at this location will literally dwarf all the other buildings in Century City. The two newest high rises in Century City, the MGM Tower and AIG Sun America building have 36 and 39 stories respectively. The Fox Plaza has 39 stories. Because of the higher ground elevation at the subject site, we believe a new building with a similar height of no more than 36 to 39 stories will be better suited and more in harmony with the over all sky line of Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 8-7 Though the project's residential tower is proposed to have more stories than the AIG SunAmerica tower and Century Plaza twin towers, the floor-to-floor height of each of the residential building's stories will be less than the typical floor-to-floor height of a commercial office tower. Thus, the total vertical height of the project's residential building will be comparable to those two commercial towers. According to the Los Angeles Almanac website (accessed 5/20/08: http://www.laalmanac.com/structure/st01.htm), the Century Plaza twin towers are each 571-feet tall and the AIG SunAmerica tower is 560-feet tall, which is comparable to the residential tower's 587 foot height. Moreover, for all three of these locations, the ground elevation is similar— according to the City of Los Angeles’s NavigateLA map server (accessed 5/20/08: http://www.navigatela.lacity.org), the ground elevation at the northern corner of the proposed 1801 Avenue of the Stars tower is approximately 280-feet above mean sea level (AMSL), the ground elevation of the curved front of the AIG SunAmerica tower is approximately 290-feet AMSL, and the ground elevation between the twin towers is approximately 275-feet AMSL. The height of the proposed tower is also consistent with the two approved 561-foot tall Constellation Park towers which have an approximate ground elevation of 290-feet AMSL. The proposed residential tower fully conforms to the City of Los Angeles' specific zoning height district and the broader Federal Aviation Administration height limits for the area.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-134 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 8-8 By reducing the building height by 10 stories or more, the adverse shadow effect will be greatly diminished as well as not overpowering the main entrance to Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 8-8 As analyzed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, the only significant impacts with respect to shading involve the adjacent golf course. Eliminating 10 stories of the proposed residential tower would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level since the affected property is such a large single parcel. Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 for further discussion of shading.
Furthermore, as is noted throughout Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid- and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment.
COMMENT NO. 8-9 We also believe that going from 313,777 square feet to 1,063,000 square feet at this location is both overbearing and unnecessary. The only major consequence to the developer will be to reduce the number of new condominiums downward from the approximate 262 units that are being proposed.
RESPONSE NO. 8-9 The existing floor area on-site is approximately 1,194,357 square feet, not 313,777 square feet as stated in the comment. Upon completion of the project, a net increase of 104,440 square feet of commercial uses would be provided together with 262 residential units within approximately 945,000 square feet.
COMMENT NO. 8-10 4. Westfield has done much to promote its vision of the future greening of Century City. We are in general support of all efforts to improve the quality and amenities within the common areas of Century City. We would like to see the common areas of Century City not only upgraded and improved, but also maintained in the future at a higher level than they are now. We are however concerned about who will pay for the future costs of maintenance and upkeep for these improvements. At the present time, 1801 Avenue of the Stars pays
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-135 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
approximately 4.30% of the total annual costs to maintain the median strip along Avenue of the Stars. If the project as proposed by the EIR is accepted and implemented, Westfield will increase the overall square footage of 1801 Avenue of the Stars from 313, 777 square feet to 1,063,000 square feet. Even though there is a 330% increase in density for this same location, the percentage amount that Westfield will pay for future maintenance of Avenue of the Stars will remain the same paltry 4.30%. This is both unfair and inequitable. The present formula is based on square footage along Avenue of the Stars. This formula is outdated, obsolete and grossly inequitable to a majority of the homeowners who live in Century City. This is the time to redo the present antiquated formula and base it on overall density, number of occupants and other relevant factors rather that just square footage.
Thank you for consideration of our positions
RESPONSE NO. 8-10 Westfield currently pays its fair share of maintenance costs for the upkeep of the Avenue of the Stars median. Additionally, along with other property and business owners in Century City, Westfield is a member of the Century City Property Business Improvement District (PBID). Through the PBID, Westfield will be contributing additional money to fund capital improvements and maintenance of street medians, landscaped corridors and pedestrian walkways in the Century City area. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-136 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 9
Robert Schnell President Century Woods Condominium Association 2100 Century Park West Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 9-1 The Board of Directors and several Owners at Century Woods Condominium Association received your "Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Environmental Impact report dated March 13, 2008.
On behalf of the members, the Board of Directors would like take this opportunity to express concerns to you that the residents at Century Woods have shared with us.
The Century Woods Condominium Association is located approximately 2 to 4 blocks from the Project. Because of our proximity to the subject property, it is obvious that any action undertaken will have an impact on our day to day lives.
Our understanding is that Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposed project would create an integral center within the community by providing a broad array of shopping and dining choices, entertainment opportunities, outdoor spaces and amenities within an approximately 22-acre site. Existing buildings and outdoor spaces within the shopping center would be reconfigured or renovated to provide for new retail and restaurant spaces, along with landscaping and open space amenities. In addition, the project would replace two existing office buildings that together comprise approximately 360,964 square feet adjacent to the shopping center and replace them with new residential uses, shopping center uses, office uses and an additional parking facility. Upon completion, an addition of an estimated 358,881 square feet of new shopping center space together with approximately 262 multi-family residential apartment or condominium units. In addition, approximately 106,523 square feet of new office uses would be developed.
RESPONSE NO. 9-1 This comment reiterates information provided in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-137 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 9-2 Century Woods supports improving the quality of life in Century City and the surrounding area. Century City has been undergoing extensive renovations and improvements for several years. To that end, we are concerned that the area is being unduly burdened by construction, delays, traffic and other objectionable conditions. Our concerns are multi-faceted.
RESPONSE NO. 9-2 Pursuant to CEQA, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts, which are the impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth in the vicinity of the project area. CEQA does not require analysis of past growth in an area relative to a project except as reflected in baseline or existing conditions of an area. Refer to Topical Response No. 8 regarding the construction impacts of the project together with related projects. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 9-3
1. Noise Construction noise would have a huge impact on our day to day lives and have a direct impact on the quiet enjoyment of our homes.
RESPONSE NO. 9-3 Detailed analysis of potential construction-related noise impacts has been provided in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, noise impacts during project construction were identified and noise mitigation measures were provided to reduce the potential significant noise impacts. Nonetheless, potential impacts would remain significant at sensitive land uses during some phases of construction of the project. Refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR.
As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, on page 481 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure H-2 would limit construction activities between 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. The Century Woods Condominiums are located approximately 800 feet south of the proposed project site. As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, construction equipment would generate noise in the range of 75 to 90 dBA (maximum noise level) at 50 feet from the equipment. In addition, there are existing structures between the project site and the Century Woods Condominiums, which would shield noise from construction equipment. Based on distance loss (minimum 6 dB per doubling of distance) and noise shielding by the intervening structures (approx. 10 dBA), construction equipment noise levels at the Century Woods Condominiums would be in the range of 41 to 56 dBA. The estimated construction noise levels at the Century Woods Condominium would likely be consistent with the current ambient noise levels and would not result in significant noise impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-138 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 9-4
2. Traffic The project is converting office space to multi-family apartments or condominiums with a mix of business, commercial, retail and a new parking structure. This would indicate a substantial increase in the amount of vehicles driving to and from the project. Not only do you have the morning and evening traffic from the 262 residents to and from the location, but you also have the addition of traffic from the general public and professionals utilizing the various retail and business offices. On the surface, this would indicate that the vehicle count would greatly increase in the area.
RESPONSE NO. 9-4 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. As presented in Table 8-1, page 63 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to generate a net decrease of 177 vehicle trips (235 fewer inbound trips and 58 more outbound trips) during the weekday A.M. peak hour largely due to the demolition of two office buildings on-site. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 364 vehicle trips (290 inbound trips and 74 outbound trips). Over a weekday 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,922 daily trip ends (2,961 inbound trips and 2,961 outbound trips).
COMMENT NO. 9-5
3. Debris - airborne and on the ground A thorough study should be required to ensure that the buildings do not contain any harmful substances. The health and safety of our residents is a primary concern. Demolition and construction should be undertaken in such a manner to minimize airborne debris. Construction debris should be removed on a daily basis. This would help keep rats and other wild vermin from nesting in the debris thus creating a potential health hazard.
RESPONSE NO. 9-5 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 8-5.
COMMENT NO. 9-6
4. Security If the City approves the project, and while the project is being developed, the developer should be required to provide some sort of security to ensure the safety of the residents in the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-139 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
surrounding area. Access to the property should be limited and controlled. 24 hour security service and surveillance cameras should be mandatory during the construction phase.
RESPONSE NO. 9-6 As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure I.2-3 would require the Applicant to implement security measures including security fencing, lighting, and the use of a seven-day, 24-hour security patrol during project construction to ensure that adequate safety and security measures are implemented to secure the site. In addition, Mitigation Measure I.2-4 in Section IV.I.2 of the Draft EIR states that the Applicant shall consult with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Crime Prevention Unit on crime prevention features appropriate for the design of the project. Additionally, as described in Section IV.I.2 of the Draft EIR, the project would provide security features during operation of the proposed project related to additional levels of security around the commercial facilities including foot patrol, bike patrol, and golf cart patrol; on-site residential security; implementation of additional computer-assisted security programs; and security lighting in areas including but not limited to parking structures, pathways, and curbside queuing areas. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) would also be installed in locations including but not limited to all exit points, play areas, family rest areas, food courts, loading docks, and parking areas. As the proposed project would not result in a demand for additional police protection services that would exceed the capability of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to serve the project site, potential impacts to the capability of existing police protection services would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 9-7
5. Ingress/Egress This is also of great concern to us. While under construction, where will the large trucks be staged? Will Century Park West be utilized in any way during the construction phase? We have limited site to enter and exit the community. Large trucks parked or staged on Century Park West could have lethal consequences to our residents and guests.
RESPONSE NO. 9-7 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of the construction analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Specifically, Section IV.J.5.a, page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, identifies mitigation measures that are recommended to ensure that impacts during construction remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure J-1 indicates that prior to the start of construction, the Applicant shall devise a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction of the proposed project. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall identify all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-140 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
No. 6-5 for additional discussion of the construction analysis contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis.
COMMENT NO. 9-8
6. Work Hours One of the buildings scheduled to be removed is within one block of Century Woods. We would like to be assured that the work hours for the project take in to account our desire to maintain some quiet enjoyment in our homes. We request that the work hours are held to a maximum of Monday through Friday 8:00 to 5:00 and no work on weekends.
We are open to discuss this matter more in depth should someone choose to come meet with the Board of Directors.
RESPONSE NO. 9-8 As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, page 481 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure H-2 would limit construction activities between 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. The Century Woods Condominiums are located approximately 800 feet south of the proposed project site. As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, construction equipment would generate noise in the range of 75 to 90 dBA (maximum noise level) at 50 feet from the equipment. In addition, there are existing structures between the project site and the Century Woods Condominiums, which would shield noise from construction equipment. Based on distance loss (minimum 6 dB per doubling of distance) and noise shielding by the intervening structures (approx. 10 dBA), construction equipment noise levels at the Century Woods Condominiums would be in the range of 41 to 56 dBA. The estimated construction noise levels at the Century Woods Condominium would likely be consistent with the current ambient noise levels and would not result in significant noise impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-141 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 10
Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association c/o Gregory M. Pulis 10331 Dunleer Drive Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 10-1 This letter is written for the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association as comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the New Century Plan, 10250 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West.
At the outset, let me state that the Westfield Century City Mall is an amenity that brings useful services, entertainment resources and stores to our community. We are glad to have it close to our neighborhood. However, the old chestnut of a phrase, "bigger is better" is simply not always true, and we believe that the Project as proposed is way too big, with impacts taxing our neighborhood and the West Side community at large.
RESPONSE NO. 10-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. In addition, refer to Section V, Alternatives for a discussion and evaluation of Reduced Intensity alternatives that were included in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 10-2 EIRs, their explanations, their numbers and calculations, and their assurances, are written by paid advocates for the project proposed rather than impartial public servants who will approach the project with a skeptical eye on the public's behalf. The public servants who review the EIRs on behalf of the citizenry are subject to public and private pressure by the developer, proponents of the project, other paid project advocates and political leaders. The EIR process in Los Angeles can be presumed to be self- serving on the part of the project developer and EIRs appear to be written to minimize project impacts in every possible way based on supposed empirical analysis.
RESPONSE NO. 10-2 The EIR was drafted by PCR Services Corporation (PCR), a professional environmental planning firm specializing in the preparation of CEQA documents, working with the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning as the Lead Agency for the project. PCR has worked with the City of Los Angeles in preparing environmental documents for over 20 years. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1, the Draft EIR was reviewed and modified by the Department of City Planning and reflects the independent judgment of the Department.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-142 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Furthermore, the EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can thoughtfully take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 10-3 The bald truth is that expansion of the Westfield Century City Mall and the other Project elements under the New Century Plan will increase vehicular traffic in West Los Angeles and will put added and un- provided for burdens on police services, fire protection services, the water system, the power system, the sewer and runoff system, local parks, schools (Westwood Charter School is already turning away students due to lack of capacity) and libraries, and will increase local refuse creation, gas and particulate pollution and noise pollution as a result of its implementation.
RESPONSE NO. 10-3 As discussed in detail in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, Section IV.I.2, Police Protection, Section IV.I.3, Schools, Section IV.I.4, Libraries, and Section IV.I.5, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in any significant impacts to public services after implementation of mitigation measures.
As discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, runoff during a 50-year, 24-hour storm would not increase relative to existing conditions and the current storm drain system within the adjacent streets would not be negatively affected by the project. Thus, potential impacts on hydrology would be less than significant.
Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for a discussion of water supply.
As summarized in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, through the preparation of an Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles determined that the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to wastewater, solid waste, or power.
Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-6 for a discussion of the Transportation Management Organization. Refer to Section IV.H, Noise, for a discussion of potential noise impacts associated with construction and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-143 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
operation of the project. As indicated therein, the project will not result in any significant noise impacts during operation.
Please also refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR regarding particulate pollution.
COMMENT NO. 10-4 The office and condominium tower will be a relatively enormous replacement for the existing office building on the site and will cast a large and long shadow on Santa Monica Boulevard and properties to its four sides, reducing direct sunlight to other properties and the public street as well as potentially contributing glare to surrounding streets and buildings. Maybe it will create concentrated and adverse wind effects on Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars too. None of this is a good thing.
RESPONSE NO. 10-4 Relative to building heights, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR as well as Response to Comment No. 30-1 regarding shading impacts.
Glare impacts are addressed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the proposed residential tower’s southwestern façade has the potential to cause glare impacts affecting eastbound Santa Monica Boulevard during late afternoons in the winter months. While project windows would be made of non-reflective glass, building accents may include metal or other highly polished surfaces which have the potential to create glare. This impact is considered potentially significant, however implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Due to the wide streets, ample space between abutting buildings, and mature tree canopy in Century City, ‘wind tunnel’ effects are not anticipated to be created by development in this district. Generally, the type of urban street design most conducive to ‘wind tunnels’ consists of narrow streets with tall, unbroken street-walls that do not allow ambient winds to dissipate or change direction; this is easily observed in many portions of Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago where the streets are relatively narrow and there is no canopy or other obstruction to the winds. Since the proposed project is replacing an existing building while substantially maintaining the existing structure’s orientation, length of frontage, and setback from adjoining structures, the potential for increased ‘wind-tunnel’ effects is low. Furthermore, the enhanced streetscape and new street-trees proposed to be constructed both by the project, as well as by the Century City Greening Plan will help provide wind-blocks to prevent such ‘wind-tunnel’ effects
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-144 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 10-5 It appears to this observer that development of this Project, like others that have been proposed in this City, is based in part in the hope that City authorities can be "gamed" both in public hearings and filings and privately in conversation and correspondence, to afford the developer more project size and thus more opportunity for more profit than the developer needs to make the Project succeed both aesthetically and economically. The last few stories of the high rise office tower/condominium, the square footage of the office portion of the Project, the square footage for retail space, and the parking capacity requested along with any traffic and transportation accommodations requested, may well be designed to "max out" what the developer can request with a straight face. It is our suspicion that the developer can build the Project satisfactory to itself with fewer stories in the tower, less office space and retail square footage and fewer parking spaces. But in our opinion the developer will try to get approval of as big a project as it can convince the Department of Planning and other City departments, the Planning Commission, the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee and ultimately the City Council to accept. And as it is hard to say no to a smiling child who wants a piece of candy, it is hard for public officials to say no to a well tooled developer pitch backed by the promise of City tax revenue. Sometimes, however, as in the instant case, less in size and impact may be more for the well being of our City and its residents.
RESPONSE NO. 10-5 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The project described and evaluated in the Draft EIR represents the maximum development envelope of the New Century Plan. The Applicant may decide to build, or the City Council may approve, a smaller project than the one described in the Draft EIR if such a project has the same or fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project. The CEQA analyses presented in the Draft EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City of Los Angeles as to the potential environmental impacts of the project.
COMMENT NO. 10-6 The Westfield Project should be built no larger than current applicable zoning, specific plan and size limits permit. Exemptions and variances should not be granted to enhance parking capacity, to allow bulk and design elements that are not currently permitted as of right now or to allow a 47 story project when the last several stories are more puff and profit for the developer than an essential condition of the Project. And shouldn't the heights stated for the elements of the Project be calculated from street level rather than the level of the existing Mall? Is the Project as proposed in fact taller from the ground than the numbers presented would suggest? The size of this Project is designed to maximize the profits for its owner. A reduced size will result in reduced profit but will be more compatible with and less problematic for adjacent neighborhoods. Of course, if the design of the Project is less than excellent, the West Los Angeles community is likely not to embrace the expanded mall or the condominiums, so
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-145 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Westfield has all the incentive it needs to build a first class and quality project without the major accommodations by the City and neighbors that the Project as proposed demands. Even though at a reduced size the Project won't "pencil out" with as much profitability as the Plan presented in the DEIR may provide, such a less impactful alternative will no doubt be economic enough for Westfield or its successors.
RESPONSE NO. 10-6 The New Century Plan is consistent with the commercial zoning and Regional Commercial General Plan designation of the project site. The 49-story residential building is currently permitted by the C2-2 zone, which imposes no height limits on the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site. The Specific Plan Amendment is proposed so that the heights of all buildings throughout the Shopping Center may be measured consistently from the Shopping Center’s plaza level; currently, the CCNSP requires only those buildings within the C2-1VL zone to be measured from the plaza level. The Draft EIR contains information regarding the heights of each building as measured from the plaza level, and provides the height of the plaza level from adjacent street grade, which varies from 7 to 11 feet (page 381).
A reduced size project was considered within the Section V, Alternatives of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR evaluated a building 200 feet in height and concluded that a building of this height would not provide for the program of uses proposed by the New Century Plan. Specifically, the number of residential units would be reduced by more than half if the same footprint were used. The inability to provide for the programmed uses together with the investment that would still be necessary to construct a new state-of-the-art landmark building would result in a project that would not be feasible or meet the basic project objectives.
COMMENT NO. 10-7 It is self- evident that a larger mall, with more stores, more entertainment and restaurants and more parking spaces, combined with a business tower and condominium complex will generate more traffic on area streets than the present configuration of these properties creates. With existing streets at capacity at several times each working day, and on weekends, the traffic generated by the Westfield New Century Plan will either increase traffic to approach roadway capacity or will generate traffic to exceed roadway capacity. To argue otherwise is a quaint numbers game, but only future experience will tell how this project overwhelms its neighborhood. Arterial streets will be avoided by those seeking to circumvent the resultant gridlock and level D, E and F intersections. How? By drivers cutting through the West LA residential neighborhoods. Traffic going south or north will bleed off Santa Monica Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard into residential north- south streets between them, north of them and south of them. North- south streets in Cheviot Hills like Patricia Avenue, Motor Avenue, Manning Avenue, Parnell Avenue and others will feel the burden of this pressure both north and south of Pico Boulevard. Rather than using Pico Boulevard westbound and turning south at
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-146 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
metered lights, cut- through traffic will seek the fastest route by taking the north- south streets and crossing Pico on these streets at lights with longer timing. This traffic in Cheviot Hills northbound to the Westfield Mall and southbound to the 10 freeway, Culver City, the beach cities and Playa Vista among other destinations, will put pressure on residential streets that will be, practically, impossible to stop without forcing neighborhoods to become cul-de-sac surrounded islands with only a few gateway streets in and out. The Westfield Project may force the balkanization of residential blocks throughout the Westwood, Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills and Beverlywood areas. This is a big price to pay to satisfy the profit ambitions of one developer. Combined with all existing and contemplated construction in the Century City area, both in Los Angeles and in Beverly Hills, the concept of increasing traffic to the Westfield Mall and the rest of the Project seems problematic. And yet it is proposed and garners adherents in its paid engineers, lawyers, City officials and those who think growth is always best, even when capacity is taxed to the limit.
RESPONSE NO. 10-7 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the formulation of the project trip generation forecast. As a point of clarification, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project (i.e., the net increase in commercial square footage and the residential component) will overall result in a decrease in vehicular trip generation during only the weekday A.M. peak commuter hour when compared to existing conditions. This net decrease in morning peak hour trip generation is due to the demolition of two existing office buildings as part of the development of the project. A net increase in vehicular trip generation is expected to occur with the project during the weekday P.M. and weekend peak hours.
As a point of clarification, three street segments along Manning Avenue were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Street Segment Location No. 2: Manning Avenue south of Pico Boulevard, Street Segment Location No. 3: Manning Avenue west of Motor Avenue, and Street Segment Location No. 4: Manning Avenue east of Motor Avenue) and were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Two intersections along Manning Avenue also were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Intersection No. 18: Manning Avenue/Pico Boulevard and Intersection No. 19: Motor Avenue/Manning Avenue) and were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Two street segments along Motor Avenue were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Street Segment Location No. 7: Motor Avenue south of Pico Boulevard and Street Segment Location No. 8: Motor Avenue between Club Place and Cresta Drive) and were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. In addition, Intersection No. 24: Patricia Avenue/Pico Boulevard was also included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis and was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Refer to Figures 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4, pages 57 through 59 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR for a presentation of the existing A.M., P.M. and weekend peak hour traffic volumes at these locations.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-147 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The City of Los Angeles has installed measures as part of the Century City Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (CCNTMP) for the Cheviot Hills area. Recent field reviews conducted as part of the Final EIR indicate the installation of many neighborhood traffic calming measures throughout the area, including all-way stop sign installations, traffic signal timing changes (e.g., at the Pico Boulevard and Motor Avenue intersection), speed hump installations, among others. In addition, approximately 10 locations are currently programmed for the installation of landscaped medians by the City of Los Angeles from July, 2008 through approximately August 2008. These locations fall within both the Cheviot Hills and Beverlywood Homes areas.
The City of Los Angeles has installed measures as part of the NTMP for the Comstock Hills area. Recent field reviews conducted as part of the Final EIR, indicate the installation of many neighborhood traffic calming measures throughout the Comstock Hills Homeowners Association area. For example, along Comstock Avenue all-way stop control is provided at the intersections with Club View Drive, Ashton Avenue, Warnall Avenue, and Wilkins Avenue. Four speed humps have also been installed along Comstock Avenue, with one each north and south of Rochester Avenue and two between Wilkins Avenue and Holman Avenue. Another example occurs along Club View Drive where all-way stop control is provided at Rochester Avenue and Wilkins Avenue. In addition, three speed humps have been installed along Comstock Avenue, with one between Comstock Avenue and Rochester Avenue, two between Wilkins Avenue and Eastborne Avenue and one between Eastborne Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard. Lastly, the area is a residential permit parking district (i.e., District No. 6). Given the implementation of these and other neighborhood traffic management measures throughout the association area, the reviewed and accepted trip distribution pattern associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT.
The neighborhood street segment impact analysis, as summarized in Section 14 on pages 128 through 132 in Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, was prepared in accordance with LADOT standards. According to LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies & Procedures, March 2002, page 10: “A local residential street shall be deemed significantly impacted based on an increase in the projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.” The following threshold criteria have been established:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SEGMENT IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Projected Average Daily Project-Related Traffic With Project (Final ADT) Increase in ADT 0 to 999 16 percent or more of final ADT 1,000 or more 12 percent or more of final ADT 2,000 or more 10 percent or more of final ADT 3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-148 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
In the Cheviot Hills area (south of the project site), the following roadway designations/classifications are contained in the City of Los Angeles Circulation Element of the General Plan (Source: Generalized Circulation, West Los Angeles map): 1) Motor Avenue, Collector (between Pico Boulevard and Manning Avenue), 2) Manning Avenue, Collector (west of Motor Avenue) and Secondary Highway (east of Motor Avenue), 3) Patricia Avenue, Collector. Section B, Selection/Performance Criteria for Street Designations, page 77 of the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan, adopted in September 1999 by the City of Los Angeles City Council, indicates a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day for Collector type roadways. While the section does not outline specific carrying capacities for local streets, other jurisdictions generally indicate that volumes up to 2,500 vehicles per day are typical. As shown in Section IV.J, Table 63 on page 609 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, no more than 134 average weekday daily trips is added to any single roadway segment in this area (i.e., Street Segment No. 4, Manning Avenue, east of Motor Avenue). This particular roadway segment is classified as a Secondary Highway which pursuant to the General Plan has a carrying capacity of between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day. Street Segment No. 3, Manning Avenue, west of Motor Avenue, is classified as a Collector which pursuant to the General Plan has a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day.
Refer also to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for additional discussion of neighborhood streets located east of Century City and south of Pico Boulevard. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-6 for a discussion of the Transportation Management Organization.
COMMENT NO. 10-8 Construction of the Project will take years as proposed. For those years, construction noise, vibration, dust debris, worker traffic and hauling will be impacting Century City, adjoining neighborhoods and the Westside at large. The Westfield Project reduced in size and scope will take less time to build and will have less impact on the community during construction, namely enhancing local health and safety and reducing adverse impacts on the quiet enjoyment of residents in the area.
RESPONSE NO. 10-8 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project. Please refer to Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR regarding vibration impacts and mitigation measures proposed to address such impacts, including the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Also refer to Section V, Alternatives for a discussion of a reduced project. As indicated therein, a reduced project would
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-149 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
also be anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with construction (e.g., construction- related air quality and noise impacts). Furthermore, a reduction in the intensity of construction activities would only extend the duration of construction activities.
COMMENT NO. 10-9 The environmental impact of increased car journeys to Century City encouraged by the Project's expanded Mall and the office component of the proposed office/ condo tower, as well as journeys by residents of the condominium tower and their (and its) many employees will increase the current air and noise pollution at the New Century Plan project site and in the surrounding neighborhood and a contiguous area, raising health issues which Westfield does not appear to intend to ameliorate by compensation to individuals or to the community at large. What will the total number of daily motor vehicle trips to and from Century City in fact be with the addition of all the trips contemplated by the Project and other development in Century City and adjacent Beverly Hills? The supposed "time shifting" of traffic by the Project from peak travel periods to a regular daily and weekend flow at other times does not reduce the health and safety risks of this increased aggregate traffic. It only replaces a morning and evening flood of traffic with the expectation of a larger, constant flow of cars and their resultant pollutants and noise. The possibility of congestion around the Project on public streets as drivers queue up in attempt to enter and to leave the site is very real. Unless people walk or bicycle to the mall, the Project can only increase public health risks.
RESPONSE NO. 10-9 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the formulation of the project trip generation forecast. As stated on page 79, Volume I of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,922 vehicle trips during the weekday 24-hour period and a net increase of 7,466 vehicle trips during the weekend 24-hour period. Table 9-2, page 83 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, presents a summary of the anticipated related projects weekday traffic volumes. The development of the 108 related projects is forecast to generate roughly 73,000 vehicles per weekday. Table 9-3, page 88 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, presents a summary of the anticipated related projects weekend day traffic volumes. The development of the 108 related projects is forecast to generate roughly 69,000 vehicles per weekend day.
Vehicle congestion and vehicle queuing at the project’s entrances were evaluated as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. Specifically, Section 4.6, beginning on page 25 of Appendix G contained within Volume III of the Draft EIR provides a summary of the parking structure queuing analysis. The analysis includes a review of the driveway lane configurations, driveway traffic volumes, parking control processing rates and reservoir storage needs. It was concluded that no on- street vehicle queuing during peak hours is expected to occur. Refer also to Topical Response Nos. 1 and 5 for a summary of the project’s traffic mitigation measures.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-150 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The proposed project includes numerous project features to discourage reliance on personal automobiles, including preferential parking for alternative-fueled vehicles and carpools, encouraging the use of mass transit, and encouraging pedestrian and bicycling as viable means of accessing the project site by employees, residents, and visitors. It should be noted that “time shifting” of traffic patterns can result in lower air pollutant emissions, because vehicles emit less when operated in a free-flow manner rather than subject to delays, repeated acceleration, and slower speeds.
As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with noise from traffic during operation of the project.
The primary pollutant of concern to the surrounding neighborhood resulting from vehicle trips associated with operation of the proposed project site is Carbon Monoxide (CO). Potential Health Risks from CO are discussed on page 281 of Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The analysis evaluated two representative intersections and found impacts to be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 10-10 The New Century Plan should not even be considered for approval since at this time there are traffic improvements and mitigations that have not yet been implemented and put in the ground but that were conditions of approval for other, earlier Century City mega- projects such as 2000 Avenue of the Stars and the Fox Studio Expansion, projects that are already built and have certificates of occupancy. For example, and without attempting to be comprehensive, the NTMP for Cheviot Hills and adjoining neighborhoods has not been completed, nor has the widening of Overland Avenue at the bridge over the 10 Freeway taken place. How can the City approve a new mega- project for Century City when fundamental improvements that were conditions of prior projects have not been completed or even commenced? The expansion of Santa Monica Boulevard is already at close to practical capacity during many periods of the day: how is traffic on that thoroughfare going to be improved by the addition daily of THOUSANDS of vehicular trips going to and from the Westfield Century City complex?
RESPONSE NO. 10-10 Refer to Topical Response Nos. 1 and 5 for a summary of the project’s traffic mitigation measures. As stated on pages 623 and 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, project-related cumulative impacts on intersections, neighborhood street segments, freeway segments, and the regional transportation system have been analyzed. Further, as stated on page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, by comparing the future pre-project conditions to the future with project conditions, increases in system-wide traffic volumes in the project vicinity are anticipated. It is anticipated that the individual related projects would be required to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to the extent feasible. However, as no such guarantee exists in order to ensure that every project
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-151 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
implements the required mitigation measures, it has been conservatively concluded in the Draft EIR that cumulative development would yield a significant cumulative impact on operations.
COMMENT NO. 10-11 West Los Angeles has historically not taken to public transportation for local travel, yet the only solution to the health and safety issues prompted by more traffic is public transportation. The Plan proposes Project- specific transit enhancements on our streets like mini-bus routes to and from the Project site and within Century City, but these devices bring with them a tyranny of their own in the form of encouraging non-residents to park at and near transit stops on public streets, thus shifting traffic from major thoroughfares to and from the Project site to residential streets that were never intended as commercial parking lots for this Project or any other. The notion that bus traffic to and from the as yet un-built and far distant EXPO transit line is a boon to the citizens of this City is patently absurd: all transit to and from EXPO will do is impose the pressure of more and larger vehicles on public streets that are already at capacity carrying private vehicles. Creating new streams of traffic to and from the Westfield Mall on existing streets is no improvement of the already overwhelmed West Los Angeles traffic grid.
RESPONSE NO. 10-11 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. Further, if a shuttle circulator is included as part of the TDM Plan, the project applicant agrees to meet with each HOA and the City to solicit input and suggestions regarding any potential shuttle system prior to implementation. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the applicant and the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-6 for a discussion of the Transportation Management Organization. Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study.
The Exposition Corridor Transit Project - Phase 2 proposes to improve public transit service and mobility in the Exposition Corridor between Culver City and Santa Monica, by extending the benefits of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Project – Phase 1 (which is currently under construction) beyond its currently planned terminus in Culver City to a terminus in Santa Monica. Two primary right-of-way (ROW) alignments between 6.9 and 7.8 miles are currently being considered.
The 6.9 mile alignment would generally follow the former Exposition Rail ROW for the full distance from the planned terminus at the Venice/Robertson station in Culver City to 5th and Colorado in Santa Monica. The 7.8 mile alignment diverts from the ROW at the Venice/Robertson station in Culver City and follows Venice Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard where it turns north to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-152 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
rejoin the ROW near the I-405 (San Diego) Freeway. Both light rail transit and bus rapid transit are being evaluated in the Exposition rail alignment. Light rail is being studied for the Venice/Sepulveda alignment.
As the Exposition Corridor Transit Project – Phase 2 is still in the development stages, and construction is envisioned to be completed after the buildout year of the proposed New Century Plan Project, direct connections to any future station has not been assumed in the Draft EIR Traffic analysis. In addition, none of the alignments currently under consideration connect to Century City. The nearest stations (north of the I-10 [Santa Monica] Freeway) currently under consideration are located south of Pico Boulevard and west of Overland Avenue.
COMMENT NO. 10-12 A note on the EXPO line. Wherever it ends up being sited, the EXPO line will not go "close" to Century City and will only serve to re-channel some traffic along existing streets to and from Century City. The EXPO project, for all its supposed transportation enhancements, is at its heart an effective windfall for developers, who are encouraged by the City to build RAS- 3 and RAS- 4 or larger mixed use buildings and SB- 1818 encouraged oversize housing complexes along its route, all of which will increase Westside density and increase vehicular traffic stress along the EXPO transit line in the Westside and in general, to the pleasure only of the developers who pocket profits from their land and building speculation (with City encouragement) and the City for increased tax revenues (which monies will not be mandated for use on the overburdened Westside.) And so a putative solution becomes the problem. No currently elected City official was elected with a voter mandate to increase multifamily residential density and business/ commercial density in the City of Los Angeles, but that is in effect what our elected officials and City bureaucracy are doing without a public referendum. EXPO will not improve the transit situation in Century City and for the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 10-12 Refer to Response to Comfment No. 10-11 for discussion related to the project. As the Exposition Corridor Transit project time frame is beyond the buildout year of the proposed project, it was not considered as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. However, the applicant is designing the project to be “transit-ready” if and when the transit corridor project is completed. The comments regarding the commentor’s anticipated affect of the extension project are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 10-13 We question whether the expansion of parking for the Project's larger Mall complex, the office facilities and the condominium tower by aggregating parking tied to the 3 parcels of land on which the Project would stand (the existing Mall perimeter, the 1930 Century Park West
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-153 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
property and the 1801 Avenue of the Stars office property) and possibly throwing in some purchased "trips" is sufficient to support the parking requirements of the New Century Plan as prepared and fully permissible under existing zoning, Community Plan and Century City development protocols. Are parking limits governed by the Century City North Specific Plan ("CCNSP") in fact being honored by the Project as proposed? Can only a City revision of the CCNSP "trip" caps in controversion of the whole rationale for limiting "trip" numbers and their transfer give Westfield what it wants to build the Project? Such a revision would, it would seem, be against public policy and a distortion of the City's obligation to its people to maintain historic limits on Century City facilities to avoid overwhelming the local transportation grid.
RESPONSE NO. 10-13 Page 556, Volume I of the Draft EIR provides an overview of parking associated with the proposed project. Section 4.0, beginning on page 17 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, provides an overview of the code parking and shared parking demand analysis. Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis for additional discussion. The Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) does not impose parking limits and vehicular trips are not related to parking as vehicle trip generation is derived from a generating land use, not parking spaces in and of themselves. Refer to Topical Response No. 10 for a discussion of the CATGP Trips required for the project under the CCNSP.
COMMENT NO. 10-14 The addition of this Project in the immediate Century City area to the already constructed and approved and soon to be approved condominium and commercial projects in Century City and adjoining Beverly Hills may literally be the project that breaks the back of practical personal and public transit in the neighborhood. Until there is real and generally used public transit to the site in the form of a heavy rail subway (a project that at this time is a dream in Councilmens' and the Mayor's eyes and many years from reality) and a Community Plan that deals effectively with the growth in transportation and other pressures on community services and residents in the West los Angeles area and Century City, a Project of this size should not be countenanced or approved.
RESPONSE NO. 10-14 Refer to Response to Comment No. 10-11 for discussion of the project’s traffic mitigation measures which includes measures to encourage the use of public transportation. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of a knock-out panel which is being planned within the tower’s parking garage foundation near the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars to provide access to a future Metro subway station. The comment contains introductory, opinion, anecdotal, or general information, and is not a specific comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Thus, the comment will forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-154 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 10-15 The Westfield New Century Plan DEIR must have cost many tens of thousands of dollars to prepare. The public advocates, solicitors of support, lawyers, public relations people and others whose services have been engaged by Westfield to push the New Century Plan on elected officials, civil servants and the public at large must cost quite a bit too. It is hard to believe that citizens without such resources can temper the size and impact of a project that has so much economic clout behind it. But we must assume that City personnel, elected officials and if necessary, the judiciary will take notice of problematic elements of the New Century Plan as proposed and not approve this project without significant reductions in its scope and impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 10-15 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The CEQA analyses presented in the Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Los Angeles as to the potential impacts of the Project across all environmental issues.
COMMENT NO. 10-16 This Project should be built only if it makes sense for West Los Angeles and its residents. The EIR as drafted is, in the opinion of this writer, not persuasive on this point. We ask that all issues raised in this letter be addressed impartially in the revised EIR for the project and that all concerns raised herein be remedied before the Plan is approved for construction in any form.
RESPONSE NO. 10-16 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 10-2, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1, the Draft EIR was reviewed and modified by the Department of City Planning and reflects the independent judgment of the Department. The purpose of a Draft EIR is to disclose the environmental impacts of a project. The analysis of such impacts was based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 10-17 Please provide written notice to the undersigned of all developments regarding this EIR and the Project by mailing the same to Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association, c/o Gregory M. Pulis, 10331 Dunleer Drive, los Angeles, California 90064. Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-155 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 10-17 The Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association will continue to be included on the mailing list for environmental notices regarding the proposed project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-156 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 11
Coalition of Homeowner Associations No address provided
COMMENT NO. 11-1 Please accept these comments on The New Century Plan: 10250 Santa Monica Blvd, 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West, Los Angeles - Draft Environmental Impact Report, ENV-2006-1914-EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096.
The response is being presented on behalf of a coalition of homeowner associations neighboring Century City.
The associations represented include: Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association, Cheviot Hills Traffic Safety Association, Tract 7260 Homeowners Association, and Westwood Homeowners Association.
Source Documents Referenced 1. Century City North Specific Plan 2. Century City North Specific Plan Summary 3. 1975 Century City Traffic Study 4. Beverly Crest Contamination Report 5. L.A. Times Article, “No Water, No Development” April 7, 2008 6. 1988 Century City Mall Conditions 7. Photo: Illegal Loading on Century Park West 8. Photo: Differential Between Street and Plaza Level 9. 1998 Annual Infrastructure Report 10. MMRA Letter to Gail Goldberg, Bel-Air Crest Letter to Gail Goldberg, Tract 7260 Letter to Gail Goldberg 11. CASE NO. BS 089519 STIPULATION RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION 12. “LA mandates green building” Article 13. “Down to the Meter – Localized Vehicle Pollution Matters” 14. “Traffic and Health Report” – Environmental Health Fund 15. Daily News Article: “Water Woes Worry City Councilman: Dennis Zine Suggests Halting Residential Development” 16. Alternative Trip Generation Backup 17. Letter from Judy Utvich, Principal of Westwood Charter School
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-157 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Introduction Our areas of primary concern include: The EIR does not accurately describe development rights and land use issues with regard to the Century City North Specific Plan; The project does not adequately describe the project as the draft CCNSP amendment language was not provided; Cumulative impact issues are not adequately described. This includes traffic, noise and pollution impacts; Impacts on public services including police, fire, parks and libraries are not properly disclosed; Several inconsistencies with shopping center trip transfer exist; Cumulative impacts of related projects were not properly disclosed; and The proposed haul route will impact an already impacted segment of the community.
RESPONSE NO. 11-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Each of the concerns cited in this comment are addressed in the following responses to comments.
COMMENT NO. 11-2 The Century City Mall, now Westfield/Century City, provides valuable services, shops, restaurants and entertainment to our community. We understand that retail centers require constant re-tooling and upgrading to remain competitive.
We also would like to take this opportunity to state that Westfield has been an excellent corporate neighbor. They have been responsive to community concerns and have opened strong lines of communication within the community. The comments included in this document should not be interpreted as hostile in any way towards Westfield.
RESPONSE NO. 11-2 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 11-3 Nothing in this document should be interpreted as questioning the number of CCNSP CATGP Trips on the shopping center parcel as of December 22, 2005. Nothing in this document should be interpreted as opposing or objecting to Westfield obtaining Replacement Trips on the Shopping Center Parcel as it exists today.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-158 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-3 The comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 11-4
1. General Comments 1.1. The City Lacks Adequate Information to Assess The State of the Infrastructure The City is charged with producing a report called the “Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure.” The report is supposed to “annually document what has actually happened to the City's population levels, housing construction, employment levels, and the availability of public infrastructure and public services…” The report is described in the Growth Monitoring section of the General Plan originally adopted on December 11, 1996 and Re-adopted on August 8, 2001 (CPC 94-0354 GPF CF 95-2259 CF 01-1162).
The report is supposed to: “…annually document what has actually happened to the City's population levels, housing construction, employment levels, and the availability of public infrastructure and public services. Information on environmental conditions will also be monitored on a yearly basis to maintain and update an environmental database, which will be used to facilitate … environmental review for subsequent programs and projects in accordance with CEQA.”
The City has seen its infrastructure become increasingly challenged as development continues without matching investment in the infrastructure. Every portion of the infrastructure including transportation, water, power, police, fire, parks, libraries and schools seems to be in a far more precarious state.
How can the City approve more development without understanding whether the City can withstand the demands of development on the infrastructure? Prior to approval of any project, the City must prepare the required reports from 1999 to the present so that the current state of the infrastructure can be assessed. The collection of yearly reports will also allow for the City and the public to understand the trajectory of infrastructure consumption and availability.
RESPONSE NO. 11-4 The City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of updating the West Los Angeles Community Plan. As part of that update, the City has compiled a list of all the new community facilities, transportation improvements, transit studies, and infrastructure improvements completed in the West Los Angeles Community Plan area since 1999, the date of the last Community Plan update, which is illustrated in Figure III-5 on page III-160 below. Thus, the City has reviewed and evaluated the existing City infrastructure in the area of the New Century Plan.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-159 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress N Figure III-5 New Service and Facilities 0 1600 3200 Feet Since Last Plan Update (1999) Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, April 2008.
New Century Plan Page III-160 III. Responses to Written Comments
Additionally, the Draft EIR evaluates and describes the City’s existing infrastructure and conditions with respect to transportation (Section IV.J) and public services, including fire, police, schools, libraries and parks (Section IV.I) in the area around the Westfield Century City Shopping Center. The Draft EIR then analyzes the project’s demand on the City’s infrastructure to determine whether the project will have a significant impact with respect to the City’s transportation or public services. Therefore the analyses requested by the commentor have been conducted in the Draft EIR to determine whether the City’s infrastructure can accommodate the project’s impacts.
Additionally, several of the project’s mitigation measures include substantial improvements to the City’s infrastructure. The project Applicant will be required pay fees to DWP to upgrade the water line along Constellation Park from an eight inch to a twelve inch line, allowing increased water pressure to Century City residents served by the upgraded water line (Mitigation Measure I.1-1). Century Park West, which is currently underutilized in the southbound direction, will be restriped to accommodate dual northbound left-turn lanes and dual northbound right-turn lanes (Mitigation Measure J-3).
COMMENT NO. 11-5 1.2. The Concept of Fee Payment Equating to Mitigation is Flawed Throughout the EIR, the concept of mitigation being satisfied by the payment of fees is used. We believe that this basic concept is fatally flawed. By way of example, and as described more fully below, the concept that an overage of 319 seats out of 800 at Westwood Charter can be “mitigated” by payments to the LAUSD is unfounded. The reality is that fee payment to a central agency does nothing to mitigate the impacts on local users of an impacted facility.
RESPONSE NO. 11-5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) approves the use of fees to mitigate a project's cumulative impact. Additionally, courts have held that financial contributions to an improvement program is a reasonable mitigation measure. For example, in Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 807 the court held that a financial contribution to a traffic impact fee plan was a reasonable mitigation program to address a project's traffic impacts. As analyzed in Section IV.I.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would generate approximately 44 elementary school students, 24 middle school students, and 21 high school students. With the addition of the project-generated students, all school facilities serving the project site would be able to accommodate the new students with the exception of Westwood Charter Elementary School, which would experience a shortage of 166 seats. Similarly, development of the project in combination with the related projects identified in Section IV.I.3 of the Draft EIR would result in a shortage of 319 seats at Westwood Charter Elementary School. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of SB 50 fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from implementation of a project to levels that are less than significant. Thus, the payment of developer fees would serve to mitigate all project-
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-161 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
related impacts and cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no other mitigation measures are required. In addition, due to the anticipated demographics of the future residents of the project, the project’s projected student generation is likely to overstate the actual impact to the school facilities serving the project. Census tract information for the residential developments near the project site indicates that in 2000, there were only 213 total K-12 students enrolled in school among 2,184 households. Approximately two-thirds (63.4 percent) of these students were enrolled in private rather than public schools. Thus, the actual total public school generation rates for this particular area is much smaller than LAUSD’s overall generation rates that were used to estimate the number of public school students generated by the project.
COMMENT NO. 11-6 1.3. If Every Project Has Been Mitigated to Insignificance, Why is the Infrastructure Failing? With each successive project in Century City, the public is told that all impacts are reduced to insignificance or that the new project will result in a decreased impact. Hundreds of thousands of new square feet of office space, residential space and retail space have been created using this concept. If correct, the reasonable conclusion would be that traffic would be staying the same, police and fire stations would have fewer calls and schools would not become impacted.
Of course, this is not the case. With each successive development, traffic has become more congested. Police and firefighters have to cover more with less and schools see more students and fewer resources.
We submit that claims of insignificance and the methods for determining significance be modified to accurately reflect the true impact of development projects.
RESPONSE NO. 11-6 The Draft EIR's evaluation of potential impacts associated with traffic, police protection, fire protection and schools were based on thresholds of significance adopted by the City of Los Angeles as well as consultation with the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Each of these analyses included an evaluation of cumulative impacts of the project and related projects. Refer to Sections IV.J, Traffic and Circulation, IV.I.1, Fire Protection, IV.I.2, Police Protection, and IV.I.3, Schools of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 11-7 1.4. The City Has Failed To Implement Mitigations Yet Grants Occupancy Permits Through its own failings, the City has granted certificates of occupancy to previous development projects even though promised and paid-for mitigations have not been implemented. The residents are therefore exposed to the impacts of a project without the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-162 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
mitigations which were supposed to reduce those impacts. Worse, because the City allows merely the payment of fees instead of actual mitigation completion prior to issuing occupancy certificates, fees paid by developers become insufficient to complete promised mitigations. New projects are then allowed to take credit for providing supplemental funding for the old mitigations as their new mitigations. This results in two projects being impermissibly mitigated by the same mitigation. Examples include the pedestrian walkway in Century City, the Overland Avenue bridge widening and the widening of the National Blvd. off ramp.
1.5. The City Must Mandate All Mitigations Be In Place Prior To Occupancy As a direct result of the above, we request that all mitigations be in place prior to the issuance of any occupancy certificates and that any funds contributed to “old” mitigations not be considered mitigations for the current project.
RESPONSE NO. 11-7 Many of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR include provisions that they will be implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit or construction of the project. However, since the New Century Plan is proposed as a phased project to be constructed over a four year period, its construction mitigation measures are all proposed to be in place prior to the impacts of constructing such phases. Additionally, many of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR regulate operation (not construction) of the New Century Plan, and therefore cannot be implemented prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The New Century Plan’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included in Section IV of this Final EIR and which will be approved by the City of Los Angeles, will include language specifying the timing of each mitigation measure. In addition, all of the project’s non-operational mitigation measures will be implemented prior to the last occupancy permit being pulled for the New Century Plan.
The New Century Plan does not propose to contribute funds to “old” mitigation measures. The New Century Plan proposes to pay fees in connection with only two impacts, to schools and parks, as required by law.
COMMENT NO. 11-8 1.6. The DEIR Is Incomplete And Cannot Be Evaluated Without Actual Century City North Specific Plan Amendment Language The DEIR makes repeated reference to a proposed amendment to the Century City North Specific Plan and attempt [sic] to characterize, in broad strokes, the impacts of the proposed amendment. Without a full disclosure of the actual proposed amendment, the public cannot be assured that the amendment will only have the impacts described. The CCNSP was put in place to cap development within Century City, to protect surrounding neighborhoods from over-height buildings and other impacts, and to restrict retail space within the Century City Mall. Statements of consistency with the CCNSP that are
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-163 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
conditional on the proposed amendment cannot be evaluated without a full and complete understanding of the ramifications of the amendments.
RESPONSE NO. 11-8 Please refer to Appendix C of this Final EIR for the project’s proposed amendments to the CCNSP. The Draft EIR fully discloses the project’s proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. Page 129 of Section II of the Draft EIR describes each of the changes requested as part of the Specific Plan Amendment. Additionally, pages 111, 119, and 120 of Section II describe the application of this Specific Plan Amendment to the properties at 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West, to demonstrate how the Specific Plan Amendment would unify these properties and measure the heights of each building within the project site consistently. Page 403 of Section IV.G of the Draft EIR, Land Use, again states each element of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and this description is partially repeated on page 422. The Draft EIR thus provides sufficient information to evaluate the New Century Plan’s consistency with the Century City North Specific Plan with adoption of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
As stated in the Draft EIR, Section II, Project Description, the Applicant proposes an amendment to the CCNSP to extend the definition of the Shopping Center site to include the 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West properties, and apply the Retail Commercial CCNSP Cumulative Automobile Trip Generation Potential (CATGP) Trip rate factor to this enlarged Shopping Center site; to extend the existing CCNSP provision concerning the measurement of the Shopping Center height (as being measured from the floor elevation of the plaza level) to the entire Shopping Center site, including Limited Height District No. 1 (1L), 1801 Avenue of the Stars, and 1930 Century Park West; to acknowledge that there should be no limit on the number of stories built within the Very Limited Height District No. 1 (1VL) portion of the Shopping Center, as long as the 45-foot height limitation is not exceeded (consistent with existing height limitations for the shopping center along Century Park West); to clarify that provisions of the commercial corner ordinance which apply to the 1930 Century Park West property, if it were to be developed as a separate parcel, shall be superseded by the CCNSP and conditions of approval for the project; to consider the entire property as a unified site and allow for the transfer of floor area, density, and CCNSP CATGP Trips within the site as a whole; and to acknowledge that the shopping center may incorporate residential uses in keeping with smart growth goals of providing mixed-use sites within regional center sites.
COMMENT NO. 11-9 1.7. Current Residents Are Neglected For The Benefit of Future Residents The constant approval of projects by the city and the degradation of city services to existing residents represents a slow, methodical reverse-taking of property values and quality of life from existing residents.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-164 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Current residents are asked to accept increased traffic, less access to city services, and, as described clearly in the DEIR, be displaced from one of their neighborhood schools.
The city must take into account the rights and property values of current residents just as much as it takes into account development rights requested by developers of new projects.
RESPONSE NO. 11-9 The comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration prior to making any determinations regarding the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, “[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment… The focus of the [CEQA] analysis shall be on the physical changes.” The New Century Plan’s effect on property values in the area is not an environmental consideration under CEQA, and therefore has not been evaluated in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR analyzes the New Century Plan’s impact on public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, and water supply, and determines that the project will have a less than significant in each of these areas. Therefore, the project will not result in current Century City residents having less access to City services.
With respect to the New Century Plan’s impacts on schools, the project’s impacts on LAUSD school facilities (i.e., Westwood Charter Elementary School) would be reduced to a less than significant level with the payment of developer impact fees in accordance with SB 50 and pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Three of the four schools around the project are operating well under capacity and would be able to accommodate new students from the project. Only one school, Westwood Charter Elementary is currently operating over its capacity. Additionally, the Draft EIR presents a very conservative estimate of the number of students generated by the New Century Plan. As discussed in Section IV.J.3, Public Services – Schools, due to the anticipated demographics of the future residents of the New Century Plan, the project’s projected student generation likely overstates the actual impact to the school facilities serving the project. Census tract information for the residential developments near the project site indicates that in 2000, there were only 213 total K-12 students enrolled in school among 2,184 households. Approximately two-thirds (63.4 percent) of these students were enrolled in private rather than public schools. Thus, the actual total public school generation rates for this particular area is much smaller than LAUSD’s overall generation rates that were used to estimate the number of public school students generated by the project. Furthermore, census tract data also shows that the age of the household heads in owner-occupied units in this area is skewed heavily in the direction of age 55+. Occupants of the project’s residential units would also likely be older residents or “empty-nesters”. As the anticipated selling prices for the residential units would require
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-165 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
higher income residents, to the extent that school age children are present, they are also likely to attend private schools rather than LAUSD public schools.
COMMENT NO.11-10 1.8. “Temporary” Construction Impacts Are Not Temporary The West L.A. area has seen decades of major development. This includes a previous mall
expansion, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 10250 Constellation, 2000 Avenue of the Stars, 2055 Avenue of the Stars, three phases of Fox Studios expansion, and the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway project.
The 10131 Constellation project has been approved and can start at any time. Two major projects in Beverly Hills are going through the approval process as is a major project at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard.
These projects all mention “temporary” construction impacts. The combination of the so- called temporary impacts has resulted in a permanent impact on the community. The wear on the lives of residents is just as evident as the wear on our streets from countless numbers of heavy trucks and machinery.
This DEIR as well as every EIR in the future must properly reflect the impact of permanent “temporary” impacts. If not managed properly, the confluence of projects could create “perfect storm” of impacts in West L.A.
RESPONSE NO. 11-10 The Draft EIR includes detailed analyses related to construction of the project and an evaluation of cumulative impacts of the project and related projects. As such, refer to Topical Response 8 for a summary of these analyses as well as an overview of the mitigation measures intended to address construction-related impacts. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 11-11
2. General Requests 2.1. Existing Conditions Must Be Observed and Integrated at Their Most Restrictive Level The community has negotiated and relied upon prior conditions of approval for the shopping center parcel. Those conditions must be maintained at their most restrictive level. Specifically, condition 7, dealing with parking exit operation, condition 9, dealing
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-166 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
with neighborhood parking intrusion, and condition 19, dealing with visibility of new lit signage from nearby residential properties, must be maintained in full force and effect.
RESPONSE NO. 11-11 The New Century Plan will comply with the conditions referenced in this comment letter, originally included in CF 88-0469.
Condition No. 7 states in full “[t]hat the parking exits on Century Park West and the most westerly exit on Constellation Boulevard shall remain closed between the hours of 9:30 P.M. and 8:00 A.M., seven days a week and the easterly parking exit on Constellation Boulevard and the parking exits on all other streets other than Santa Monica Boulevard shall remain closed between the hours of midnight and 8:00 A.M. seven days a week and that signs shall be posted at the easterly exit on Constellation Boulevard informing departing patrons that only left turns shall be permitted between 11:00 P.M. and midnight. Signs shall also be posted at the Santa Monica Boulevard exits informing departing patrons that only right turns shall be permitted between midnight and 8:00 A.M. In addition, the Center will station a person at the easterly exit on Constellation between 11:00 P.M. and midnight to direct traffic in an east-bound direction on Constellation.”
Condition No. 9 states “[t]hat employees of merchants shall be instructed not to park upon adjoining neighboring residential streets and further, the automobile license number of all employees of businesses within the mall shall be recorded and available for spot checking in the event it appears such restriction is being violated. The right to require the applicant to conduct such spot checking is hereby expressly reserved to the Zoning Administrator.”
Condition No. 19 states “[t]hat no new lit signs shall be visible from adjacent R1 property. All new exterior lighting or lighting within parking structures on the site shall be designed/located and be of appropriate intensity as to provide safety for drivers/pedestrians on the site, but not result in disturbance with the peaceful use of nearby residential properties. That all new signs on the exterior site facing Century Park West, Constellation Boulevard, and Santa Monica Boulevard, shall be of a conservative nature and not flashing, blinking or otherwise animated.”
COMMENT NO. 11-12
2.2. Height Requirements for 1930 Century Park West Should Be Measured From Street Level 1930 Century Park West, known as Parcel 21 in the CCNSP, is currently in a 45’ height limit area. Westfield has requested that the 45’ height limit be considered based on plaza level rather than street level. This would allow for an additional floor and would materially impact adjacent R1 property. Based on the DEIR, the differential between
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-167 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
plaza level and street level is approximately 11’. As the 45’ requirement was put in place to protect adjacent R1 property, height measurements should be relative to those homes.
RESPONSE NO. 11-12 Those portions of the Shopping Center with the C2-IVL zone are currently limited to 45’ in height as measured from the shopping center’s plaza level. The proposed CCNSP Amendment would expand the definition of the Shopping Center to include the 1930 Century Park West parcel and thus would also propose to limit the height of the building to be located at 1930 Century Park West (also within the C2-IVL zone) to 45 feet in height as measured from the shopping center’s plaza level. The proposed project would reduce the building height of the structure at 1930 Century Park West by 15 feet when compared with existing conditions. In addition, the remainder of the project site frontage along Century Park West is not proposed for new development. Thus, the adjacent R1 property would not be impacted by proposed building heights.
COMMENT NO. 11-13
2.3. An Alternative Trip Generation Study Should Be Performed On The Allocation Of Trips For The Drive Through The Century City North Specific Plan (“CCNSP”) establishes zoning and land use law governing development in the northern half of the area of Los Angeles known as Century City. This development is regulated based on a number of factors including “Trips.” Under the CCNSP, Trips are defined as a unit of real property development rights and are calculated based on a number of Trip generation factors that are detailed in Section 2 of the CCNSP.
The CCNSP reads in part: Section 6. ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS OF TRIP GENERATION FACTORS If the developer of a Project, the Director of Planning or any other interested person disputes any of the Trip generation factors enumerated in the definition of CATGP in Section 2 of this Ordinance, as applied to a particular Project during the second phase of development, such person may submit a proposed alternative Trip generation factor for the Project, along with a traffic generation study prepared by a registered traffic engineer, for review by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (Department of Transportation). The Department of Transportation shall review the study, report its findings to the Area Planning Commission within 30 days. The Area Planning Commission shall schedule a public hearing thereon, give notice thereof as prescribed in Sections 11.5.7 F and J of the Municipal Code, and within 45 days after such hearing approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the proposed alternative Trip generation factor as the Trip generation factor for the Project. The Commission shall notify the developer, the Director of Planning and the person submitting the alternative
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-168 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
factor of its determination by letter, with copies thereof to the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property involved, each property owner association, and each federation of such associations, representing the owners of property located within 300 feet of the Specific Plan Area and requesting the Commission to give then such notice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Building and Safety, the Council member of the District and the City Clerk of any municipality adjoining the Specific Plan Area.
We dispute the current application of certain Trip generation factors to the proposed project with respect to the trips allocated to the drive-through at 1930 Century Park West. The proposed project currently utilizes the Trips generation factors of:
Bank and office building: • 192 Trips/1,000 square feet (Trip generation factor for a drive-through bank facility) for the first floor of the building. The first floor is occupied by a bank. • 14 Trips/1,000 square feet (Trip generation factor for other office commercial) for the remaining floors of the building.
Drive-through teller: • 192 Trips/1,000 square feet (Trip generation factor for a drive-through bank facility) for the entire structure.
For the Proposed Project, we submit an alternative Trip generation factor for the bank and office building:
Bank and office building: • 14 Trips/1,000 square feet (Trip generation factor for other office commercial) for all floors of the building. • 192/1000 square feet for the drive-through teller, estimated at 600 square feet.
As there was no Project relating to the allocation prior to the current Project, the response to the DEIR for the Project represents the first time the allocation can be challenged. We are submitting a traffic study prepared for the only other drive-through in Century City to accompany our request. The study is submitted only to provide backup for this DEIR and does not represent a challenge to the previously approved 10131 Constellation project.
RESPONSE NO. 11-13 Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential. The Replacement CATGP Trips generated from conversion of the drive-through bank to office uses was reflected in the Department of City Planning’s CATGP Trip Allocation Chart (a public document) beginning on October 2, 2001, almost seven years ago
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-169 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
and before the Applicant acquired 1930 Century Park West. As documented in a Planning Department memorandum dated March 21, 2001, the Planning Department staff at that time confirmed the use of the building’s ground floor as a drive-through bank and therefore correctly applied the CATGP Trip rate of 192 Trips/1,000 square feet to the entire ground floor of the building. This memorandum is included in Appendix D of this Final EIR. After a thorough review of the current building’s plans, the Planning Department has also determined that demolition of the current 1930 Century Park West building would generate 871 Replacement CATGP Trips. A covenant to this effect was approved and recorded with the City on March 22, 2007.
The traffic study attached to the commenter’s letter is not relevant for the purpose of determining the Replacement CATGP Trips generated by the conversion of the drive-through bank to office uses. CATGP Trips and vehicular trips are two different concepts used for two different purposes; the former is used to evaluate a project’s consistency with the CCNSP and thus land use impacts, and the latter is used to determine a project’s traffic impacts. According to the CCNSP, the number of Replacement CATGP Trips generated by a change in land use must be determined by the CATGP Trip rate provided in the CCNSP; thus, the Department of City Planning correctly utilized the CATGP Trip rate for drive-through banks to determine the Replacement CATGP Trips generated by converting this use to office. Additionally, the traffic study included with the commenter’s letter does not analyze the drive-through bank previously located at 1930 Century Park West and therefore has no bearing on this project.
COMMENT NO. 11-14
2.4. Alternative D1 is Preferred, Followed by Alternative D2. The removal of peak hour trips via the absence of office space will reduce project impacts during peak periods.
RESPONSE NO. 11-14 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 11-15
2.5. The Project Should Comply With LEED Gold or Better Standards Westfield has stated that they intend to seek LEED Certified status. We believe that all new projects in Los Angeles should seek LEED Gold status or higher. We refer you to the article “LA Mandates Green Building.”
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-170 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-15 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project would be designed and built in accordance with the criteria of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. At a minimum, the project would be designed and constructed to achieve the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability. LEED standards would be incorporated through measures that would reduce energy and water usage and thus reduce associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, Air Quality, such measures would include but would not be limited to the following: measures to reduce the project’s heating and cooling loads; use of energy-saving technologies and components to reduce the project’s electrical use-profile and water usage; incorporation of commissioning and energy efficiency audits which are processes that ensure that the project’s lighting, mechanical, heating, cooling, ventilation and other energy and water-consuming systems are operating at their designed levels of efficiency; promotion of use of alternative transportation such as mass-transit, ride-sharing, bicycling, and walking; establishment of programs and incentives to decrease employee, visitor, and resident dependence on private, traditional fuel automobiles; utilization of trees and other landscaping, including drought tolerant or native plants; re-use and recycling of demolition materials; and implementation of recycling and waste reduction programs and strategies for tenants, shoppers, and residents.
COMMENT NO. 11-16
3. Specific Comments
3.1. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
3.1.1. Impact of Related Projects The DEIR states: “related projects would not result in visual character of the area.” We disagree. The development of two 45+ story buildings along Santa Monica Boulevard, a Scenic Highway, will minimize views and create a walled-in corridor aesthetic.
RESPONSE NO. 11-16 While Santa Monica Boulevard is considered a scenic highway, the proposed project does not include any features, such as signage, that would be in violation with this designation. Thus, no impacts would occur. Cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics and views are addressed on pages 216 and 217 in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, there are four related projects located within a similar field of view as the proposed project. Of these, Related Project No. 48 is located on Santa Monica Boulevard, more specifically east of Century Park East on the Beverly Hills border, and is anticipated to include high-rise development. This property is located approximately 1/4 mile from the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-171 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Based on this distance, it is unlikely that the proposed project in conjunction with Related Project No. 48 would create the sense of a walled corridor along Santa Monica Boulevard. The other related projects located on Santa Monica Boulevard are located sufficiently distant from the Westfield Century City Shopping Center so as not to fall within the same field of view.
Furthermore, it is noted throughout the aesthetics and views analysis that Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid-and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. Therefore, it was concluded in the Draft EIR that the related projects, combined with the proposed project, would not alter the visual character of the area or substantially contrast with its aesthetic image, and would not result in a significant cumulative impact relative to aesthetics or views.
COMMENT NO. 11-17
3.1.2. Parking Structure Design We request that the parking structure match the design of the structure at 10250 Constellation, have no openings to the west and have the two western-most parking bays closed to prevent noise and light intrusion into residential areas.
RESPONSE NO. 11-17 The parking structure at 10250 Constellation Boulevard is located off-site, immediately south of the project site, while the proposed parking structure referenced in the above comment would be located at 1930 Century Park West, at the corner of Constellation Boulevard. As described in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, this facility would consist of a 45-foot high parking structure (approximately 60 feet measured from average grade) with five levels plus rooftop parking. The parking structure as designed and depicted in the Draft EIR would have no openings (other than the garage entry) on its western elevation facing Century Park West. Additionally, all openings along the structure's south-facing Constellation Boulevard frontage would be a minimum of 40 feet from Century Park West. Given that the parking structure would be enclosed on its Century Park West façade, interior and vehicular lighting would not spill over onto the residential uses to the west. Additionally, the proposed parking structure would include screening of the rooftop parking areas (such as architectural canopies, trees, and other plantings and/or photovoltaic arrays) to reduce reflection emitted from cars on the rooftop. As further described in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, all rooftop parking areas would also include a parapet wall (minimum 36 inches above the parking level roof elevation) designed to screen parking related noises from vehicles. Coupled with appropriate light and acoustic controls, the Century Park
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-172 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
West parking structure would not create significant light or noise impacts on the adjacent residential area.
COMMENT NO. 11-18
3.1.3. Odors The Shopping Center should be required to maintain refuse/delivery areas on Century Park West to minimize odors which currently emanate from those areas.
RESPONSE NO. 11-18 Proper housekeeping practices will continue to be implemented within the project site so as to minimize odors. Retail, office, and residential uses are not considered major potential odor generators, as noted in the Section IV.B, Air Quality of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 11-19
3.1.4. Security The Shopping Center must implement mitigations to reduce areas that can be used to conceal and/or hide individuals.
RESPONSE NO. 11-19 As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure I.2-5 states that entryways, elevators, lobbies, and parking areas shall be well illuminated and designed to eliminate areas of concealment. In addition, Mitigation Measure I.2-4 in Section IV.I.2 of the Draft EIR states that the Applicant shall consult with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Crime Prevention Unit on crime prevention features appropriate for the design of the project. Thus, mitigation measures to reduce areas of concealment have already been provided in the Draft EIR. In addition, please refer to Section IV.I.2 of the Draft EIR and Response to Comment No. 9-6 for a discussion of security features and personnel that would be provided during operation of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 11-20
3.1.5. Parking Structure The 1930 Century Park West building and 1801 Avenue of the Stars building should be wrapped during demolition and construction to minimize aesthetic, noise and particulate impacts on residential areas.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-173 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-20 The new buildings at 1930 Century Park West and 1801 Avenue of the Stars are not proposed to be wrapped during construction. However, numerous mitigation measures have been proposed in the Draft EIR to reduce aesthetic, noise and particulate impacts during construction activities. Refer to Section IV.A, Aesthetics, Section IV.H, Noise, and Section IV.B, Air Quality of the Draft EIR. Also refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for an overview of the mitigation measures that will be implemented during construction. In addition, the majority of the potential particulate impacts during construction will result from proposed grading and excavation activities and not construction of the buildings themselves.
COMMENT NO. 11-21
3.1.6. Shade/Shadow The DEIR must be modified to account for the design and cumulative impacts of the 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard project. This includes impacts on newly planted foliage along Santa Monica Boulevard.
RESPONSE NO. 11-21
Related projects are identified in Table 2 in Section III, General Description of Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. As detailed therein, Related Project No. 48 consists of development proposed at 10000 W. Santa Monica Boulevard, consisting of 350 apartment units. Cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics and views are addressed on pages 216 and 217 in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, and specific analysis is provided with respect to Related Project No. 48. The Draft EIR concluded that the project together with the 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard project would not cumulatively contribute to any significant visual quality or view impacts. Additionally, it is anticipated that the 10000 Santa Monica development would implement a landscape plan, subject to City requirements. Furthermore, the related project would be required to replace any street trees removed during construction, in accordance with City regulations.
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts on the newly planted foliage along Santa Monica Boulevard. Specifically, shading of the existing foliage in the median would be limited and would only occur during a portion of the day. In addition, the landscaping within the median along Santa Monica Boulevard is already shaded during parts of the day by existing high-rise buildings. Furthermore, shading of the median by the related project at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard and the proposed project would not occur at the same time given the distance between the two sites. Thus, cumulative shading impacts on the planted foliage along Santa Monica Boulevard would be less than significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-174 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-22
3.1.7. Signage Signage planned for the Project's north side facing Santa Monica's Scenic Highway will increase from just over 900 sq. ft. to over 4000 sq. ft. of lit signage. The signage and billboards must not be allowed to be part of the project or to be added afterwards as they will cause additional distractions for drivers and reduce the quality of life of residents in the area.
RESPONSE NO. 11-22 As described in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, and Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, illuminated signage is proposed along Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard. The Santa Monica Boulevard frontage would have the greatest total signage of any of the street frontages, since this street is the major thoroughfare serving the area. Existing signs on this frontage include pole, wall, monument and window signs, which collectively total 964 square feet. Proposed signage would similarly include wall, monument and window signs, with total signage on Santa Monica Boulevard comprising up to approximately 4,236 square feet of area, consistent with the allowable sign area set forth by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC).
The proposed signage would thus conform to the City of Los Angeles sign area limitations, as well as to the signage limits imposed by the Scenic Highway designations of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard. All signage on these elevations will conform to the CR Zone limits (LAMC 12.12.2.A.6), the text of which states that only the following types of signs are permitted:
"Signs indicating the name of the person, business, or the type of business occupying the premises, or the name of the building. Such signs shall be attached to a building and all letters, lights and other identification matter shall be confined to only one surface of the sign, which surface shall be parallel with and facing the front lot line; except that on a corner lot such signs may be placed on a building so that the surface on which the identification matter is confined, is parallel with the side street lot line, or where a building is constructed with a diagonal or curved wall facing the adjacent street intersection, the signs may be attached to such wall so that the surface, on which the identification matter is confined, is parallel thereto. No portion of any sign on a lot shall extend along the side street more than 50 feet from the principal street upon which said lot abuts (for the determination of the principal street, refer to Subsection c of this section).
No portion of any such sign shall project more than 12 inches beyond the wall of the building nor project above the roof ridge or parapet wall (whichever is the higher) of the building."
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-175 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The signage proposed for the project is solely for mall identification, on-site tenants, products sold on-site, and wayfinding—no billboards or other types of leasable signage for outside parties is proposed. As noted in the Draft EIR, all proposed signage is static and those types of ‘motion-graphic’ or ‘animated-billboard’ signs found elsewhere in the area are specifically and unequivocally excluded from the proposed project. These are the types of signage one would most expect to lead to distraction of drivers in this location and they are therefore not proposed.
COMMENT NO. 11-23
3.2. Air Quality
3.2.1. Parking Structure All garage exhaust should undergo extensive filtration to remove contaminants.
RESPONSE NO. 11-23 The City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) regulates the installation of garage ventilation systems. The proposed project will comply with all applicable requirements regarding ventilation.
COMMENT NO. 11-24
3.2.2 Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact on air quality from years of construction and then operation of new development projects is unacceptable. Air filters that used to last six to eight months now must be replaced every three to four months. We have attached the article “Down to the Meter – Localized Vehicle Pollution Matters” as a reference. It states in part:
“Diesel exhaust particulate is also a great concern as evidence is rapidly accumulating that subjects who live near roadways with a high volume of diesel vehicles are more likely to suffer from respiratory ailments, childhood cancer, brain cancer, leukemia and higher mortality rates than people who live more than 300 meters away from such roadways. Vehicle-related air pollutants have also been associated with respiratory illness, impaired lung function, and increased infant mortality. A Los Angeles County study found that pregnant women who reside within 750 feet of heavily traveled roads face a ten to twenty percent higher risk of early birth and low-birth-weight babies.“
It should be noted that a day-care center resides within feet of the proposed project just to the west of the project site. We have also included the “Traffic and Health Report” from the Environmental Defense Fund. It states:
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-176 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
“A critical mass of scientific evidence shows a health risk zone close to major roadways. The risk zone extends from about 500 to 1500 feet, varying by pollutant and health effect.”…”this means that people living within two to six blocks of a busy road are likely at higher risk. The core scientific studies that point to the health implications outlined in this report are divided into two categories. Some studies measure the actual street-level air pollutant exposures; others document the impaired health of people living close to roads. The health effects seen with greater intensity closer to busy roads include cancer, heart disease, impaired childhood lung development, asthma attacks and lung disease in adults.”
Figure 2 Health findings near traffic
We ask that the impacts of project-related pollution as well as cumulative air quality issues be reevaluated given the new body of research.
RESPONSE NO. 11-24 Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluated potential health risk impacts which could result from construction activities, the impact to off-site receptors resulting from the increase in project-related on-site Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) emissions, as well as the risk of siting new residential receptors nearby to off-site sources of TACs. In all cases, risks were found to be at acceptable levels and the impacts less than significant. The commenter mentions studies which examined the impact of residing near “roadways with a high volume of diesel vehicles” and “a busy road”. As explained in the Draft EIR, the California Air Resources Board focused its siting recommendations on major sources of TACs, such as freeways or similar high traffic roadways (defined as roads within urbanized areas carrying more than 100,000 vehicles per day). The proposed project is approximately 1.5 miles from both the I-405 and I-10 Freeways, and the traffic volumes on nearby local streets (i.e. Santa Monica Boulevard) are less than 100,000 vehicles per day. A formal health risk assessment would be required if the freeways were within ¼ mile and Santa Monica Boulevard's average daily traffic exceeded 100,000 vehicles per day. Since these siting recommendations were consistent with the proposed project a quantitative HRA was not conducted. Therefore, the analysis provided in the Draft EIR is appropriate and no further analysis is necessary.
COMMENT NO. 11-25
3.3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.3.1. Beverly Crest Cleaners We have enclosed the contamination report from Beverly Crest Cleaners. Past research has shown that the monitoring well at Fox Hills and Santa Monica Boulevard exhibited
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-177 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
increased levels of PCBs. The flow diagram would seem to show that there should be increased study and monitoring wells created to determine the extent of the contamination relative to the project site.
RESPONSE NO. 11-25 The Soil and Groundwater Assessment for the Beverly Crest Cleaners, submitted as an appendix to this comment letter, was evaluated as part of the project’s Draft EIR. The Report of Methane Soil Gas Testing and a Limited Site Reconnaissance and Document Review is included as Technical Appendix E of the Draft EIR, and reviews the report above as well as other reports prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. regarding the Beverly Crest Cleaners, which is located approximately 240 feet north/northwest of the project site.
As summarized in Section IV.E of the Draft EIR, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Rincon Consultants has conducted soil, soil gas, and groundwater monitoring on the Beverly Crest Cleaners property and at off-site locations to determine the lateral extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil vapor beneath the dry cleaners. Soil vapor extraction to remediate VOC-impacted soil beneath the dry cleaners began in January 16, 2007 and has been determined to be an effective method for remediation of those impacted soils. A permanent dewatering system is in place at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, and water is removed and sampled on a monthly basis for submission to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). According to the December 2006 report submitted to the RWQCB as well as monthly 2007 NPDES reports, it does not appear that the Beverly Crest Cleaners has adversely impacted the groundwater beneath 1801 Avenue of the Stars.
Nonetheless, to avoid the potential for the 1801 Avenue of the Stars dewatering system to discharge any contaminated water into the storm drain, the groundwater beneath 1801 Avenue of the Stars will continue to be tested in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit or Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, required by Mitigation Measures E-5 and E-6 of the Draft EIR. If any chemicals or pollutants within the groundwater is determined to exceed allowable limits of the NPDES or Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, a water treatment system will be implemented. Therefore, the potential impacts from groundwater contaminated by the Beverly Crest Cleaners will be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 11-26
3.4. Land Use
3.4.1 The Draft CCNSP Amendment Is Not Presented There are numerous land use issues raised by the DEIR. As the DEIR does not include the proposed language for the CCNSP amendment, complete evaluation of the project is not possible.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-178 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-26 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-8. The Draft EIR fully discloses and discusses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the full language of the proposed Amendment is included in Appendix C of this Final EIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR evaluates the project’s consistency with the CCNSP, and determines that the project is consistent with the CCNSP with approval of the Specific Plan Amendment.
COMMENT NO. 11-27
3.4.2. Consistency With The “Century City Specific Plans Trip Allocation Summary” In a settlement with the City of Los Angeles, the City stipulated as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND AMONG PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS: 1. Respondents will to the best of their ability and in good faith adhere to and implement all of their existing guidelines, processes, customs, policies, and procedures related to the Century City North Specific Pan ("CCNSP"). These guidelines, processes, customs, policies, and procedures shall include, and as may be amended from time to time in Respondents' discretion, those described in: (a) the CCNSP: (b) the Los Angeles Department of City Planning's document entitled "Century City Specific Plans Trip Allocation Summary," dated June 20, 1996 ("Specific Plan Summary"): and (c) the document entitled "Zoning Information (Z.I) 1138, Century City North Specific Plan," or its equivalent. Respondents agree to provide notice to Petitioners by e-mail, to [email protected] or other updated e-mail address provided by Petitioners, of any amendments to the Specific Plans Summary."
The stipulation requires adherence with the “Century City Specific Plans Trip Allocation Summary.” That document states with regard to the transfer of replacement trips into the shopping center:
Shopping Center. The Century City shopping center (Parcel A of Parcel Map L.A. No. 3784) had a specific trip allocation of 4,200 trips apart from the rest of Century City (Section 7 of the Specific Plan). Trips may be transferred from the shopping center to other sites in the plan area, however only 683,941 trips may be used for other than Retail Commercial uses. (These "unrestricted trips were transferred away from the site in 1983.) Also, no more than 4,200 trips, plus replacement trips, may ever be used on the shopping center site. Shopping center trips do not count toward the Phase 2 threshold. The shopping center uses a CATGP factor of 28 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet, instead of 35 vehicle trips for retail commercial uses on other sites. The lower CATGP factor was determined appropriate for the shopping center as the result of a special study.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-179 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Fast-food restaurants (as defined in the Specific Plan) are not permitted to the developed on the shopping center site.
The operative language is: “Also, no more than 4,200 trips, plus replacement trips, may ever be used on the shopping center site.”
Given this clear language, we request that the developer more clearly describe how the replacement trips from 1930 Century Park West, 1801 Avenue of the Stars and other sites can be transferred into the shopping center site.
RESPONSE NO. 11-27 The New Century Plan is fully consistent with the language cited from the “Century City Specific Plans Trip Allocation Summary”. As quoted in the comment letter, this document states that “no more than 4,200 trips, plus replacement trips, may ever be used on the shopping center site.” The New Century Plan proposes to use only 28.757 Phase I CATGP Trips to renovate the existing Shopping Center site, which are currently allocated to the Shopping Center according to the City’s May 1, 2008 Trip Allocation Chart. All of the remaining CATGP Trips that will be used to renovate the existing Shopping Center will be Replacement CATGP Trips, which according to the above language does not count towards the 4,200 cap. In addition, the then-existing Shopping Center site will be expanded by the proposed project to include two additional parcels, 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West.
For the project, the Replacement CATGP Trips may include the 249.848 Replacement CATGP Trips currently allocated to the Shopping Center site; the 4,182.052 Replacement CATGP Trips that will be generated from demolition of the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building; the 871.451 Replacement CATGP Trips that will be generated from demolition of the 1930 Century Park West building; and approximately 12,853 Replacement CATGP Trips that will be generated from the partial demolition of existing retail uses within the Shopping Center. Additionally, 5,916.432 Replacement CATGP Trips were transferred to the Shopping Center site and 1801 Avenue of the Stars for use by the project, as detailed in a coverant recorded on June 29, 2008. For further detail on when, and how, these Replacement CATGP Trips will be generated, please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential. Thus, since Westfield is primarily using Replacement CATGP Trips for development of the existing Shopping Center site, which do not count towards the cap cited, the New Century Plan is consistent with the “Century City Specific Plans Trip Allocation Summary”.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-180 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-28
3.4.3. Internal Use Credits Internal use reductions should not be allowed given the special allowance already granted to the shopping center site from 35 trips per 1000 square feet to 28 trips per 1000 square feet.
RESPONSE NO. 11-28 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast. In order to provide a conservative forecast of trip generation, no adjustments were applied to the trip generation forecast to account for internal capture (e.g., interaction between the residential units and the shopping center uses).
COMMENT NO. 11-29
3.4.4. Existing Conditions of Approval The community has negotiated and relied upon prior conditions of approval for the shopping center parcel. Those conditions must be maintained at their most restrictive level. Specifically, condition 7, dealing with parking exit operation, condition 9, dealing with neighborhood parking intrusion, and condition 19, dealing with visibility of new lit signage from nearby residential properties, must be maintained in full force and effect.
RESPONSE NO. 11-29 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-11 regarding how the project would comply with all of the cited conditions. In addition, the Applicant is communicating with adjacent community groups to ensure that these conditions are met.
COMMENT NO. 11-30
3.4.5 Drive-Through Trips As detailed above in the Alternative Trip Generation request, the Trips assigned to 1930 Century Park West do not accurately reflect actual vehicular trips associated with the former drive-through. The net trips derived from the drive-through is 1259. Assuming a drive-through that is open 8 hours per day, that would equate to one car using the drive- through every 23 seconds each and every hour the drive-through is open. A study of another drive-through in Century City, in fact the only other drive-through in Century City, proved that actual drivethrough traffic is approximately 100 trips per day. This coincides with 600 square feet dedicated to the drive-through at 192 trips/1000 as specified in the CCNSP.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-181 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-30 Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential, and Response No. 11-13 for a full discussion of the difference between vehicular trips and CATGP Trips, and a description of the Replacement CATGP Trips generated from conversion of the drive-through bank previously located at 1930 Century Park West to offices uses.
COMMENT NO. 11-31
3.4.6. Trip Rates The DEIR seeks to derive trips from 1930 Century Park West at rates varying from 192/1000 to 14/1000. It then seeks to incorporate these trips into the shopping center and then consume these trips at the “special” shopping center rate of 28/1000. The DEIR also seeks to consume trips at residential rates of 7.55/du for the residential portion of the project. The rationale for mixing and matching the various CCNSP CATGP trip rates in a fashion to optimize development rights must be evaluated.
RESPONSE NO. 11-31 The Draft EIR consistently applies the CATGP Trip rates listed in the CCNSP to all of the New Century Plan’s land uses. As explained in the Draft EIR and documented in two covenants approved by the Planning Department and recorded with the City on March 22, 2007, the CCNSP’s office CATGP Trip rate of 14 CATGP Trips / 1,000 square feet is applied to both office buildings at 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West to determine the number of Replacement CATGP Trips generated from demolition of these two office buildings.
The Draft EIR calculates the number of CATGP Trips required to construct the residential building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars by applying the CCNSP’s CATGP Trip rate for residences to the building. The residential building will include 262 residential units, therefore at a CATGP Trip rate of 7.55 CATGP Trips per dwelling unit, the residential building requires 1,978 CATGP Trips to be constructed.
Finally, the CCNSP states that the CATGP Trip rate for Shopping Center uses is 28 Trips / 1,000 square feet. Since the New Century Plan proposes to unify Westfield’s properties at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, 1930 Century Park West, and 10250 Santa Monica Boulevard and extend the definition of the Shopping Center to include all three properties, the CATGP Trip rate for Shopping Center uses is applied to all of the retail proposed to be constructed and demolished at the Shopping Center and 1801 Avenue of the Stars. Thus, the Draft EIR consistently uses the CATGP Trip rates provided in the CCNSP to determine the CATGP Trips required for the New Century Plan. Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential, for a full description of how the CATGP Trip rate is applied to the New Century Plan’s land uses.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-182 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-32
3.4.7. Fast Food The CCNSP defines a fast-food restaurant as “a restaurant located immediately adjacent to and on the same level as an automobile parking area and where patrons are not served food or beverages at tables by employees of the establishment.” Gelsons already has a take-out service which blurs the line of a fast-food restaurant. The proposed project would have a parking structure at the same level as and adjacent to the dining terrace, where patrons are not served by employees. The DEIR must highlight the reasons these uses do not constitute fast food restaurants as defined in the C CNSP [sic].
RESPONSE NO. 11-32 According to the CCNSP, a fast-food restaurant is "a restaurant located immediately adjacent to and on the same level as an automobile parking area and where patrons are not served food or beverages at tables by employees of the establishment." As detailed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the New Century Plan would construct a parking structure at 1930 Century Park West, located on the southwest corner of the project site. The dining terrace is located on the west side of the Shopping Center. However, no patron walkway is proposed to connect the parking structure to the Shopping Center above the ground level. Patrons parking their cars on the second level of the parking structure would have to walk down to the parking structure’s ground level, walk through the Shopping Center, and then walk up one level in order to reach the dining terrace. Therefore, the dining terrace would not be located immediately adjacent to and on the same level as the 1930 Century Park West parking structure. As such, the dining terrace restaurant options would not be considered fast-food restaurants.
In addition, the dining terrace offers a variety of high-quality food choices for Shopping Center patrons. Some of these restaurants require employees to serve food and beverages to customers. To the extent these restaurants offer such a service, they are not considered fast-food restaurants.
COMMENT NO. 11-33
3.5. Noise/Vibration
3.5. Staging 3.5.1.1. All staging must take place well removed from residential areas, including Tract 7260, the area north of Santa Monica Boulevard and west of the Los Angeles Country Club, Cheviot Hills, Rancho Park, and the Century Woods development.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-183 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-33 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion regarding construction vehicle staging areas associated with the construction of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 11-34 3.5.1.2. Based on experiences of those living along Fox Hills, staging on Constellation near the project would result in significant noise impacting residents. Further, the use of Century Park West as a route to the Constellation staging area would result in harm to Tract 7260 and Century Woods residents.
RESPONSE NO. 11-34 Construction noise impacts have been analyzed for the residences along Fox Hills west of the project site and are provided in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As indicated in Table 34 on page 468 of the Draft EIR, construction noise levels would temporarily exceed the existing ambient noise levels at the residential community along Fox Hills at various times during project construction. Noise mitigation measures are provided, as indicated on page 481 of the Draft EIR, to reduce the short-term temporary construction noise impacts. Refer to Response to Comment No. 9-8 regarding the project-related construction noise levels at Century Woods that are anticipated to be less than significant. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 regarding construction impacts with respect to noise and the project’s proposed haul route.
COMMENT NO. 11-35
3.5.2. Haul Route The DEIR must describe the impact of heavy trucks on the roadway surfaces. Pico and Olympic are already severely potholed. Use of those streets as haul routes would worsen their condition, impacting traffic speeds and increasing traffic-related noise. The use of Santa Monica Boulevard as a haul route will undeniably increase traffic congestion, thus increasing noise and other traffic-related impacts. The DEIR does not address the cumulative impact of all related projects on traffic and street condition.
Further, no hauling should be allowed during peak hours and no hauling or construction vehicles associated with the project should be permitted to travel through residential areas.
RESPONSE NO. 11-35 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion regarding construction traffic haul routes, construction hours, as well as the surety bond that shall be posted in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer for maintenance of haul route streets.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-184 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-36
3.5.3. Vibration The developer should document all homes on the eastern side of Fox Hills prior to demolition and construction. Any new cracks and/or other damage proximately caused by the development as demonstrated by the before-project documentation, should be repaired at the developer’s expense. This process was recently utilized as part of the Pumpkin Patch project at Comstock and Wilshire.
RESPONSE NO. 11-36 The proposed project would be constructed using conventional construction equipment, systems and methods. Potential vibration impacts due to construction equipment have been analyzed at the nearest residences along Fox Hills west of the project site and are provided in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As indicated in Table 35 on page 471 of the Draft EIR, construction equipment would generate vibration levels up to 0.089 inch/second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment. As indicated on page 470 of the Draft EIR, the existing residential homes along Fox Hills are approximately 100 feet from the closet edge of the construction site. The ground borne vibration due to construction activities at the nearest home would be approximately 0.011 inch/second PPV. This level is well below the 2.0 inch/second PPV significance threshold and below the Caltran’s criterion of 0.3 inch/second PPV (continuous/frequent intermittent sources) for “older residential structures”, which is a more conservative standard. Thus, potential vibration impacts would be well below the threshold of significance and documentation of the existing homes to the west is not warranted.
COMMENT NO. 11-37
3.5.4. Parking Structure We request that the parking structure match the design of the structure at 10250 Constellation, have no openings to the west and have the tw o [sic] western-most parking bays closed to prevent noise and light intrusion into residential areas.
RESPONSE NO. 11-37 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-17 above.
COMMENT NO. 11-38 We further request that rooftop parking be prohibited, that the top level be enclosed or that the sound wall be increased in height to prevent any sound emanations. A thorough study of sound reflections off of the existing movie theater structure must be conducted. The developer should evaluate closing the rooftop parking area after 9:30p. [sic]
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-185 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-38 As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the new rooftop parking would include a 36 inch parapet wall designed to shield the related noise from vehicles. Also, as indicated on Page 476 of the Draft EIR, the rooftop parking related noise levels would be less than significant at the nearby noise sensitive receptors.
The commentor requested that a study of sound reflections off the existing movie theater structure be conducted. A field sound measurement was conducted on May 28, 2008 at the existing Westfield Century City Shopping Center to observe and to quantify potential noise reflections from the existing structures. Sound measurements and observations were made at the upper bridge level (outside of the AMC Theater) and at the west side of Century Park West (adjacent to the residences along Fox Hills Drive). The ambient sound readings and observations revealed no potential for sound reflections under the current site’s building layouts, since the current building layouts do not support conditions needed for the sound reflections. Most of the existing buildings (including the exterior façade of the theater) have sound diffusive finishes and non parallel geometry/profiles. For sound reflection to happen, vertical surfaces (building façades) typically need to be closely spaced, have hard and reflective surfaces, and be set parallel relative to each other. Under the future site conditions a new 5 story parking structure (at 1930 Century Park West) will be located to the west of the existing theater. Thus, the new parking structure will provide additional sound attenuation between the theater and residences to the west.
COMMENT NO. 11-39
3.5.5. Noise Sources/Music The developer must address noise emanations from existing and new restaurants and other businesses that reach residential areas. While few complaints have been lodged concerning music emanations from the dining terrace reaching homes to the west, several residents to the north report hearing music from the Pink Taco restaurant.
RESPONSE NO. 11-39 On May 28 and May 30, 2008, acoustical engineers visited the project site and neighboring residential community to the north during late nighttime hours (after 11:00 P.M.) to investigate noise concerns emanating from uses along Santa Monica Boulevard. The findings of these visits were that music was barely audible at the nearest residential property west of Warnall Avenue one block north of Santa Monica Boulevard. In addition, the noise was not measurable given the relatively high general background sound environment. While the sound level of the music at the nearest residential community was not of sufficient strength to trigger the City of Los Angeles noise threshold violation of 5 dBA above ambient noise levels, measures have been identified by the acoustical engineers that would further reduce the emission of music and other noises emanating from Santa Monica Boulevard. These measures include increasing the height of the existing glass
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-186 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
wall at the edge of the patio facing Santa Monica Boulevard and lowering the speakers below the height of the glass patio wall. These measures will be implemented by the Applicant to address noise concerns regarding the uses adjacent to Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 11-40
3.5.6. Noise/Machinery The developer must employ maximal efforts to eliminate sound emanations from rooftop machinery. Even the sound of a clicking relay can be disruptive if it is repetitive.
All parcels should be required to abide by the existing shopping center conditions #12 and 13. 12. That all heavy machinery and other noisy equipment shall be operated in or about all restaurants and food court operations only during the hours of 7 A.M. to 9 P.M., Monday through Friday and between the hours of 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or legal holidays.
13. That the timing of the shopping center's exhaust fans will be set to operate from 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. The timing mechanism may contain an override in case dangerous gases are detected in the parking structure.
RESPONSE NO. 11-40 As indicated in Section IV.H, Noise, page 465 of the Draft EIR all building outdoor mounted mechanical and electrical equipment would be designed to meet the requirements of LAMC, Chapter XI, Section 112.02. In addition, the Applicant will continue to comply with the Conditions of Approval cited in this comment.
COMMENT NO. 11-41
3.5.7. Noise/Parking Restrictions All parking restrictions along Century Park West must be obeyed. This includes no parking/no stopping regulations. As can be seen from the photo provided (taken May 9, 2008), vendors regularly violate these parking/stopping restrictions. The excessive number of trucks creates a noise intrusion for local residents.
RESPONSE NO. 11-41 Use of Century Park West for loading will continue to be limited and monitored by the Applicant. In addition, the project will provide expanded loading facilities within the parking facility, which will further reduce use of Century Park West for loading.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-187 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-42
3.5.8. Noise/Staging All pre-construction staging should be limited to starting no earlier than 7am.
RESPONSE NO. 11-42 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of construction impacts. Noise mitigation measures are provided in Section IV.H, Noise (Subsection 5), of the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure H-2, limits construction activities to between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays, consistent with LAMC requirements.
COMMENT NO. 11-43
3.5.9. Noise/Mitigation H7 Mitigation H7 seeks to transfer liability for sound mitigations from the shopping center site to neighboring residents. Mitigation H7 is a mitigation that results in cost to current and future homeowners. If the developer believes this mitigation is necessary, they should create a mitigation fund to pay for the increased cost of the noise mitigations.
RESPONSE NO. 11-43 Mitigation Measure H-7 (which is now Mitigation Measure H-6 in the Final EIR) within Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR applies to the new residential uses proposed within the project site. The cost for this mitigation measure will be borne by the Applicant when constructing the project.
COMMENT NO. 11-44
3.5.10. Noise/Parking Operations The developer must seek to improve its parking operations such that patrons do not become frustrated at long delays. The delays result in frequent horn-honking near the exits which then results in noise intrusion into neighboring residential property. We also seek compliance with condition 7 on the shopping center site which reads: 7. That the parking exits on Century Park West and the most westerly exit on Constellation Boulevard shall remain closed between the hours of 9:30 P.M. and 7 A.M., seven days a week and the easterly parking exit on Constellation Boulevard and the parking exits on all other streets other than Santa Monica Boulevard shall remain closed between the hours of midnight and 8:00 A.M. seven days a week and that signs shall be posted at the easterly exit on
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-188 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Constellation Boulevard informing departing patrons that only left turns shall be permitted between 11:00 P.M. and midnight. Signs shall also be posted at the Santa Monica Boulevard exits informing departing patrons that only right turns shall be permitted between midnight and 9:00 A.M. In addition, the Center will station a person at the easterly exit on Constellation between 11:00 P.M. and midnight to direct traffic in an east-bound direction on Constellation.
RESPONSE NO. 11-44 It should be noted that Condition No. 7 of CF 88-0469 requires the parking exits on Century Park West and the most westerly exit on Constellation Boulevard to remain closed between the hours of 9:30 P.M. and 8:00 A.M., not 7:00 A.M. as indicated in the comment. It should also be noted that according to this conditions only right turns shall be permitted at the Santa Monica Boulevard exits between midnight and 8:00 A.M., not 9:00 A.M. as indicated by the commentor. The Applicant will comply with Condition No. 7. In addition, the Applicant is currently in the process of implementing an electronic parking system which should allow patrons to more efficiently and promptly find available parking within the Shopping Center.
COMMENT NO. 11-45
3.6. Public Services
3.6.1. Fire The DEIR comments relating to fire coverage miss the mark. The simple truth is that station 92 has seen no increase in manpower or equipment despite a massive increase in population. Century City alone has grown by millions of square feet of commercial space and hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail space. The residential population of Century City would roughly double should all related projects be approved.
A response time that is increased by seconds can be the difference between life and death. A 2004 study of Station 92 response times shows an average response time of 5.9 minutes. The response time is now 6.1 minutes.
The dilution of first-responder resources cannot be measured only with regard to average response time to “predictable” daily emergency situations. The DEIR failed to address the impact on first responders ability to react to large-scale natural and man-made disasters. To suggest that the 22 firefighters of Station 92 can handle an earthquake that strands and/or injures thousands within Century City is without merit.
RESPONSE NO. 11-45 The analysis of fire protection and emergency medical services provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR, was based on data provided by the Fire Department and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-189 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
consultation with the Fire Department. The Fire Department has stated that the adequacy of fire protection for a given area is based on response distance from existing fire stations, required fire flow, and the LAFD’s judgment for needs in the area. The analysis of fire protection and emergency medical services provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR includes these factors. As indicated therein, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and project features would ensure that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, the Applicant would participate in the updating of Century City's existing emergency response plan in consultation with both the LAPD and LAFD.
As discussed in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would require implementation of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Upon implementation of this plan, construction-related traffic impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
During operation of the project, due to the proximity of Fire Station No. 92 (1.4 miles) and the other two supporting stations to the site and the number of major roadways serving the project site, emergency response to the project site is not expected to fall below acceptable levels (generally 5 minutes). In addition, in the event of a disaster, the “first-in” station would be supported by both second call and third response stations, the locations of which are provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR. The emergency response time for fire incidents for Fire Station No. 92 is 5.2 minutes. Five minutes is the generally accepted timeframe for emergency response. As discussed in Section IV.I.1 of the Draft EIR, based on numerous factors set forth by the Fire Department, the project will not result in significant impacts associated with fire protection and emergency response. Furthermore, all on-site security personnel are trained in both first aid and CPR on an annual basis and are also trained on how to use automated external defibrillator (AED) machines, and thus would be able to provide medical assistance until LAFD units arrived. In addition, the proposed project would generate revenues that could be used to help meet the capital outlay required to maintain fire protection services. The development of the project would also replace older buildings with new buildings that would comply with the LAMC Fire Code, the Los Angeles General Plan, the General Plan Safety Element, and all other applicable ordinances and requirements. Thus, impacts with respect to fire protection and emergency response would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 11-46
3.6.2. Police The West Los Angeles Police Department has seen a decrease in the number of officers despite huge increases in population. The cumulative effect of approved development has been to dilute police capabilities for existing residents. As with the fire department, the impacts on police cannot be measured exclusively in per-capita terms. The ability of the police to respond to natural and man-made disasters must be taken into account.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-190 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
As it stands, the population of West Los Angeles will be largely and increasingly on its own in the event of a major event.
RESPONSE NO. 11-46 Section IV.I.2, Police Services, of the Draft EIR addressed impacts on police services that would occur due to increased population, traffic, and construction activities associated with the proposed project. The focus of the analysis was on the LAPD facilities that currently serve the project site and the ability of the LAPD to provide police services to the proposed project and was based on information provided by the LAPD Community Relations Section, Crime Prevention Unit regarding police protection facilities, services, and response times. In addition, according to the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), the determination of significance regarding police protection services should consider the population increase resulting from the project; the demand for police services anticipated at the time of project buildout compared to the expected level of service available; and whether the project includes security or design features that would reduce the demand for police services. Furthermore, as indicated in Section IV.I.2, Police Services, of the Draft EIR, in the event a situation should arise requiring increased staffing, additional officers can be called in from other LAPD community police stations. As such, the West Los Angeles Community Police Station would not be the only responder to a major disaster and, as such, was not used as a basis for determining the impact of the project on police protection services.
COMMENT NO. 11-47
3.7. Schools The DEIR section on schools embodies the flawed analysis allowed in EIRs. The concept that payment of fees to LAUSD can mitigate the loss of a neighborhood school for current residents Is insulting and without merit. The neighborhoods which are currently served by Westwood Charter have worked hard to make that school the exceptional school that it is. Our children receive exceptional educations and our homes have an increased value because they are served by Westwood Charter.
The DEIR states that Westwood Charter will be short 319 seats if all projects are approved. Westwood Charter has a capacity of roughly 800 students. Allowing development of projects that will consume seats at our neighborhood school and result in the certain displacement of students who would otherwise attend Westwood Charter is nothing short of a slow, reverse-taking. It bleeds value from existing neighborhoods to feed new development. Residents have been told that the LAUSD has already considered splitting the Westwood Charter catchment area. New development should not be able to take a local school from existing residential areas. If this project is approved, it should be a condition of approval that students from the development not displace children from neighborhoods already served by Westwood Charter.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-191 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
We have attached a letter from Judy Utvich, Principal of Westwood Charter School which states her “grave concerns” with regard to the impact on the school. She states, in part:
“We cannot continue our tradition of excellence faced with the dramatic increases in enrollment we have seen in the last few years. These 44 new students will take the place of other students in the attendance area. There is no possible way to accommodate them at Westwood, and children will have to be transported to other schools. Provisions for new seats must be made before this type of large scale development is allowed to continue. “
RESPONSE NO. 11-47 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-5 and 11-9 for a discussion of how the project’s impact on Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level with the payment of developer impact fees in accordance with SB 50 and pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code.
COMMENT NO. 11-48
3.8. Traffic and Circulation
3.8.1. Traffic Studies From 1975 Stated That Intensification of Century City Be Halted In 1975, The City of Los Angeles created a traffic study which stated:
Briefly, the report concludes that the street system now serving Century City and the surrounding area does not meet the needs of the area, nor will it in the future. As a consequence, it is recommended that further intensification of land use in Century City and the surrounding area be halted or that alternate uses be found that do not add to the existing peak-hour congestion.
Very truly yours, /s/ H.M. Gilman Traffic Engineer
Little comment would seem to be needed, though apparently it is. The City has continued to allow development in an area that in 1975 was deemed incapable of meeting the needs of the area. This suggests that the methodology for determining impact in the intervening years is fatally flawed.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-192 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
According to the 1975 traffic study, 57,000 cars passed through screenlines on Olympic. According to the EIR, that number is now over 133,000. This must be considered as each project dutifully checks the “No Significant Impact” boxes on the EIRs.
John Fisher, Assistant General Manager of DOT stated at a recent Westside Neighborhood Council meeting that the reason for gridlock in West L.A. is that development is allowed without any corresponding increase in infrastructure. Proposed projects and recently approved projects have and will result in millions of feet of new residential space, millions of feet of new commercial space and hundreds of thousands of feet of new retail space.
RESPONSE NO. 11-48 This comment refers to a traffic study prepared by the City of Los Angeles in 1975. According to the requirements of CEQA, the potential impacts of a project must be based on an evaluation of baseline conditions and future conditions. A Lead Agency would not allow a project in 2008 to have its impacts determined in part on a baseline conditions analysis obtained from data that is 33 years old, therefore, the conclusions reported at that same time cannot be relied upon in 2008. As reported in the Draft EIR, the analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project was also based on the current City of Los Angeles significance thresholds.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has submitted a comment letter (dated April 28, 2008) regarding the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project. SCAG staff has reviewed the project and determined that it is located in an area with existing public transit service and would support alternative transportation modes. The project was also determined by SCAG to support the anticipated SCAG growth forecasts and reduce resident’s long commutes that can adversely impact transportation performance indicators. In addition, the project is located in a jobs rich business district. Therefore, SCAG staff has agreed with the consistency finding with the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
As outlined in Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions (Pre-Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway Construction) and Response to Comment No. 6-6, a supplemental analysis was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted throughout the traffic analysis study area after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. It was determined that the conclusions in the Draft EIR may overstate the significant impacts of the proposed project.
Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for further discussion. The projects does result in significant transportation impacts and the comment, “This must be considered as each project dutifully checks the “No Significant Impact” boxes on the EIRs” cannot be substantiated.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-193 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The Century City North Specific Plan (effective November 24, 1981) established development parameters and guidelines within the plan area boundaries. The proposed project is consistent with the CCNSP’s development parameters.
COMMENT NO. 11-49
3.8.2. The Statement of Consistency With Community Plan Policy 1-2.3 Is Incorrect. The DEIR states that the project is consistent with the West L.A. Community Plan policy number 1-2.3 because “the project is located in an area in which adequate infrastructure and transportation systems are already in place”
Where is the corresponding increase in local traffic infrastructure? How is this consistent with Mr. Fisher’s statement? How is this consistent with the observable and demonstrable inadequacies of the transportation systems?
RESPONSE NO. 11-49 The project is located within an area in which adequate infrastructure and transportation systems are in place. With the proposed improvements and mitigation measures the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with utilities. In addition, the project will not result in any significant traffic impacts until completion of the final phase of the project. With implementation of the final phase of development, TDM measures and physical improvements will be implemented. It is expected that the TDM measures will reduce the significant impacts to less than significant levels. However, the Draft EIR conservatively assumes that the TDM measures may not be attained and that a significant and unavoidable impact may occur. Refer to page 625 of Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation within Volume I of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 11-50
3.8.3. Neighborhood Parking Intrusion The parking intrusion studies do not accurately portray the difficulties experienced by residents. As mentioned in the DEIR, the parking restrictions are lifted at 6pm – just as the parking intrusion survey period ended.
Parking intrusion practices should be governed by condition #9 which reads: 9. That employees of merchants shall be instructed not to park upon adjoining neighboring residential streets and further, that automobile license number of all employees of businesses within the mall shall be recorded and available for spot checking in the event it appears such restriction is being violated. The right to require the applicant to conduct such spot checking is herby expressly reserved to the Zoning Administrator.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-194 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 11-50 Section IV.J, page 628 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, includes a summary of mitigation measures (specifically Mitigation Measures J-7, J-8 and J-9) to address the neighborhood parking intrusion. The measures outlined in this Comment are addressed in Mitigation Measures J-7, J-8 and J-9. The New Century Plan will continue to comply with Condition No. 9.
COMMENT NO. 11-51
3.8.4. Loading/Deliveries Vendors currently use, illegally, Century Park West as a large loading zone for the mall. Delivery trucks regularly park in contravention of existing posted regulations. Idling engines create noise, pollution and traffic disruptions. Accidents are common when views are reduced at the Century Park West entrance to the mall, with the most recent accident occurring on May 9, 2008. In that case, one driver’s view was obscured while another driver exiting the mall (making an illegal left turn) was struck. This situation must be resolved. Increased retail activity at the mall can only result in increased incidents.
RESPONSE NO. 11-51 Refer to Topical Response No. 7, Project Site Access, Circulation and Loading Operations for a discussion of loading associated with the proposed project. New below grade loading areas would be provided as part of the project. All new loading docks and refuse collection areas would be located in the subterranean parking level, which will not have any unobstructed openings that face toward any noise-sensitive receptor location. The required review by the Department of Transportation for the project’s site access and circulation includes a review of safety issues. While the project cannot control illegal driving, the applicant will coordinate with LAPD regarding preventing illegal turns and an attendant is currently in place and will remain so as long as there is limited loading on Century Park West.
COMMENT NO. 11-52
3.8.5. School Traffic The DEIR states that 228 additional trips will pass Westwood Charter. This is significant as is the increase in traffic that will pass Overland Elementary. We refer you back to the article on the impacts of increased traffic on the bodies of children.
RESPONSE NO. 11-52 The additional 228 trips cited in this comment would be comprised primarily of light duty, gasoline-powered automobiles, with only a few diesel vehicles. The addition of these trips would constitute a negligible increase in risk to sensitive populations, such as children. The articles
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-195 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
referenced in the comment are focused on exposure to particulate emissions, which are emitted at substantially higher rates from diesel powered engines as compared to gasoline powered engines.
COMMENT NO. 11-53
3.8.6. Beverly Glen Traffic/Safety While the DEIR discussed traffic in a generic sense along Beverly Glen Boulevard, it does not address the issue of ingress and egress from neighborhoods along Beverly Glen. As traffic has increased, ingress and egress from streets that intersect Beverly Glen and from driveways along Beverly Glen has become increasingly dangerous.
RESPONSE NO. 11-53 The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact any of the studied intersections along Beverly Glen Boulevard (e.g., at Sunset Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, or Pico Boulevard). Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-4 for additional discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area and specific analysis locations.
COMMENT NO. 11-54
3.8.7. Shuttles Westfield has mentioned shuttles as a method of reducing traffic in the immediate area of the mall. We appreciate their efforts in the regard. However, any shuttle service must be designed such that the shuttles do not attract out-of-area mall visitors to the local neighborhoods for the purpose of catching the shuttle.
We request that Westfield work with each homeowners association prior to implementation of any shuttle system.
RESPONSE NO. 11-54 Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for additional discussion regarding the TDM Plan. The project Applicant agrees to meet with each homeowners association to solicit input and suggestions regarding any potential shuttle system prior to implementation. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the Applicant and the decision- makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-196 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 11-55
3.9. Water Supply The availability of water to support increased population is become a central issue. We have attached the article “No water, no development - The days of supplies for almost every project must end. California must build smart.” We have also attached the article “WATER WOES WORRY CITY COUNCILMAN POLITICS: DENNIS ZINE SUGGESTS HALTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.” The reality is that resources are not unlimited.
We are perilously close to the line where we have no buffer between supply and demand.
In our local neighborhoods, residents have noticed that water filters that once lasted six months now only last three months.
RESPONSE NO. 11-55 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-15 and Topical Response No. 12, Water Supply.
COMMENT NO. 11-56
4. Conclusion We have no doubt that the project will be approved in some form and after some form of legal intervention by the local residents. The political forces that decry budget shortfalls and traffic on one hand and then approve development on the other will almost certainly prevail.
The real questions are whether anyone is listening and if anyone is really projecting the consequences of their actions into the future.
Perhaps these comments will serve to stimulate these critical thought processes while exposing several inconsistencies and questions that remain unanswered.
RESPONSE NO. 11-56 The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-197 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 12
Marcia Selz, Ph.D. Founder Coalition of Homeowner Associations in Council District 5 302 North Parkwood Drive Los Angeles, CA 90077
COMMENT NO. 12-1 On behalf of the Coalition of Homeowner Associations in Council District 5, I respectfully submit this "comments" letter on The New Century Plan for Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 12-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 12-2 The project will increase traffic substantially, and compound the impacts of the other large residential towers that are currently being planned/built in or near Century City. This will be the fifth residential tower over 40 stories scheduled for concurrent construction in Century City. In addition, in nearby Beverly Hills, two projects will add another 362 units. We know from past experience that it cannot be expected that the majority of the occupants of these residential buildings will conduct all their work or pleasure activities in Century City. Rather, there will be significant increases in traffic from this residential traffic, deliveries, household personnel, workman, etc. This project should not go forward until a complete and ACCRATE master plan for all development (current and future) for the entire area is completed. The area is already in gridlock, and this project will add to it. The draft EIR does not adequately address the impacts of this project in concert with other projects in the area.
RESPONSE NO. 12-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. As presented in Table 8-1, page 63 of Appendix G of Volume III of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to generate a net decrease of 177 vehicle trips (235 fewer inbound trips and 58 more outbound trips) during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 364 vehicle trips (290 inbound trips and 74 outbound trips). Over a weekday 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 5,922 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (2,961 inbound trips and 2,961 outbound trips). The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not include reductions (i.e., internal capture adjustments) due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-198 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
While not explicitly stated, the two projects referred to within City of Beverly Hills are likely the Beverly Hilton Revitalization Plan project and the 9900 Wilshire project. Both of these projects were included in the future analysis conditions. Specifically, Table 9-1, beginning on page 77 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, lists Related Project No. B22, 9900 Wilshire project, and Related Project No. B36, Beverly Hilton project. The future forecast vehicular trip generation forecasts for subject related projects are shown in Table 9-3, beginning on page 88 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR. Table 9-3 includes a total of 63 future development projects within the City of Los Angeles and a total of 45 additional development projects within the City of Beverly Hills (i.e., an overall total of 108 projects). Therefore, the Draft EIR does consider and analyze the impacts of other area projects in conjunction with the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-10 for further discussion regarding the conservative nature of the future analysis conditions contained in the Draft EIR traffic impact study. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for discussion of the project’s mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 12-3 More specifically, there needs to be a more complete study of the shading on existing residences that will occur because of this multi- use/residential plan. The draft EIR does not adequately address this issue of shading.
RESPONSE NO. 12-3 Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR adequately addresses shadow impacts in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, as discussed in Topical Response No. 11, a more detailed analysis of shadow impacts affecting residences north of the project site during the morning hours has been performed as part of this Final EIR in response to public comments. As concluded therein, both project-generated and cumulative shadow impacts affecting nearby residences would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 12-4 Similarly, signage planned for the Project's north side facing Santa Monica's Scenic Highway will increase from just over 900 sq. ft. to over 4000 sq. ft. of lit signage. The 49 story building will be the tallest structure on the Westside. The signage and billboards must not be allowed to be part of the project or to be added afterwards, since they will cause additional distractions for drivers and reduce the quality of life of residents in the area. The draft EIR does not adequately address this issue.
RESPONSE NO. 12-4 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-22 above.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-199 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 13
Jan Reichman, President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 13-1 Based on a review of the Draft EIR of the above mentioned project, I respectfully submit the following items for your consideration on behalf of our neighborhood. We are the residential community just north of the project and referred to in your EIR as a sensitive receptor location for all significant impacts due to our close proximity to the project.
RESPONSE NO. 13-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The residential uses to the north of the project site across Santa Monica Boulevard have been evaluated as sensitive receptors. For example, please refer to Section IV.H, Noise, on page 452 and Section IV.B, Air Quality, on page 258 of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 13-2 1. The DEIR does not address NOISE IMPACT during and after construction as it affects the neighborhood north of the project. How will this be mitigated?
RESPONSE NO. 13-2 As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, on page 452 of the Draft EIR, the neighborhood north of the project site is identified as a sensitive receptor. Noise impacts were evaluated at two receptors, identified as R3 and R4 as indicated in Figure 53, on page 453 of the Draft EIR, representing the nearest sensitive receptors for the neighborhood north of the project site. Project noise impacts during construction and after construction are analyzed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 465. As discussed therein, noise impacts due to project construction were identified and noise mitigation measures were recommended on page 481 of the Draft EIR to reduce the potential significant noise impacts. As discussed in the Draft EIR beginning on page 470, noise impacts after construction at receptors R3 and R4 would be less than significant. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 regarding construction noise impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-200 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 13-3 2. The DEIR does not list Santa Monica Blvd. and Beverly Glen Blvd. as a significantly impacted intersection. This borders our neighborhood and is only two blocks from the project. It is a major north/south artery going north to the San Fernando Valley. What mitigation measures are you planning for this already clogged artery?
RESPONSE NO. 13-3 The commentor is correct in noting that the Draft EIR does not conclude that the Beverly Glen Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (i.e., Intersection No. 28) is significantly impacted, thus, no mitigation measures are proposed for this intersection. The analysis of potential project-related impacts is based on the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria presented below:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Final v/c Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c > 0.700 - 0.800 C equal to or greater than 0.040 > 0.800 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.020 >0.900 E or F equal to or greater than 0.010
The City’s Sliding Scale Method requires mitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed development causes an increase of the analyzed intersection v/c ratio by an amount equal to or greater than the values shown above.
Please refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the Project’s TDM Plan. The applicant’s commitment to support the TDM Plan could include support for the formation of a TMO and a Century City shuttle circulator. At each phase of the proposed project, the applicant would be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding, and that the applicant continues to fulfill its TDM commitments. It is not until Phase E that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of six percent trip reduction in the Project’s commercial trip generation, which is necessary to mitigate anticipated significant traffic impacts at four intersections. As stated on page 625 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, it has been assumed that the required level of trip reduction will not be attained and that significant and unavoidable traffic impacts may occur in order to provide a conservative analysis. The Draft EIR, therefore, provides for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-201 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 13-4 3. The DEIR item NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SEGMENTS fails to mention the neighborhood north. It is significantly impacted by cut through traffic from westbound motorists. There is entry off Santa Monica Blvd. along Century City onto Club View, Ensley, Warnall and Comstock. Northbound traffic cuts through these streets rather than face the gridlock on Beverly Glen Blvd. What mitigation measures are planned?
RESPONSE NO. 13-4 Section IV.J, page 608 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis. Neighborhood Street Segment No. 6 (Club View Drive, north of Santa Monica Boulevard) was analyzed for potential impacts due to the construction and occupancy of the proposed project. Based on the City of Los Angeles local residential street segment impact threshold criteria, as summarized on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, this segment was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
The City of Los Angeles has completed a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) for the area referenced. Recent field reviews conducted as part of the Final EIR indicate the installation of many neighborhood traffic calming measures throughout the Comstock Hills Homeowners Association area. For example, along Comstock Avenue all-way stop control is provided at the intersections with Club View Drive, Ashton Avenue, Warnall Avenue, and Wilkins Avenue. Four speed humps have also been installed along Comstock Avenue, with one each north and south of Rochester Avenue and two between Wilkins Avenue and Holman Avenue. Another example occurs along Club View Drive where all-way stop control is provided at Rochester Avenue and Wilkins Avenue. In addition, three speed humps have been installed along Comstock Avenue, with one between Comstock Avenue and Rochester Avenue, two between Wilkins Avenue and Eastborne Avenue and one between Eastborne Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard. Lastly, the area is a residential permit parking district (i.e., District No. 6). Given the implementation of these and other neighborhood traffic management measures throughout the association area, the reviewed and accepted trip distribution pattern associated with the proposed project, and the results of the Draft EIR traffic impact analysis, further analysis was not deemed necessary by LADOT.
The neighborhood street segment impact analysis, as summarized in Section 14 on pages 128 through 132 in Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, was prepared in accordance with LADOT standards. According to LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies & Procedures, March 2002, page 10: “A local residential street shall be deemed significantly impacted based on an increase in the projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.” The following threshold criteria have been established:
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-202 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
CITY OF LOS ANGELES LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SEGMENT IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Projected Average Daily Project-Related Traffic With Project (Final ADT) Increase in ADT 0 to 999 16 percent or more of final ADT 1,000 or more 12 percent or more of final ADT 2,000 or more 10 percent or more of final ADT 3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT
In the Comstock HOA area (north of the project site), the following roadway designations/classifications are contained in the City of Los Angeles Circulation Element of the General Plan (Source: Generalized Circulation, West Los Angeles map): 1) Comstock Avenue, Local, 2) Warnall Avenue, Local, 3) Ensley Avenue: Local, 4) Club View Drive; Collector. Section B, Selection/Performance Criteria for Street Designations, page 77 of the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan, adopted in September 1999 by the City of Los Angeles City Council, indicates a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day for Collector type roadways. While the section does not outline specific carrying capacities for local streets, other jurisdictions (e.g., City of Glendale) generally indicate that volumes up to 2,500 vehicles per day are typical. As shown in Section IV.J, Table 63 on page 609 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, no more than 134 average daily trips is added to any single roadway segment (i.e., Street Segment No. 6, Club View Drive, north of Santa Monica Boulevard) and the City of Los Angeles’ threshold criteria is not exceeded. This particular roadway segment is classified as a Collector which pursuant to the General Plan has a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day and currently carries less than 2,000 vehicles per day.
As part of the Final EIR and based on several public comments regarding existing traffic volumes along roadways north of Santa Monica Boulevard within the Comstock HOA, recent 24-hour (automatic) directional traffic counts were conducted of all roadways leading into or out of the Comstock HOA. Copies of these data are contained in Appendix A6 of the Final EIR. Specifically, Warnall Avenue is currently carrying average daily traffic volumes of approximately 450 weekday and 350 weekend trips. Ensley Avenue is currently carrying an average daily traffic volume of approximately 950 weekday and 500 weekend trips. Comstock Avenue (north of Santa Monica Boulevard and the east-west alleyway) is currently carrying average daily traffic volumes of approximately 930 weekday trips and 600 weekend trips. Club View Drive is currently carrying an average daily traffic volume of approximately 2,700 weekday and 1,350 weekend trips. While the traffic volumes along Club View Drive (north of Santa Monica Boulevard) are recognized to have increased since the construction of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway project, the traffic volumes are well within the carrying capacities for a Collector roadway.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-203 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO.13-5 4. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING INTRUSION has no mention of the neighborhood north of the project. There are signals and crosswalks to Century City and, unlike other neighboring communities, our preferential parking permits are varied and do not protect the streets from out of area vehicle parking. What mitigation measures are planned?
RESPONSE NO. 13-5 Section IV.J, page 628 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, includes a summary of mitigation measures (specifically Mitigation Measures J-7, J-8 and J-9) to address any parking by non- residents in neighborhoods. Additionally, Westfield will continue to comply with condition No. 9 from ZA 87-0535, restricting Shopping Center employees from parking within adjoining neighborhood residential streets.
Section IV.J, beginning on page 608 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, specifically contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis. Neighborhood Street Segment No. 6 (Club View Drive, north of Santa Monica Boulevard) was analyzed for potential impacts due to the construction and occupancy of the proposed project. Based on the City of Los Angeles local residential street segment impact threshold criteria, as summarized on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, this segment was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
In order to more fully respond to the statements contained in this comment, visual observations of parking intrusion were conducted by survey personnel stationed at selected locations within the Comstock HOA. A total of four survey stations were selected for analysis based on a determination of those areas most likely to be impacted by parking intrusion. The following four station areas were defined as are summarized by street segment:
• Station No. 1: Comstock Avenue, between the alley just north of Santa Monica Boulevard and Holman Avenue
• Station No. 2: Warnall Avenue, between the alley just north of Santa Monica Boulevard and Eastborne Avenue
• Station No. 3: Ensley Avenue, between the alley just north of Santa Monica Boulevard and Eastborne Avenue
• Station No. 4: Club View Drive, between the alley just north of Santa Monica Boulevard and Eastborne Avenue
Two other locations (Warnall Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard crosswalk and the southeast corner of the Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection) were the designated
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-204 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
intercept locations. The survey personnel stationed at these two locations observed approaching pedestrians from the Comstock HOA vicinity in order to determine whether they accessed the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
Survey personnel were directed to observe all vehicles that entered and physically parked along their respective street segments, note the time that the vehicle parked, and observe the travel pattern of the parker. Survey personnel were provided with walkie-talkies so that they were able to communicate with one another in order to track a pedestrian as they departed one survey station and entered another survey station. Each person who parked was observed in order to determine their destination. The vehicles observed to park on street during the survey periods were then classified into one of four categories: motorists destined to the mall (employee or patron); motorists destined to other commercial uses (e.g., the office building near the corner of the Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection); other non-residential uses (e.g., parked on-street without leaving their vehicle); and motorists destined to a residential use within the Comstock HOA.
In conducting the surveys in the above fashion, a final determination could be made as to whether or not the parker was related to the existing shopping center and thus, intruding into the neighborhood. It is important to note that the survey areas (i.e., the four stations) were not determined to be all inclusive, however, it was determined that these stations would have the greatest likelihood of intrusion so that a determination could be made as to whether parking intrusion was occurring in locations in closest proximity to the existing mall. It is important to note that the area is posted for residential permit parking (i.e., Residential Permit Parking District No. 6), however, this residential permit parking district is in effect weekdays between 8:00 A.M and 6:00 P.M.. Thus, parking by non-residents is legal after 6:00 P.M. and on weekends.
Summary of the Parking Intrusion Survey Time Periods and Dates
Parking intrusion surveys were conducted during a weekday morning to early afternoon period (i.e., Friday, May 16, 2008, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M.) and a weekday late afternoon period (i.e., Friday, May 16, 2008, between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.). These periods were determined to coincide with not only patron activity (e.g., shopping center and movie theater patrons) but also during the typical arrival periods for the shopping center restaurant employees. In addition, parking intrusion surveys were also conducted during a weekend morning to early afternoon period (i.e., Saturday, May 16, 2008, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M.) and a weekend late afternoon period (i.e., Saturday, May 16, 2008, between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.).
Detailed summaries of the weekday parking observations conducted for each of the four survey stations are provided in Appendix A6 (refer to Appendix Tables A6-A1 through A6-A7). Detailed summaries of the weekend parking observations conducted for each of the four survey stations are also contained in Appendix A6 (refer Appendix Tables A6-B1 through A6-B7).
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-205 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Summary of the Neighborhood Parking Intrusion Survey Results
A summary of the neighborhood parking intrusion surveys by station for each of the weekday periods is presented in Appendix A6 (refer to Appendix Table A6-A1). During the Friday 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. survey period, no motorists parking in the survey station area were determined to be mall-related parkers. Additionally, during the Friday 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. survey period, no motorists parking in the survey station area were determined to be mall-related parkers.
A summary of the neighborhood parking intrusion surveys by station for each of the weekend periods is presented in Appendix A6 (refer to Appendix Table A6-B1). During the Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. survey period, a total of five of 43 persons were determined to be mall-related parkers (with all of them parked along Comstock Avenue near Santa Monica Boulevard). Additionally, during the Saturday 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. survey period, a total of three of 18 persons were determined to be mall-related parkers (with all of them parked along Comstock Avenue near Santa Monica Boulevard).
It can be concluded from these observations that while mall-related parking has been found to occur in small numbers within Residential Permit Parking District No. 6, it primarily occurs along Comstock Avenue near Santa Monica Boulevard and has occurred during time periods outside of the restricted permit parking district hours. During the survey periods, other non- residential vehicles were also documented to park on the surveyed streets within the Comstock HOA area, but these vehicles were determined not to be related to the shopping center based on the path that the motorists walked to or from their vehicles (e.g., these parkers appeared to be tenants of adjacent office buildings, visitors, and patrons of the other commercial buildings along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard).
COMMENT NO.13-6 5. STAGING AND HAUL ROUTES have yet to be determined. The DEIR suggests Santa Monica Blvd. This would greatly impact our neighborhood that has just endured 4 years of construction to create the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway. We strongly oppose its use as the impact from noise, pollution and traffic blockage would be intolerable to the neighborhood that it so closely borders. What plans are there for alternate routes and staging?
RESPONSE NO. 13-6 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for discussion of construction staging areas as well as a discussion of construction haul routes.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-206 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO.13-7 6. SHADING is an intolerable result of buildings that are too large, too tall, and that are situated too close to a roadway abutting residential areas. A tower of 49 stories is totally out of character with what should be located on a Scenic Highway. It is in conflict with the Westside Community Plan and should be drastically reduced in size, mass, and height. As the tallest structure on the Westside, it should be set back to the furthest south boundary of the Westfield property. 1900 Avenue of the Stars is 28 stories and looks like it belongs. What remedy can you suggest?
7. AIR QUALITY will seriously impact the neighborhood north of the project as massive demolition and construction for four years chokes its residents with toxic air and fumes from construction vehicles. What mitigation measures are planned?
RESPONSE NO. 13-7 Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 regarding shading impacts. Both Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard are listed as Scenic Highways in the General Plan, Transportation Element, Appendix E “Inventory of Designated Scenic Highways.” In the “Inventory”, Avenue of the Stars is listed as a Scenic Highway between Pico Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard and its “wide landscaped median, fountains” is noted in the column labeled “Scenic Features or Resources/Comment”. Santa Monica is listed as a Scenic Highway between Sepulveda and the Beverly Hills city limits, however, the “Scenic Features or Resources/Comment” cell in the chart is empty.
The City’s “Guidelines” are primarily focused on the physical characteristics of the highways’ public rights-of-way and are broken into five sub-sections: 1. Roadway 2. Earthwork/Grading 3. Planting/Landscaping 4. Signs/Outdoor Advertising 5. Utilities
All of these sub-sections are silent as to how structures of any size may contribute to the “character [of] what should be located on a Scenic Highway” and, thus, it may be assumed that changing the scale of the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building is not in and of itself intrinsically a significant impact upon the Scenic Highway. Additionally, since no “Scenic Feature or Resource” for Santa Monica Boulevard is noted in the Transportation Element's “Inventory”, the project will have no impact on any scenic resources associated with Santa Monica Boulevard. Finally, the project satisfies the “Guidelines” on all points, and therefore is compatible with Santa Monica Boulevard's Scenic Highway designation. For Avenue of the Stars, the project does not propose to alter or affect the “wide landscaped medians” nor the fountains within the public right-of-way; thus, there is no basis for finding the project incompatible with the Scenic Highway designation.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-207 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Regarding the proposed location of the tower to extreme southern edge of the site, the project is currently in full conformance with the tiered height-limits outlined in the area’s zoning. The existing parcel zoning and Century City North Specific Plan both limit high-rise development to the strip of Height District 2 along both sides of Avenue of the Stars; the alternate location is neither zoned for high-rise development, nor would a tower in that location be in conformance with the Specific Plan. Refer to Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR for an analysis of the project's consistency with the relevant land use polices in the West Los Angeles Community Plan.
With regard to air quality impacts during construction, construction pollutant emissions and concentrations presented in the Draft EIR were calculated for the worst-case peak day. A worst- case day represents the maximum emissions resulting from the largest construction fleet operating for the maximum allowable hours.
In order to mitigate construction emissions impacts, the project applicant is committed to using construction equipment which is less polluting than the state-wide average fleet. In addition to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, in order to further reduce construction emissions impacts, the following mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR:
Mitigation Measure B-10: The project applicant shall require on-site off-road construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 2 emissions standards (Model Year 2001 or later) at a minimum. Construction equipment meeting Tiers 3 and 4 emissions standards will be implemented when commercially available and if feasible. This requirement will apply to any piece of equipment which is expected to operate on-site more than 15 days. In addition to meeting Tier 2 emissions standards, the following shall be required for on-site construction equipment:
• Use late model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment with cooled exhaust gas recirculation at the project site; and
• Maintain records on fuel use, hours of operation, and periodic maintenance of all construction equipment.
Mitigation Measure B-11: For equipment not covered by Mitigation Measure B-10 above, the project Applicant shall evaluate the potential for reducing exhaust emissions from on-road and off-road construction equipment, and implement such measures to the extent feasible. Control technologies to be considered may include particulate traps and filters, selective catalytic reduction, oxidation catalysts, air enhancement technologies, and the use of alternatively (non-diesel) fueled engines. Feasibility considerations will include commercial availability of appropriate CARB verified technologies and cost effectiveness calculated in accordance with guidelines established under the Carl Moyer Program.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-208 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
It should be noted that construction emissions presented in the Draft EIR do not account for emissions reductions from the above mitigation measures. As a result, actual pollutant emissions and concentrations would most likely be less than those presented in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 13-8 8. PHOTOGRAPHS in the DEIR SIMULATING THE NEW TOWER are incomplete as to the impact on the neighborhood to the north. More photos from homes at the southern edge of Comstock Hills should be used to show the enormous impact of the proposed 49 story building. 10100 SM Blvd. in the next block east is 23 stories, yet its location on the Boulevard makes it appear huge to the north neighborhood. Will you provide further simulation drawings with homes that feel the negative affect of the looming tower.
RESPONSE NO. 13-8 While the visual simulations in the Draft EIR are representative of the views within the project vicinity, in response to this comment, two additional visual simulations have been prepared showing the proposed project from the neighborhood north of Santa Monica Boulevard. Refer to Figures III-6 and III-7 on pages III-210 and III-211 below, which are numbered as view points 19 and 20 on the revised context map provided in Figure III-8 on page III-212.
COMMENT NO. 13-9 9. PRESERVING SPECIMAN [sic] TREES and giving them "heritage" classification will keep them from being destroyed. The large Moreton Bay Fig at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Blvd. should be preserved. In addition, the rare and magnificent African Coral Tree just west of the 1801 building must be preserved in its current location. How will you address the preservation of these landmark trees?
RESPONSE NO. 13-9 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. As stated in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, a deep landscaped area would be provided at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard that is anticipated to incorporate the existing mature African coral tree. The African coral tree would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible, and an arborist would be hired to ensure proper care and relocation procedures. Similarly, the Moreton Bay Fig would also be relocated and preserved as feasible.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-209 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress Page III-210
Figure III-6 Photosimulation of Project from Warnall Avenue North of Santa Monica Boulevard (Key Map No. 19) Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, June 2008.
New Century Plan Page III-211
Figure III-7 Photosimulation of Project from Intersection of Warnall Avenue and Eastborne Avenue (Key Map No. 20) Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, June 2008.
New Century Plan N Figure III-8 No scale Updated Key Map for Visual Simulations
Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, June 2008.
Page III-212 New Century Plan III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 13-10 10. INCREASED LIT SIGNAGE as proposed on SM Blvd. facing the north neighborhood is an unreasonable blight. How can this be modified?
RESPONSE NO. 13-10 As described in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, illumination for building identification signs would be designed as an internal source (i.e., Gulfstream's existing can-letters), or as uplights (similar to the existing monument signs along Santa Monica Boulevard). Any other signage would also be illuminated in a manner that conforms with code requirements and to minimize light spill-over and glare. Some new signs may utilize energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, and as the lighting in older signs is replaced, they too may be retrofitted with LEDs. As demonstrated in the analysis, the illumination of new signage would comply with the LAMC requirements wherein no sign shall be arranged and illuminated in a manner that will produce a light intensity of greater than three foot candles above ambient lighting, as measured at the property line of the nearest residentially zoned property. As such, lighting impacts associated with signage would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 13-11 A more walkable green space is welcomed. But the planned increased density of commercial/retail/residential will exacerbate traffic, pollution and noise while changing the site's character. Further, with no funding for mass transit (per Metro), this is irresponsible planning.
I respectfully submit these comments on behalf of my organization.
RESPONSE NO. 13-11 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with existing and expected land use patterns within Century City. In addition, the proposed mix of uses and TDM Plan will reduce reliance upon the automobile. Furthermore, the project is well-served by public transit. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of a knock-out panel which is being planned within the tower’s parking garage foundation near the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars to provide access to a future Metro subway station. In addition, funding for the Metro subway is currently in the planning process. Please refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, and Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR regarding air pollution and noise, respectively.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-213 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 14
Jan Reichman President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024
COMMENT NO. 14-1 The impact of the proposed 49 story 1801 Avenue of The Stars from the Comstock Hills neighborhood, North of the project.
RESPONSE NO. 14-1 While the visual simulations within the Draft EIR are representative of the views in the project area, in response to this comment, an additional visual simulation has been prepared. Refer to Figure III-6 on page III-210 above, which is a photosimulation of the project from a vantage point on Warnall Avenue at the southern edge of the residential neighborhood. This exhibit is based on a site photo shot with the same focal length camera as the others simulations in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-214 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 15
Jan Reichman President Comstock Hills Homeowners Association 1429 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024
COMMENT NO. 15-1 Please see the attached photo taken from Ensley Avenue, one of the neighboring streets north of the proposed project. The proposed Westfield building (red sign) will be 36 stories higher than what is currently there at 1801 Avenue of the Stars. The silver building to the left is 26 stories (10100 SMB). The dark tower behind 1801 is 28 stories (1900 Ave of the Stars).
The proposed 49 story tower is not only out of character, too tall and bulky, and aesthetically offensive to the Boulevard Parkway and its northern neighbors, but poses a risk during times of natural disaster. The shade and shadow issue is profound as it moves across the neighborhood to the north.
RESPONSE NO. 15-1 While the visual simulations within the Draft EIR are representative of the views in the project area, in response to this comment, an additional visual simulation has been prepared. Refer to Figure III-7 on page III-211 above which is a photosimulation of the project from the intersection of Warnall Avenue and Eastborne Avenue. This exhibit is based on a site photo shot with the same focal length camera as the others simulations in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for a discussion regarding shading impacts. Furthermore, as is noted throughout Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid- and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. The development of the project would also replace older buildings with new buildings that would comply with the LAMC Fire Code, the Los Angeles General Plan, the General Plan Safety Element, and all other applicable ordinances and requirements. Thus, impacts with respect to natural disasters would be less than significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-215 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 16
Daniel J. Fink, Co-President Roxbury Beverwil Homeowners Association 9736 Saturn Street Los Angeles, California 90035-2925
COMMENT NO. 16-1 I am writing to comment on the above captioned project, both personally and on behalf of the Roxbury Beverwil Homeonwners [sic] Association.
This loosely organized group of approximately 100 homeowners represents those living in the area bordered by Roxbury Drive to the west, Beverwil Drive to the east, Pico Blvd. to the north, and Cashio Avenue to the south.
RESPONSE NO. 16-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 16-2 We can see the towers of Century City from our windows. The "cut through" traffic from people who work in the millions of square feet of space that has been overly developed in Century City makes our narrow neighborhood streets hazardous for children and the elderly who try to cross them.
RESPONSE NO. 16-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area. Section 14.0, beginning on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis prepared as part of the Draft EIR. A total of eight street segments were analyzed for potential impacts. None of the studied street segments in proximity to the proposed project were determined to be significantly impacted by the project. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for additional discussion of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the project.
The comment contains introductory, opinion, anecdotal, or general information, and is not a specific comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Thus, the comment will be forwarded to the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-216 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 16-3 The pollution from these cars, and the traffic noise, have degraded the quality of our lives.
RESPONSE NO. 16-3 As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, project-related traffic would result in a maximum increase of 0.3 dBA during a weekday and 0.9 dBA during a weekend day. The increase in traffic noise due to the proposed project is below the 3 dBA significance threshold. In addition, an increase of 0.9 dBA would be not noticeable in an outdoor environment.
Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, takes mobile source emissions into account in disclosing impacts during both construction and operation of the project.
COMMENT NO. 16-4 This proposed project is just too big and too tall.
A 49 story building violates the spirit if not the letter of the Westside Community Plan. It will increase the density of the area too much. It will cast shadows on nearby single family residences.
RESPONSE NO. 16-4 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-8 and 13-7 for a discussion of how the project would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for a discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site. In addition, refer to Section IV.G, Land Use of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the consistency of the project with the West Los Angeles Community Plan.
COMMENT NO. 16-5 It will increase the already intolerable cut through traffic.
RESPONSE NO. 16-5 Refer to Response to Comment No. 16-2 for a discussion of the neighborhood street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-217 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 16-6 The prolonged demolition of existing structures will generate hundreds if not thousands of truck trips through City streets, adding to the pollution and noise already existing, over a four year time span (IF everything goes on time, which rarely happens in projects of this size.)
RESPONSE NO. 16-6 Refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation, and Section IV.H, Noise regarding the potential air quality, traffic and noise impacts resulting from construction activities. Also refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a summary of these impacts and a discussion of the construction truck trip generation contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 16-7 There is no need for the net increase of approximately 104,000 square feet of space at this time. There is no need for more luxury housing in Los Angeles.
RESPONSE NO. 16-7 As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the New Century Plan supports many of the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the West Los Angeles Community Plan and the CCNSP. The mixed-use nature of the proposed project would revitalize and improve Century City, making the community more viable for residential, employment and entertainment purposes. Providing high-density housing units would increase the vitality of the area and would support an existing mature employment hub. Additionally, as stated in many adopted regional and local planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. As such, the proposed project would promote the goal of generating more housing. Please see Response to Comment No. 3-6 for further information.
COMMENT NO. 16-8 This project, and other large projects on "the Westside" (from the 10 Freeway north to Sunset Blvd, from La Cienega or even La Brea on the east to the Santa Monica border) should be put "on hold" until the MTA line is extended, ideally with a Century City station, from downtown.
Then "rational, transit oriented development" can be allowed to take place.
Until then, this project should not be allowed to proceed.
RESPONSE NO. 16-8 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study that is currently underway as well as for a discussion of the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-218 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
project design features that are proposed to support a future subway station at the project site. The future analysis conditions contained in the Draft EIR does not assume the extension so as to provide a conservative forecast of future operations prior to and after completion of the proposed project. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-219 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 17
Terry A. Tegnazian President Westwood Hills Property Owners Association [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 17-1 Westwood Hills Property Owners Association is very concerned about the massive nature of Westfield's proposed expansion at its Century City mall, and the enormous negative impacts this project would have on Century City and the entire surrounding Westside -- both short-term during the construction phase, and more importantly long-term because of the increased traffic and congestion in an area already strained to the breaking point.
RESPONSE NO. 17-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-6 for a discussion of the Transportation Management Organization. Refer also to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts for a detailed discussion of construction hours and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP).
COMMENT NO. 17-2 Applicant Westfield, LLC proposes to not only build 465,404 sq.ft. of new commercial, restaurant and office space, but plans construction of a 49-story mixed use tower with the first three or four floors of retail, and the balance to be a floor of amenities serving 44 stories of 262 condominiums. This will be the fifth residential tower over 40 stories scheduled for concurrent construction in Century City. At the same time, nearby Beverly Hills will be constructing two projects totaling 362 units.
RESPONSE NO. 17-2 The Draft EIR addresses the cumulative impacts associated with development of the project together with other related projects in the area. Refer to Section III, Environmental Setting, for a list and a map of the related projects. As stated therein, build out of the project is forecasted to occur in 2012. Accordingly, the Draft EIR considered the effects of other known development projects, including the St. Regis Redevelopment Project, the project at 10131 Constellation Boulevard, nearby projects in Beverly Hills and the project located at the 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard. These and many other related projects were included as related projects in the Draft EIR and are accounted for in the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR. In addition, please note that, as
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-220 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the residential component would include up to 262 multi-family residential, apartment or condominium units housed within 42 of the upper 43 stories of the building. Amenities for the residential uses would be provided in one or two levels below the residential uses. The levels below the amenities levels would include building support (e.g., building service offices and lobbies) and mechanical areas. An additional floor for mechanical areas would be located on the top floor of the building and on top of the new retail.
COMMENT NO. 17-3 Although the net square footage of commercial uses is 104,440, it will require massive demolition which in turn creates serious deterioration of air quality, noise, construction vehicle staging and hauling, as 1801 Avenue of the Stars is demolished along with 1930 Century Park West, Bloomingdale's and various other retail establishments. Per the Draft EIR, construction will continue for four years causing significant and unavoidable impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 17-3 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of construction impacts. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Nonetheless, construction impacts associated with air quality and noise would be significant and unavoidable. However, implementation of the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan would ensure that construction traffic and staging impacts would be less than significant.
A discussion of the reasons why the project is proposed not withstanding significant and unavoidable impacts is provided in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR. As discussed, the underlying purpose of the project is to create an integrated center within the community by providing a broad array of shopping and dining choices, entertainment opportunities, outdoor spaces and amenities, combined with new office and residential development, in order to ensure the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community with options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub. While land use planning and real estate development must always contemplate the implications of adverse change, their fundamental purposes are to beneficially supply an array of needed land use products in a manner that optimizes environmental as well as economic realities. Development of the project at this particular location wherein there is an established employment hub can take advantage of appreciable environmental economies of scale, which promote operational efficiency not available to the same amount of total development distributed among many smaller sites.
In addition, there are economic and urban planning reasons in support of the proposed development. The New Century Plan project would strengthen Century City’s competitive position
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-221 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
as a hub for regional commerce and activity by offering an integration of services and amenities, and would generate additional annual sales tax revenues to the City of Los Angeles. It would also provide high-density housing, up to 262 units, to support the existing employment hub. The project would also be consistent with the existing and expected scale and massing within the project vicinity. Finally, placing office, retail, and residential uses in a mixed-use urban setting designed to accommodate the retail and open space needs of employment and residential uses in a manner that supports a livable, walkable and diverse district is expected to provide a model for future development.
COMMENT NO. 17-4 For the neighborhood to the north of the Project, shading will occur on their homes.
RESPONSE NO. 17-4 A more refined analysis of shadow impacts affecting residences north of the project site during the morning hours has been performed as part of this Final EIR in response to public comments. Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 for further discussion. As concluded therein, both project-generated and cumulative shadow impacts affecting residences within the Comstock Hills neighborhood would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 17-5 Cut-through traffic will be a serious impact that will become constant, even after completion of the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 17-5 Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for further discussion of the extents of the study area boundaries and the approval of the traffic analysis study area by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Page 608, Section IV.J within Volume I of the Draft EIR specifically contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis. Based on the City of Los Angeles local residential street segment impact threshold criteria, as summarized on page 128, Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, none of the analyzed segments were determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 13-4 for a detailed discussion of the street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR and Response to Comment No. 13-4 for discussion of roadways located north of Santa Monica Boulevard. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 for discussion of roadways located to the south and east of Century City. Refer to Response to Comment No. 10-7 for a discussion of roadways located south of Century City.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-222 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 17-6 Signage planned for the Project's north side facing Santa Monica Boulevard will increase from just over 900 sq. ft. to over 4000 sq. ft. of lit signage.
RESPONSE NO. 17-6 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10.
COMMENT NO. 17-7 The 49-story building will be the tallest structure on the Westside.
RESPONSE NO. 17-7 Following project completion, the proposed residential tower would be the tallest building in Century City, but would not be substantially taller than the existing high-rise buildings in the vicinity. As addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 for further discussion of building heights.
COMMENT NO. 17-8 The spirit of the Westside Community Plan is being violated with the planned density of this project. No funding is available for mass transit. A Metro station cannot realistically be planned when neither a route nor funds are evident. The earliest projected subway construction is estimated at the year 2030.
RESPONSE NO. 17-8 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of Metro’s Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study. Refer to Response to Comment No. 10-11 for additional discussion related to the Exposition Corridor Transit project. As both of these extension projects are beyond the time frame anticipated for the buildout of the proposed project, they were not considered as part of the mitigation program in the Draft EIR traffic analysis. Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for discussion pertaining to a potential connection from the project site to a future subway portal. In addition, refer to Section IV.H, Land Use of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the consistency of the project with the West Los Angeles Community Plan.
COMMENT NO. 17-9 Increased and unmitigated traffic will be an issue compounding what already exists throughout the Westside.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-223 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 17-9 Refer to Topical Response No. 1 for discussion of the significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 17-10 Further, it is our understanding that in order to permit this project to proceed, the Century City Specific Plan would need to be amended.
We believe that the practice of amending, on an ad hoc basis for every new proposed project, carefully thought-out and negotiated specific plans that have been previously agreed by both the community and the city, makes a mockery of rational planning practice.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 17-10 As indicated in Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the Specific Plan is proposed to be amended. Also Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-8. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-224 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 18
Stan M. Barankiewicz II Orbach, Huff & Suarez LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575 Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 18-1 The law firm of Orbach, Huff & Suarez LLP ("OHS") hereby submits its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the New Century Plan located at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California ("Project"). OHS is a long-term tenant of 1901 Avenue of the Stars on the fifth floor, which is immediately adjacent to the Project's 1801 Avenue of the Stars building.
As the Project is proposed and since the Draft EIR's impact analyses are inadequate, OHS must oppose the proposed project. The impact analyses of air quality, land use, noise, vibration, and traffic are inadequate and must be redone. Further, the shear noise levels that are predicted during four years of construction will be largely unmitigated and unbearable. Thus, OHS makes the following comments on the Project's Draft EIR:
RESPONSE NO. 18-1 The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2006. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project. Each of the concerns cited in this comment are addressed in the following responses to comments.
COMMENT NO.18-2
1. AIR QUALITY.
The Draft EIR reports that construction of the Project is expected to pollute the air with as high as 656 pounds of carbon monoxide per day, 540 pounds of nitrogen oxides per day, and 879 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day during the four-year construction period. (p. 274.) Although some existing baseline data is provided from distant monitoring sites, the impact analysis does not compare the Project's expected air pollution to existing conditions.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-225 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Instead, it relies on bare thresholds from the SCAQMD. This is inadequate. As mentioned below, a significant impact analysis is a comparison between Project levels to the existing baseline levels.
RESPONSE NO. 18-2 The SCAQMD, the agency responsible for regulating air emissions and developing plans to bring the Basin into attainment with state and federal standards, has established the significance thresholds used in the air quality analysis within the Draft EIR. For pollutants which can travel some distance and impact ambient levels downwind, such as ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides, the SCAQMD has established allowable emission levels, under which the SCAQMD has determined that an incremental increase in emissions will not jeopardize regional attainment. For emissions of pollutants which can impact local sensitive populations, such as oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, the SCAQMD also established thresholds and methodology to analyze the potential impact to localized ambient concentrations. This approach accounts for the incremental increase in emissions during construction and operation, local conditions, such as project site size, proximity of receptors, meteorological conditions, etc., and existing ambient pollutant levels from representative monitoring stations. The analyses in the Draft EIR are consistent with these methodologies, and are therefore adequate to determine significance.
COMMENT NO. 18-3 Here, no Project area air sampling was done. Rather, the Draft EIR relies solely on distant air monitoring stations (3, 10 and 21 miles away) and rote calculations. (p.254.)
RESPONSE NO. 18-3 Site specific air sampling is not required by the SCAQMD or the City to determine existing conditions. Reliance on established monitoring stations is the accepted approach by the SCAQMD.
COMMENT NO.18-4 Further, no air dispersion analyses have been conducted to the south of the Project. Surely, air pollutants will migrate next door to 1901 Avenue of the Stars.
RESPONSE NO. 18-4 Dispersion modeling was performed for nearby sensitive receptors, in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. For purposes of CEQA analyses, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor where it is possible an individual could remain for 24 hours, such as a residence, hospital, convalescent facility. Commercial and industrial facilities such as 1901 Avenue of the Stars are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees do not typically remain on-site for a continuous 24 hours. Dispersion modeling was performed focusing on the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-226 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
closest sensitive receptors to the project site which are located to the north and west. Meteorological data used for dispersion modeling shows that the predominant wind direction blows to the north-east. Therefore, the results of the studies performed for the Draft EIR represent the potential maximum impact to an offsite sensitive receptor.
COMMENT NO. 18-5 Omitted from the impact analysis is any health risk assessment of air pollutants other than diesel fumes on the tenants of 1901 Avenue of the Stars.
RESPONSE NO. 18-5 The most recent MATES III health risk study performed by the SCAQMD demonstrates that 85 percent of the inhalation cancer risk in the region is attributed to diesel particulate matter. As a result, diesel particulate emissions represent the greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions and cancer risk. Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluated potential health risk impacts which could result from construction activities, the impact to off-site receptors resulting from the increase in project-related on-site TAC emissions, as well as the risk of siting new residential receptors nearby to off-site sources of TACs. In all cases, risks were found to be at acceptable levels and the impacts less than significant.
Other TACs, including volatile organics from architectural coatings, would be limited by SCAQMD Rule 1113, which limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions would be controlled by Rule 403, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated from construction activities as mentioned in the Draft EIR. Thus, the health risk from air pollutants other than diesel fumes would be limited to less than significant levels.
COMMENT NO. 18-6 The Draft EIR analyzes the impacts from carbon monoxide hot spots expected from the operational Project, but it omits a carbon monoxide hot spot analysis during construction of the Project. The truck trips expected along with other construction traffic and existing traffic will certainly elevate carbon monoxide levels. The potential impact from carbon monoxide hot spots occurring during construction must be analyzed and reported.
RESPONSE NO. 18-6 As discussed in Section 17.3.2, Peak Construction Truck Demand of the Traffic Study provided in Appendix G of the Draft EIR, approximately 21 truck/trailer combos per day and up to 31 material delivery trucks per day are anticipated to be generated during project construction. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots analyses during construction were not performed because diesel trucks represent a low potential for CO emissions, the haul route shall be designed to minimize traffic impacts, and the additional 52 daily trucks would not trigger the requirement to perform quantitative
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-227 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
CO Hot Spots modeling. Specifically, a CO Hot Spots analysis would only be required when an intersection Level of Service (LOS) is LOS C or worse with a 2 percent or greater increase in vehicle to capacity ratios resulting from construction trips. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 18-14 regarding the localized construction impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 18-7 The Draft EIR discusses Greenhouse Gas ("GHGs") emissions. However, the Draft EIR does not include a significance threshold for such emissions because it claims no agency has yet developed such. The absence of such a threshold does not excuse the City from corning up with one, as it must to satisfy its duties as a lead agency. Without such a threshold, there is no meaningful impact analysis. The Draft EIR reports that the Project will generate as high as 3,713 metric tons of GHGs yearly over the four years of construction. (p.277.) Yet, the Draft EIR concludes there is no significant impact from GHGs. This is a clear error and is inconsistent with AB32's edict to reduce GHG emissions by 11 percent by 2010 and 25 percent by 2020. (p. 250.) As such, the impact analysis of the Project's GHG emissions, during construction and operations, is infirm. The Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated.
RESPONSE NO. 18-7 The City of Los Angeles has yet to formally adopt CEQA significance criteria with regards to GHG emissions and the potential impact to global climate change. AB32 does not include a significance threshold nor does it establish an across-the-board emission reduction mandate which is to be applied uniformly to all GHG generating activities.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7, define a threshold of significance as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. CEQA gives wide latitude to lead agencies in determining what impacts are significant and does not prescribe thresholds of significance, analytical methodologies, or specific mitigation measures. CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in determining the significance of environmental effects. However, neither the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution control agency for the urban portions of Los Angeles county, nor the City Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project, have yet established significance thresholds for GHG emissions. The regulations required to meet the State goals under AB32 are still under development. Furthermore, pursuant to SB 97, guidelines to be prepared by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for addressing greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA will not be adopted until January 1, 2010. Recently, OPR published a Technical Advisory, which recommends an approach to examining climate change in CEQA analyses. OPR’s newly issued guidance
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-228 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
suggests three components for CEQA disclosure: quantification of GHG emissions from a project’s construction and operation, determination of signifiance of the project’s impact to climate change, and if the project is found to be significant, the identification of suitable alternatives and mitigation measures.
Though the Draft EIR was published before the issuance of OPR’s guidance, the Draft EIR’s approach to global climate change is consistent with OPR’s guidance insomuch that it quantified emissions and determined the contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change is considered less than significant, given the consistency of the proposed project features with the State and City’s goals. In addition, several of the project design features listed in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would further decrease the amount of GHG emissions.
Additional analyses as summarized below have been provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Draft EIR to clarify the potential significance of project level impacts. While it is difficult to predict the specific impact of one project’s incremental contribution to the global effects of GHG emissions due to a variety of factors, including the complex and long term nature of such effects and the global scale of climate change, it is possible to determine whether a project is implementing design strategies consistent with the guidance that is available. Therefore the following significance threshold has been used: if a project implements design strategies consistent with the goals of AB32, the strategies published by the California Climate Action Team (CAT) which is led by the Secretary of the California EPA (discussed in the Draft EIR), and the LA Green Plan, the project will not be considered to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change, either on a project-specific basis or with respect to its contribution to a cumulative impact on global climate change.
The project incorporates energy and vehicle miles travled (VMT) reducing project features such as designing, constructing, and operating the project to obtain LEED certification, installing appliances, fixtures, and infrastructure that use less energy and water, evaluating the viability of solar power generation onsite, and locating housing near to mass transit and employment centers. Thus, the proposed project would result in lower GHG emission rates compared to current standards and practices. In addition, the project’s consistency with the recommendations and strategies for reducing GHG emissions published by CAT is evaluated in Table 18 on page 297 of the Draft EIR. In the absence of numeric thresholds and given the consistency of the proposed project features with the State and City’s goals, the contribution of the project to global climate change is considered less than significant on both a project-specific basis or with respect to its contribution to a cumulative impact on global climate change.
COMMENT NO.18-8 The City should require construction to stop or activities reduced if air contaminants exceed the air quality thresholds.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-229 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 18-8 Pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-3 in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, construction emissions shall be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts.
The City does require that construction activities cease on days where the ambient air quality is determined to be a “Second Stage Smog Alert”, and Westfield is prepared to comply with this requirement. Westfield routinely requests construction equipment used on-site for substantial periods of time be late-model (e.g. post-2001 model year), retrofitted or otherwise controlled, when technologically feasible and locally available, so as to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and/or ozone precursors such as oxides of nitrogen. In addition in order to further reduce construction emissions impacts, additional mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR, California Air Resources Board has recently passed regulations requiring construction fleet operators to retire or retrofit older diesel powered equipment, which will greatly increase the availability of lower-emitting construction equipment state-wide. In addition to mitigation strategies to reduce construction emission of particulate matter (dust) mandated by the City and SCAQMD, Westfield routinely implements enhanced control measures, such as installing shaker plates so as to reduce the track-out from haul trucks and other vehicles as they exit the site and continuous street sweeping adjacent to active construction.
COMMENT NO. 18-9
2. LAND USE. The Draft EIR sets the threshold of significance on land use as whether the Project will create an inconsistency with land use plans or policies. (p. 402.) Table 24 on pages 406 through 421 provides the analysis of the Project's consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. For Objective 1-4 and Goal 2, the Draft EIR notes that the Project is "partially consistent." Partially consistent means that the Project is not entirely consistent and thus inconsistent with the community plan. Despite the inconsistency, the Draft EIR concludes that the Project is consistent with community plan and thus the impact is less than significant. This is in error. The Draft EIR should have concluded that such inconsistency creates a significant land use impact. Indeed, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Century City North Specific Plan would have to be amended. (p.415.)
RESPONSE NO. 18-9 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, projects are considered consistent with the General Plan, and hence the West Los Angeles Community Plan, provisions if they are compatible with the general intent of the General Plan and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-230 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The New Century Plan is compatible with the general intent of the West Los Angeles Community Plan. The project is entirely consistent with the vast majority of the Community’s Plans goals and objectives, and is only partially consistent with two goals/objectives of the Community Plan. Since the New Century Plan is compatible with the general intent of the Community Plan and does not preclude attainment of the General Plan’s primary goal, the Draft EIR correctly concludes that the project would not result in significant land use impacts.
COMMENT NO. 18-10 The same analytical error is carried forward in the analysis of the Project's consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") policies. Policy ## 3.21 and 3.24 are identified as "partially consistent." In other words, the Project is also inconsistent with SCAG's policies. Thus, the conclusions concerning these land use plans and policies must be revised to reflect the significant land use impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 18-10 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, projects are considered consistent with SCAG if they are compatible with the general intent of SCAG’s policies and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.
The New Century Plan is compatible with the general intent of SCAG’s policies. The project is entirely consistent with the vast majority of SCAG’s policies, and is only partially consistent with two goals/objectives of the Community Plan. Since the New Century Plan is compatible with the general intent of SCAG’s policies and does not preclude the attainment of their primary goal, the Draft EIR correctly concludes that the project would not result in significant land use impacts.
COMMENT NO. 18-11
3. NOISE. The Draft EIR reports that construction noise over the course of four years will mostly be between 80 and 85 decibels at Receptor R5, which the [sic] 1901 Avenue of the Stars building. (Table 34, p. 468.) This is an intolerable level of noise considering that the Draft EIR acknowledges in Figure 52 on page 446 that such noise levels are the same as "shouting at 3 feet" and "food blender at 3 feet." How does the developer expect any tenant of 1901 Avenue of the Stars to get any work done for four years when bombarded by such extreme noise levels?
RESPONSE NO. 18-11 The noise levels included on page 468 of the Draft EIR represent worst-case conditions in which all construction equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously and were assumed to be
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-231 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors. As indicated therein, based on these worst-case assumptions construction activities would generate exterior noise levels ranging up to 79 to 85 dBA at Receptor 5 during certain phases of construction. In addition, the Draft EIR concluded that even with the proposed mitigation measures, during certain phases of construction the project would generate significant construction-noise impacts.
Although office uses are not defined as sensitive receptors, PCR acousticians conducted additional analysis with regard to construction noise levels within the interior of the office building at 1901 Aveue of the Stars. Based on field measurements, the exterior wall/window sound attenuation performance (sound insulation) of the building was measured at 36 dBA (decibels). Based on this measurement, project-related construction noise levels at the interior of 1901 building (offices with windows facing the future construction site) would range from 43 dBA to 49 dBA. Using a conservative assumption regarding existing interior noise based on recommendations from the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc), the interior background noise environment would have a maximum HVAC Noise Criteria (NC) level with a NC 35 rating. This NC 35 rating translates into a background noise level of approximately 44 dBA. Based on this conservative assumption, project-related construction noise levels not increase noise levels within the interior of the building by more than 5 dB. Thus, construction-related noise impacts within the interior of the building would be substantially below the exterior noise levels and would not be extreme.
COMMENT NO. 18-12 Approval of such a plan would constitute a partial taking by the City of OHS' and other tenants' property.
RESPONSE NO. 18-12 The comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, “[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment… The focus of the [CEQA] analysis shall be on the physical changes.” The New Century Plan’s effect on property values in the area is not an environmental consideration under CEQA, and therefore has not been evaluated in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 18-13
4. VIBRATION. The Draft EIR does not sufficiently analyze potential vibration impacts. In Table 35 on page 471, the Draft EIR identifies the types of construction equipment that generate vibration. Conspicuously missing from the list is any type of pile driver (which could be used for the construction of the subterranean parking). The analysis of vibration impacts are based on
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-232 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Table 35. Yet, in the mitigation measures, the Draft EIR identifies the possible use of pile drivers in Mitigation Measure H-3 at page 481. The 1901 Avenue of the Stars building will be impacted by such vibration. Thus, an analysis of the potential vibration impacts on 1901 Avenue of the Stars from pile driving needs to be included in a revised Draft EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 18-13 It has been determined that pile drivers would not be utilized during construction of the project. Thus, no further analysis regarding pile drivers is necessary. As such, Mitigation Measure H-3, which states that while not anticipated to be required during construction, pile drivers, if utilized, shall be equipped with standard noise control devices having a minimum sound attenuation factor of 10 dBA, is not necessary and has been deleted from the Final EIR in Section II, Corrections and Additions.
COMMENT NO. 18-14
5. SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. The analysis of the Project's construction traffic is inadequate. The effects of construction traffic along Santa Monica Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, and Pico Boulevard have not been examined or explained. This is cause for concern when the Draft EIR notes that there will be up to 1,220 construction traffic trips per day during work hours over the course of four years.
RESPONSE NO. 18-14 Section 17.0, on pages 141 through 147 of the Draft EIR traffic analysis (contained in Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR), provides a comprehensive analysis of both construction worker and construction truck trip generation, which includes haul route trips. As summarized on page 146 of Appendix G, taken together, the construction worker vehicles and trucks forecast in the year 2012 build-out scenario are anticipated to generate 1,220 trips per day (610 inbound, 610 outbound) under a worst case scenario in which Phase A overlaps with both Phase B and C construction activities. This forecast of daily trips also reflects the application of a passenger car equivalence (PCE) factor of 3.0 to account for the tandem trailer haul trucks (i.e., one tandem trailer haul truck has the same impact on intersection operations as three passenger vehicles) and a PCE factor of 2.0 to account for other construction-related trucks. It should be noted that the daily trips generated to and from the project site during the peak construction phase are significantly less than both the net new daily trips that will be generated by the project, as well as the existing office buildings on the site.
During the commuter peak periods, the inbound construction worker trips are anticipated to occur prior to the A.M. commuter peak period. Similarly, the construction workforce is not expected to leave the site during the P.M. commuter peak hour. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, one quarter of the construction workforce was assumed to leave the site during the P.M.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-233 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments commuter peak hour. It is conservatively estimated that approximately 121 outbound construction worker trips may be generated during the P.M. peak hour (i.e., 25 percent of the 485 construction worker outbound trips). The construction work force would likely be generated from all parts of the Los Angeles region and thereby is assumed to arrive and depart from all directions (e.g., each direction along the I-405 and I-10 Freeways and from the local areas). Based on a distribution of 20 percent to any one particular segment, an increase of no more than 24 vehicles is forecast at study intersections during the P.M. peak hour. The trips generated by construction activities are less than those trips that had been generated by the existing uses on-site. Therefore, the traffic impacts due to construction activities are forecast to be less than significant based on the City’s significance criteria.
COMMENT NO. 18-15 Further, the Draft EIR simply concludes that with the implementation of only two mitigation measures, construction traffic would be less than significant. Both mitigation measures are veiled impermissible delayed mitigation. One of these mitigation measures (J-1) is the future preparation of a Construction Staging & Traffic Management Plan, long after the EIR is certified. This effectively shields from the public the impact analysis of construction traffic and identification of tangible mitigation measures. The other mitigation measure (J-2) is the future determination of truck haul route(s). The failure to identify the specific haul route(s) and volume of construction traffic thereon fails to meet the basic tenet of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") that the EIR is a disclosure document. The Draft EIR should be revised to include an adequate construction traffic analysis that utilizes the same, but corrected, approach to determining operational traffic impacts. There is no reason to analyze construction traffic differently than operational traffic.
RESPONSE NO. 18-15 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of the project’s construction haul routes and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), including a comprehensive list of mitigation measures. Please also refer to the performance criteria listed in Topical Response No. 8.
COMMENT NO. 18-16 The analysis of the Project's operational traffic is inadequate. The existing traffic (i.e., baseline traffic conditions) is improperly inflated to the future year (2012) that includes all the anticipated projects before the City. Existing street segment conditions (2006) are provided in Table 63 on page 609. However, these segments are predicted to 2012 and the impact of Project generated traffic is measured against 2012 predicted traffic. This 2012 level of traffic without the Project is in reality the no action alternative. Analyzing the impact between the Project and the no action alternative to determine significant impacts is universally condemned by CEQA treatises and case law. The correct analysis is to compare the Project-generated traffic to the existing baseline
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-234 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
(i.e., 2006 traffic conditions), not to future traffic. A future traffic analysis is only germane to a cumulative impact analysis as discussed below. This analytical error is continued with the intersections. Existing intersection conditions (2006) are provided in Table 69 on pages 630 through 637. As with street segments, the Draft EIR predicts the intersection traffic to 2012 and compares the Project-generated traffic to the 2012 traffic levels to determine whether significant traffic impacts will occur. The appropriate significant impact analysis is to compare the Project- generated traffic to the existing baseline. The Draft EIR does not do this, and thus, the Draft EIR is inadequate.
RESPONSE NO. 18-16 The Draft EIR traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with criteria set forth in the LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, March 2002. According to the City’s Sliding Scale Method for calculating the level of impact due to traffic generated by the proposed project, a significant transportation impact is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Response to Comment No. 7-9. The City of Los Angeles methodology reflects a requirement to measure a project’s impact through a comparison of future pre-project and future with project conditions. In addition, no City of Los Angeles significance thresholds exist for an “Existing with Project” condition. The Draft EIR traffic analysis therefore complies with current City requirements. In addition, an “Existing with Project” condition will never occur in that consideration of the project’s construction duration alone would result in the project being operational four years from today (assuming that the project had received its entitlement).
While not required by the City of Los Angeles, a supplemental “Existing” and “Existing with Project” conditions analysis for the study intersections has been prepared as part of the Final EIR. The “Existing” condition is also based on traffic counts taken after completion of the construction of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway Project. Appendix A5 of the Final EIR contains this analysis. As noted in Appendix A5 (refer to Appendix Tables A5-A and A5-B for the proposed project site access and optional site access summaries, respectively), the New Century Plan Project is expected to result in significant impacts at two of the 55 study intersections during the weekday and/or weekend conditions. It should be noted that the two study intersections (i.e., Int. No. 12: Westwood Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard, and Int. No. 16: Overland Avenue/Pico Boulevard) under the “Existing with Project” conditions analysis are study locations forecast to be significantly impacted under LADOT’s traffic study guidelines as concluded in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s traffic impact analysis conclusions remain valid.
A supplemental “Existing” and “Existing with Project” conditions analysis for the study street segments has also been prepared as part of the Final EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 13-4 for a summary of the City’s local residential street impact threshold criteria. Appendix A5 (refer to Appendix Tables A5-C and A5-D for the weekday and weekend analyses, respectively) of the Final EIR contains this analysis. As noted in the summary tables, no significant impacts are anticipated at any of the study street segments.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-235 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Based on the supplemental “Existing” and “Existing with Project” conditions analyses, the conclusions reported in the Draft EIR traffic analysis remain valid. As such, no further mitigation is required or recommended.
COMMENT NO. 18-17
6. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Under CEQA, cumulative traffic impacts are separately analyzed by estimating some future year's traffic, taking into account all anticipated projects, and comparing the future traffic to existing traffic. If the impact is significant, the next step is to determine whether the studied project sufficiently contributes to the significant impact. Where the studied project sufficiently contributes to the significant impact, it is said to be (in CEQA's vernacular) cumulatively considerable. Even a minor contribution to cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. Unfortunately, the Draft EIR does not provide such an analysis. The Draft EIR should be revised to provide a compliant cumulative traffic analysis. If the Project is found to create a cumulatively considerable impact, the developer should contribute its fair share to the City's traffic mitigation fee program, if one exists.
RESPONSE NO. 18-17 The Draft EIR traffic analysis contains all of the requested analysis. Specifically, Table 10-3, beginning on page 97 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR contains a summary of the analysis, which includes the future pre-project (cumulative) conditions. By comparing the first two columns of the Level of Service summary table (i.e., Column [2] to Column [1]), it is apparent that the cumulative growth exceeds the City’s thresholds of significance for intersections. However, in order to better illustrate the comparison of these two conditions, Appendix Tables A5-E and A5-F have been prepared as part of the Final EIR. As shown in Appendix Table A5-E, a total of 46 of the 55 study intersections are significantly impacted by cumulative conditions. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-9 for a summary of the City’s intersection impact threshold criteria.
In addition, as stated on pages 623 and 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, project-related cumulative impacts on intersections, neighborhood street segments, freeway segments, and the regional transportation system have been analyzed. Further, as stated on page 624 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, by comparing the future pre-project conditions to the future with project conditions, increases in system-wide traffic volumes in the project vicinity are anticipated. It is anticipated that the individual related projects would be required to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to the extent feasible. However, as no such guarantee exists in order to ensure that every project implements the required mitigation measures, it has been conservatively concluded in the Draft EIR that cumulative development would yield a significant cumulative impact on operations.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-236 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
As outlined in the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation departmental clearance letter (dated November 20, 2007), pursuant to Section 5 of the WLA TIMP, an applicant for a project within the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP), except as exempted, shall pay, or guarantee payment of a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) Fee prior to issuance of any building permit. The proposed expansion (non-residential portion) of the existing shopping center is not exempted from payment of TIA Fees. In addition, as distinguished from impact analysis, “pass-by” discounts are not included in the TIA Fee assessment. The TIA Fee for the proposed project has been determined based on the proposed per square foot TIA Fees for the proposed square footages, less the per square foot TIA Fees for the existing uses to be demolished. The 15 percent transit reduction employed in the trip generation forecast does not affect the TIA Fee amount.
While the West LA TIMP is currently under revision, the current plan is in effect. Based on discussions with City of Los Angeles Planning staff, the revision effort is about two years from being completed. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation has issued its departmental clearance letter (dated November 20, 2007) and it has outlined the required payment of the West TIMP TIA Fee. The current total associated with the TIA Fee is $1,222,549.57. The residential portion of the proposed project is exempt from the fee.
COMMENT NO. 18-18 With the net increase of 5,922 weekday trips, the operational Project will surely cumulatively degrade Santa Monica Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, Constellation Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. This must be adequately addressed in a revised Draft EIR and further mitigation of the impacted intersections and roadway segments should be required.
RESPONSE NO. 18-18 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-6 for a discussion of the Transportation Management Organization. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a discussion of the fees that will be conditioned to the project, should it be approved by the decision-makers.
COMMENT NO. 18-19
CONCLUSION. The extreme construction noise and traffic impacts to the occupants of 1901 Avenue of the Stars cannot be allowed. Moreover, the construction of the proposed project as planned is poorly planned and will be disastrous on this firm's livelihood. Accordingly, the construction of the Project should be fully analyzed, re-planned to employ all feasible mitigation, and the Draft EIR revised and recirculated.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-237 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 18-19 The Draft EIR has thoroughly analyzed all environmental impacts of the New Century Plan, including the impacts of construction traffic and noise. No significant construction traffic impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the project, even under a worst case situation in which Phases A, B, and C of the project’s construction are assumed to overlap, as analyzed in Section IV.J of the Draft EIR. Construction workers traveling to the site are expected to travel outside of the A.M. peak hour, and an increase of no more than 24 vehicles is forecast at study intersections during the P.M. peak hour. Thus, construction traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant. Also refer to Topical Response No. 8.
The building located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars is not considered a sensitive receptor location according to the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). Nonetheless, the Draft EIR does evaluate the impact of construction noise at 1901 Avenue of the Stars. The Draft EIR analyzed noise impacts assuming a worst case scenario, in which construction Phases A, B, and C overlap, all construction equipment operates simultaneously, and all construction equipment is located next to 1901 Avenue of the Stars. Under these conditions, the Draft EIR determines that there could be an increase of 5 dBA or more over existing daytime ambient noise level at 1901 Avenue of the Stars during project construction, which would be significant if this location were a noise sensitive use. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 18-11 for further noise impact analysis conducted for 1901 Avenue of the Stars. Vibration impacts associated with project construction are expected to be less than significant at this location.
All feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Draft EIR to mitigate the project’s significant construction noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Additionally, since the Draft EIR has already evaluated all significant impacts determined to occur as a result of the project, there is no legal requirement to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 18-20 We look forward to reviewing the revised Draft EIR and request that OHS be given all future notices and environmental documents concerning this Project.
RESPONSE NO. 18-20 There is no new information that indicates that the proposed project would result in any new significant impacts that were not already addressed in the Draft EIR. In addition, the Draft EIR fully complies with CEQA. Thus, recirculation of the document is not necessary. Orbach, Huff, & Suarez, LLP will be included on the mailing list for environmental notices regarding the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-238 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 19
Rima Bronte no address provided
COMMENT NO. 19-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 19-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 19-2 If. as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 19-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-239 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 20
Shannon Burns 2305 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 20-1 Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Overland Avenue: Overland Avenue north of Pico Boulevard is a 30 foot wide, re-designated collector street, with one lane in each direction. It is a low density residential area, with single family homes located between Pico Boulevard and La Grange Avenue. There is an elementary school located between Mississippi and La Grange Avenues. There is parking on the east side of the street. There is a no widening restriction. (See City of Los Angeles General Plan, Transportation Element, Appendix D).
Set forth below underlined is the description that we find objectionable -- found at Volume I, Section IV.J, page 548 of the DEIR:
"Overland Avenue is a north-south arterial located west of the project site and is designated as a Secondary Highway between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard and as a Major Class II Highway between Pico Boulevard and National Boulevard. One through travel lane is provided in each direction between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction south of Pico Boulevard. Curbside parking is prohibited along both sides of Overland Avenue in the project vicinity with posted "No Stopping Any Time" signs. The speed limit on Overland Avenue in the project vicinity is 25 miles per hour."
On December 14, 2004, The City Council unanimously adopted Jack Weiss’s motion to downgrade Overland Avenue, north of Pico Blvd., to a collector street. See Los Angeles Council File No. 04-1226; See also Los Angeles City Map for Council District 5 showing Overland Avenue, north of Pico Blvd., is listed as a residential collector street. This information is easily available on the Los Angeles “Navigate LA” website.
We therefore request that the designation set forth in the DEIR be changed to acknowledge the City Council downgrade and the continuing prohibition listed in Appendix D of the City Plan. We further request that the curbside parking comment be changed to reflect that there is parking
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-240 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
on the east side of Overland Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, and there is parking on both sides of Overland Avenue south of Pico Boulevard. Alternatively, please delete that sentence in its entirety.
RESPONSE NO. 20-1 The commenter is correct in noting that modifications to the street description for Overland Avenue are needed. It should be noted that the Generalized Circulation Map for the West Los Angeles community contained on the City Planning website illustrates Overland Avenue as a Secondary Highway between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard. A clarification of the street description for Overland Avenue is included in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. The revised description is as follows:
Overland Avenue is a north-south oriented arterial that is located west of the project site. Overland Avenue between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard is currently planned to be downgraded from a Secondary Highway to a Collector roadway as part of the West Los Angeles Community Plan Update. While the Council District 5 map does show the downgrading of Overland Avenue between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard, it has not yet been formally approved. The Community Plan Update is currently in year one of a three year process for the update. Overland Avenue is classified as a Major Highway Class II between Pico Boulevard and National Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan. One through travel lane is provided in each direction on Overland Avenue between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction on the roadway south of Pico Boulevard. Curbside parking is prohibited along the west side of Overland Avenue in the project vicinity with posted Tow Away No Stopping Any Time signs while parking is generally allowed along the east side of the roadway in the project vicinity. Overland Avenue is posted for a 25 miles per hour speed limit within the project study area (generally between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard).
COMMENT NO. 20-2 We also request that any Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that is recommended, either by LADOT, the City of Los Angeles, or Westfield (see Volume I, Section VI, pages 757-758 of the DEIR) for the two intersections described in the DEIR that will have significant impacts, namely No. 14 (Overland Avenue/Santa Monica Blvd.) and No. 16 (Overland Avenue/Pico Boulevard), NOT include: 1. Widening; 2. Rezoning; 3. Partial taking (inverse condemnation), 4. Taking by eminent domain; 5. Change of speed limits; 6. Taking of additional street parking on the east side of the street;
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-241 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
7. Allowing of transit buses or other public transit vehicles; 8. Violating the safety of children walking to school on this street; or 9. Any other measure that has the ability to alter the low density residential street that this is.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
RESPONSE NO. 20-2 Please refer to Topical Response No. 5 and Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. It is envisioned that the TDM Plan will not include Item Nos. 1 through 6, or Item Nos. 8 and 9, as included in the comment. In addition, as the specific components of the TDM Plan have not yet been determined, it cannot be determined if Item No. 7 (i.e., allowing of transit buses or other public transit vehicles) will be included. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-242 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 21
Jean Bushnell 10348 Eastborne Ave. Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO.21-1 I live in Comstock Hills, on the north side of Century Century, [sic] just across Santa Monica Blvd. I am appaled [sic] at the scope of the expansion promoted and requested by Westfield Corp.
My husband and I have lived in our home 37 years and we have watched Century City and the surrounding area develop and grow during that time, as well as the accompanying ills of traffic, overdevelopment, congestion, etc.
RESPONSE NO. 21-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration prior to making any determination regarding the project.
COMMENT NO.21-2 This expansion request is truly asking that Century City live up to its name: CITY. The problem is Century City, not unlike LAX, is located in the midst of a crowded urban area. Though at its inception the plan was to expand it at a later time, the reality is that the city has grown up around the original development, irreversible changes have occured [sic] to housing, condo construcion, [sic] business development, traffic, and roadways to name a few, and there is no longer room for expansion of the scope that is being proposed by Westfield.
RESPONSE NO. 21-2 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project would be consistent with the mixed use, regional center character of the Specific Plan area, in that it would create an integrated center with a range of shopping and dining choices, entertainment opportunities, outdoor spaces, and amenities, together with a place to live. In addition, the project would not substantially or adversely change the existing relationship between on- and off-site land uses and properties, or have the long-term affect of adversely altering a neighborhood or community through ongoing disruption, division, or isolation. Thus, the project would not result in any significant land use impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-243 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO.21-3 Our community is very concerned about the detrimental conditions that will be caused by more traffic, congestion, cut through traffic in Comstock Hills during construction and after, shadowing from 1801 Avenue of the Stars over much of our neighborhood, loss of privacy by the big behemoth overlooking our private property, overwhelming of our infrastructure, and an aesthetic scar on the landscape visible from our homes.
RESPONSE NO. 21-3 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 10-3 for a discussion of impacts to infrastructure (e.g., storm drains, water, and sewer lines). Also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 for discussion of building heights, and Topical Response No. 11 regarding shadow impacts affecting Comstock Hills. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours, haul routes and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of the construction impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 1 for a discussion of traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures as well as Response to Comment Nos. 10-7 and 13-4 for a discussion of street segment analysis conducted for the Comstock Hills area.
COMMENT NO.21-4 This project is oversized, overscale and unsuitable to be constructed as requested adjacent to our community and all other residential family neighborhoods within its proximity.
RESPONSE NO. 21-4 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project is consistent with existing and anticipated land use patterns within Century City. In addition, the project would not substantially or adversely change the existing relationship between on- and off-site land uses and properties, or have the long-term affect of adversely altering a neighborhood or community through ongoing disruption, division, or isolation. It should be noted that Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR analyzes several alternatives to the proposed project, including two reduced density alternatives (Alternatives D1 and D2). Please refer to Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of these alternatives and how they relate to the objectives of the project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-244 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 22
Hugh Cadden 2101 Selby Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 22-1 Those of us in the Century City community have reason to be concerned about the potential inconvenience and disruption that construction of The New Century Plan project would involve. With a projected four-year time frame, and work that includes the demolition of multiple existing office buildings, potential issues from noise to traffic abound.
However, the range of the construction impact mitigations contained in the draft EIR is both extensive and reassuring. The limitations on construction hours, on diesel-powered construction equipment and on the idling of heavy equipment are important steps toward reducing construction-related air pollution and equipment noise. Also useful will be the requirement for a construction worker parking plan and the utilization of temporary sound barriers.
Westfield appears to be serious about being a good neighbor throughout the construction period by its agreement to comply with these measures. I believe these construction-related mitigation measures thoroughly address concerns.
RESPONSE NO. 22-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. As stated in the comment above, the project will include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Additional discussion of construction impacts and mitigation proposed to address such impacts is provided in Topical Response No. 8.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-245 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 23
Elanor Capuano 1459 Club View Drive Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 23-1 Dear Sir: I am a homeowner in the neighborhood immediately across Santa Monica Blvd, to the north of Westfield Century City Mall. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Comstock Hills Home Owner's Association. As an HOA we are addressing our concerns with the above mentioned project to you, but as an individual I wanted to quickly make a few points.
We moved to our present location last August from Manhattan Beach. My husband works on Avenue of the Stars and is actually one of the lucky few in Los Angeles who can walk to work - which he does. We moved here to be close to work, shopping, our children's schools, and all the wonderful and varied things the Westside has to offer. However, after reading the EIR, attending the meeting that Westfield put together for us, and imagining a 49 STORY mixed-use TOWER at the corner of Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars I am starting to question our decision.
RESPONSE NO. 23-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 23-2 The proposed project brings a new building that if it is not, will be one of the tallest buildings on the Westside and in LA itself.
RESPONSE NO. 23-2 According to the Los Angeles Almanac website, the proposed tower will be more than 430 feet shorter than the tallest building in Los Angeles; in total, there are twelve buildings in Los Angeles with heights above the proposed tower’s 587-foot height. Moreover, this proposed height is comparable to other surrounding buildings in Century City: the existing twin triangular Century Plaza towers are each 571 feet tall; the approved twin Constellation Park towers will each be 561 feet tall; and the AIG SunAmerica tower adjacent to the site is 560 feet tall. Refer to Response to Comment No. 8-7.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-246 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 23-3 With that comes at least 4 years of construction, noise, pollution and parking problems. There will [sic] 500,000 sq.ft. more of retail, bringing that many more shoppers and diners into the neighborhood. Our neighborhood will be directly affected by the shading of the building, and more neon signs will be shining into our homes. Most importantly, traffic will increase, and to a point that cannot and has not been determined.
RESPONSE NO. 23-3 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Upon completion, the project would include approximately 358,881 square feet of net new shopping center space, not 500,000 square feet as indicated by the commentor. As demonstrated throughout the analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include project features and mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality, noise, traffic and parking (see Subsection 3.b, Project Design Features, and Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, each in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Additional air quality mitigation measures have also been provided, and are discussed in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. Please refer to Topical Response No. 1 of this Final EIR for additional discussion of traffic impacts, and Topical Response No. 8 and Response to Comment No. 17-3 regarding construction impacts. Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 regarding shading impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage.
COMMENT NO. 23-4 Lots of workers and shoppers use our neighborhood, especially my street, Club View, as a cut through to Wilshire and on up to Beverly Glen and into the Valley. I would be happy to have anyone come stand in front of my house from 4 to 7 on a weekday and count cars, and look at how many of them don't stop or even slow down at the stop sign.
RESPONSE NO. 23-4 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-3 through 13-6 (i.e., Comstock Hills Homeowners Association letter) for detailed discussions of the parking intrusion and supplemental traffic count analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR. The comment is noted and will be provided to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 23-5 I am not a stick-your-head in the sand person who screams no growth, no growth! Development is not inherently evil. However, it has to be done intelligently and within context. Between the other projects in Century City, Beverly Hills (the Hilton/Waldorf Astoria), Club View and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-247 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Wilshire, that have already been approved or are under construction, we are getting at least 1,200 more housing units and 1/2 million s.ft. of retail and office within 1 mile of our neighborhood. A cursory, objective review of those facts tells one that everything will not be wine and roses. It CANNOT be! Traffic, parking problems, pollution, more noise and lights, and shading is coming our way and we need to look long and hard before yes!
RESPONSE NO. 23-5 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. Potential project and cumulative impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, light and shading are addressed in detail in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 23-6 A smaller project, traffic mitigation, and real answers to where the construction workers and trucks will park and idle needs to be addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 23-6 Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR analyzes several alternatives to the proposed project, including two reduced density alternatives (Alternatives D1 and D2). Also
Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours, haul routes, the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan and construction worker parking. Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-14 for a discussion of the construction impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 23-7 I look forward to seeing the final EIR and would be happy to discuss this project with you or anyone else that might be interested. Thank you for your time.
RESPONSE NO. 23-7 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-248 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 24
A J Carothers 1379 Midvale Avenue, Ste. 308 Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 24-1 As a Westwood resident and frequent patron of current Century City businesses, I am appalled to learn of the proposed consturction [sic] of a 49 story mixed use tower at Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars Boulevards. Such development is entirely unacceptable to recognized community standards of density, access and aesthetics.
RESPONSE NO. 24-1 The project site is located within the core of Century City, a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise buildings. The portion of the project site where the proposed residential tower would be located is within a C2-2-O height zone with no height restriction, thus providing for high-rise development. The proposed density of the building would be consistent with expected development patterns and the density of existing and approved surrounding buildings. More specifically, the proposed development would be in keeping with the character, scale, and type of development typical of Century City and the Avenue of the Stars corridor in particular. Both sides of Avenue of the Stars between Olympic and Santa Monica Boulevards, are classified within Height Zone No. 2 which allows for unlimited height (refer to Figure 51 on page 397 of the Draft EIR for area zoning).
The areas of Century City west of the properties abutting Avenue of the Stars, however, predominantly fall within Height Zone Nos. 1 and 1VL, which limit buildings to a maximum of 75 feet and 45 feet respectively. This tiering of height limits demonstrates that Century City’s urban form has assumed (and planned for the eventuality) that Avenue of the Stars would comprise a broad, linear boulevard flanked by tall towers (fashioned after Park Avenue, New York) and oriented to a bounded, linear view towards the Los Angeles Country Club and Hollywood Hills to the north. As this type of building is the result of the extant structures as contemplated by policy makers when establishing zoning regulations for the area, the proposed residential tower is entirely in keeping with the area’s density, street design, and urban form. Thus, the proposed project would complete the intended western street wall along Avenue of the Stars, stretching from the Fox Tower south of Olympic Boulevard to the roadway’s termination at the Los Angeles Country Club.
Refer to Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality and Views, and Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR for a detailed analysis that demonstrates that the density of the project would be consistent with the density of the surrounding Century City area and that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Also refer to Section IV.J, Traffic, of the Draft EIR,
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-249 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
which demonstrates that the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with access. In addition, refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for a detailed overview of project’s significant impacts and a summary of the proposed mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 24-2 Furthermore, such traffic impedment [sic] caused by construction and congestion to Beverly Hills and points East would be intolerable for commuters to any number of businesses, including to medical offices and other facilities. And to lose Bloomingdales??????
RESPONSE NO. 24-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction hours and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-4 for a discussion of the additional traffic analyses prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations to the east in the City of Beverly Hills. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-1 for a discussion of the additional traffic analyses prepared as part of the Final EIR for locations immediately adjacent to or in the vicinity of Beverlywood Homes Association area which is located east of Century City.
COMMENT NO. 24-3 The impact on quality of life for nearby residential areas, as well as visitors to the area, caused by construction, traffic, outrageous signage, air quality, is simply horrible to contemplate. When will companies, institutions, people come to realize Enough is Enough? One hopes at least before our land, our lives are destroyed.
I urge you and all other officials to deny approvals for this project and any other such plans.
RESPONSE NO. 24-3 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 23-3, throughout the analyses in the Draft EIR, the project includes project features and mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality, noise, traffic and park.ing. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding signage. Also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 24-1 and 24-2 for a summary of the project’s significant impacts and a summary of proposed mitigation measures. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-250 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 25
Norman Carter 8770 Crescent Drive Los Angeles, California 90046
COMMENT NO. 25-1 It is difficult to understand why LA City should approve this plan as it now stands. The fact that there is no precise plan to provide public transportation, extension of the Metro lines before 2030, and any other facilitation of public transportation that is available should cause the City to demand that these concerns be addressed in the plan, not pushed aside into the future for others to address.
The size and complexity of the undertakings without adequate provisions to address the traffic explosion when it is completed, and the traffic tie up and disruption during the four year construction estimates must be made a primary concern. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens will be negatively affected while the developers build their 'money machine'.
This pattern seems to be the norm for Westside development and indeed throughout the entire City.
RESPONSE NO. 25-1 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) study that is currently underway as well as for a discussion of the project design features that are planned to support a future subway station at the project site. The analysis of future analysis conditions contained in the Draft EIR does not assume the extension so as to provide a conservative forecast of future operations prior to and after completion of the proposed project. Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for additional discussion of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the project which includes measures to encourage the use of public transportation. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 25-2 EIR's that have been presented so far are at best incomplete and at worst arrogant in their detailed mitigation statements. I believe that the City must call for a comprehensive CEQA study before approval to proceed is given. It is my observation that all of the Duties stated in
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-251 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Article 2 - General Responsibilities, section 15021 - Duty to minimize Environmental Damage and Balance Competing Public Objectives directly address the problems and situations that will be created if this project is allowed to proceed as presently proposed.
Environmental quality is deteriorating throughout Los Angeles. It should not be accelerated to accommodate the plans of any Developer.
RESPONSE NO. 25-2 The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 25-3 I appreciate your consideration of my concerns, and request that they be included in the public records for this Century City project.
RESPONSE NO. 25-3 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-252 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 26
David Vincent Gagne [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 26-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 26-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 26-2 If, as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 26-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-253 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 27
Julian Geller 2282 Century Hill Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 27-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 27-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 27-2 If as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 27-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-254 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 28
Sandra Genis Sandra Genis, Planning Resources 1586 Myrtlewood Costa Mesa, California 92626
COMMENT NO. 28-1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the New Century Plan (SCH No. 2006061096) in the Century City area of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Comstock Hills Homeowners Association.
The project would create a 262 unit residential tower and reconfigure existing uses on a 22 acre site comprised of the Westfield Century City Shopping Center and two adjacent sites. Retail and restaurant uses would increase by 358,881 square feet, for a total of 1,101,696 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Existing office uses totaling 360,964 square feet would be eliminated and 106,523 of new office space would be provided in three floors above retail and restaurant uses. Maximum height for the project would be 587 feet above grade which would be achieved by the residential tower. Approvals necessary to implement the proposed project include a site plan review and amendment of the Century City North Specific Plan as it addresses maximum building height and trip generation.
RESPONSE NO. 28-1 This comment generally reiterates information provided in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-2
The DEIR is improperly limited in scope. The following topics are addressed in the DEIR:
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources • Air Quality • Historical Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-255 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Noise • Public Services • Traffic/Circulation • Water Supply
The DEIR does not address the following areas of potential impact at all:
• Population and Housing • Utilities and Service Systems, with the exception of Water Supply
These issues have been inappropriately excluded from the discussion in the DEIR. The potential exists that impacts related to these topics could very well occur, on either an individual project or cumulative basis.
At a minimum, the EIR must address the following, potentially significant issues:
RESPONSE NO. 28-2 As stated in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, through the preparation of an Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles determined that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to population and housing or utilities and service systems (with the exception of water supply). As such, further analysis of these areas was not necessary in the Draft EIR. Please refer to the Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and Section VI of the Draft EIR for a complete analysis regarding both population and housing and utilities (with the exception of water supply) which demonstrates that significant impacts associated with these issue areas would not occur. Furthermore, please refer to Response to Comment No. 3-5 for an analysis of the proposed project's impact on population, employment, and housing based on data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). As indicated therein, the project would have a less than significant impact on population, housing, and employment, and no further analysis is necessary.
COMMENT NO. 28-3
Wastewater In discussing the impacts the proposed project may have on wastewater systems, the Initial Study (p. B-38) indicates that the Hyperion Treatment Plant system would be adequate to handle the project’s 444,063 gallons of sewage per day and cumulative growth. By contrast, a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal, City of Santa Monica v. City of Los Angeles (2nd Dist. 2007)(unpublished), evidences that the EIR for another major project, Playa Vista Phase Two, came to the opposite conclusion. There, the court noted that: “beginning in 2010, wastewater
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-256 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
flows during peak months even without the phase two project were expected to exceed the [Hyperion Treatment System’s] existing capacity of 550 million gallons per day (mgd) by 20 mgd…[and] … that the exacerbation of the overburdening of the wastewater treatment system was a potentially significant impact.” The DEIR should reconcile the conclusion of the Playa Vista EIR with its own conclusion that the project and cumulative development would have no significant wastewater impacts. The discussion must also address local and regional conveyance systems. The discussion of cumulative impacts must address cumulative growth in the entire service area of the Hyperion system.
RESPONSE NO. 28-3 In November 2006 the City of Los Angeles, Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Facilities Plan developed by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) was approved by the Los Angeles City Council.10 The 2002 Playa Vista EIR had relied on an earlier, 2001 Integrated Plan for the Wastewater Program (IPWP) that is no longer relied upon, and has been superseded by the 2006 IRP. According to the 2006 IRP, there is sufficient capacity for the project's wastewater. The IRP accounts for projected needs and sets forth improvements and upgrades to wastewater systems, recycled water systems, and runoff management programs in the City of Los Angeles through the year 2020. Furthermore, future increases in wastewater flows are addressed in the IRP though improvements, additions, and expansions within the Hyperion Treatment System. As part of the adopted IRP, proposed improvements include, but are not limited to, the expansion of the Hyperion Treatment Plant biosolids handling capacity (e.g. new digesters and truck loading facility); the addition of secondary clarifiers at the Hyperion Treatment Plant to meet existing treatment requirements; expansion and upgrade of the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) capacity to 100 million gallons per day (mgd) with advanced treatment; addition of 60 million gallon (mg) wastewater storage at TWRP; and the construction of a 5 mg storage tank for wastewater and a 5 mg recycled water storage at Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP).11 These improvements would increase the capacity of the Hyperion Treatment System to a total of 570 mgd, consisting of the Hyperion Treatment Plant's capacity of 450 mgd, the TWRP’s new capacity of 100 mgd, and the LAGWRP’s capacity of 20 mgd. As discussed in the IRP, improvement projects have been completed within all the treatment plants and sewer lines and additional on-going improvements have been proposed in order to continually provide services and meet wastewater needs of the City.12 Implementation of the IRP improvements would be dependent on monitored triggers,
10 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation. “City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan, Wastewater Management," http://www.lacity.org/san/irp/documents/v1-3of3-wastewater-management.pdf. 11 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation. “City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan Executive Summary, December 2006”. Website: http://www.lacity.org/san/irp/documents/ Volume_5-Adaptive_CIP.pdf, accessed, October 2007. 12 Implementation of the wastewater projects can be further evaluated at “Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, July 2007”. Website: http://www.lacitysan.org/fmd/WCIP/WCIPbook07-08.pdf.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-257 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
including population growth, recycled water regulations, wastewater discharge regulations, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, available funding, etc. This staging of projects enables the City to target the most critical and immediate wastewater treatment needs. As stated in the IRP, many of the projects are “Go-Projects” and are considered for immediate implementation to protect the public health and environment. Therefore, with implementation of the IRP, LADPW and the Bureau of Sanitation expect to provide ample amount of wastewater treatment services to the City of Los Angeles and contracting cities through the year 2020. Thus, the facts are adequately disclosed.
As discussed in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, correspondence with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering indicates that the sewer system in the project area is adequately sized to serve the proposed project. With regard to wastewater, the City has concluded that they have adequate wastewater capacity to accommodate the proposed project. As discussed in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, correspondence with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering indicates that the sewer system in the project area is adequately sized to serve the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 28-4
Solid Waste The DEIR must address how solid waste generated by the proposed project and cumulative growth within each landfill’s service area will affect the usable remaining life of applicable landfills. Clearly, if local landfill capacity were not an issue, Los Angeles County would not need to export waste to Imperial County or pursue additional capacity at remote Eagle Mountain. Any measures to reduce solid waste generation must be incorporated into the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
RESPONSE NO. 28-4 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-2 for a discussion regarding why utilities and service systems (with the exception of water supply) were not analyzed further in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-5
Energy Consumption The EIR must address increased energy consumption on both a project specific and cumulative basis and identify opportunities for energy conservation. The discussion must address both the structures themselves and land use patterns, including the need to dispose of waste at far distant locations.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-258 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-5 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-2. Energy consumption was addressed in the Initial Study and within Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR. In addition, the project includes a substantial number of energy conservation features. Please refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, and Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR. Also, please refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for a list of additional sustainability measures that will be included as part of the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-6 The EIR must also address the impact increased shadowing will have on use of solar power in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE NO. 28-6 As shown in Figures 40 through 43 on pages 230-233 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR, shading of the residential neighborhoods in the project vicinity is seasonal in nature (occurring primarily in the winter months) and when it occurs, it is limited to times immediately after sunrise and prior to sunset. Both seasonally and daily, these are the times of lowest operating efficiency—and lowest power generation—for the types of stationary solar arrays generally deployed in residential applications. Seasonally, this is due both to the low angle of the sun in the sky which reduces amount of incoming solar energy, as well as the preponderance of overcast and cloudy days during the winter which drastically reduce this further. Daily, the low angle of the sun around sunrise and sunset reduces the projected area of the photovoltaics which lowers their efficiency dramatically. Thus, since shading from the proposed project will only be shadowing existing or potential solar arrays during their times of lowest efficiency and lowest generation, any potential impacts (even to locations where no solar array exists today) will be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-7
Population and Housing The EIR must address growth in population and housing in light of local and regional growth plans. The proposed project would be expected to result in the creation of additional service sector jobs. The EIR must address additional employment opportunities to be provided for persons employed in on-site commercial uses as well as domestic and maintenance staff for the residential component. The EIR must address additional demand for lower cost housing due to both the proposed project and cumulative growth in light of anticipated income profiles of future employment within the project and related development. Where are future employees expected to reside and with what impact?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-259 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-7 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6. In addition, the project and related projects would provide a mix of unit types and would increase needed available housing in an area with an established employment base. The project would result in an increase of approximately 520 employees with a range of income levels. Many of these employees would be expected to already reside in the project vicinity and thus a substantial increase in the demand for housing would not be expected to be generated by increased employment opportunities within the project site. Additionally, as stated in many adopted regional and local planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. As such, the proposed project would promote the goal of generating more housing.
COMMENT NO. 28-8
The EIR must address the whole of the action
The DEIR identifies infrastructure improvements necessary to successful implementation of the proposed project. These include: • a new, twelve inch water line in Constellation Boulevard • improvements at the intersection of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard • improvements to the intersection of Westfield Shopping Center Driveway and Santa Monica Boulevard.
Each of these is necessary for successful implementation of the proposed project, and should thus be analyzed in the EIR as parts of the project. Potential impacts include but are not limited to noise, air emissions, and traffic congestion.
CEQA mandates "… that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones--each with a minimal potential impact on the environment-- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 283-284, 99 Cal.Rptr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137). As noted in [San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco ((1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634) analyzing only “piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment”. Failure to address impacts of key elements of project infrastructure results in a piecemeal analysis.
Aspects of the project designed to mitigate potential impacts must be addressed in an EIR (Guidelines 15126.4 (a)(1)(D)). If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed. Even if the infrastructure improvements were totally
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-260 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
separate projects from the proposed project, the impacts of these infrastructure projects would have to be addressed as a part of the analysis of cumulative impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 28-8 The physical infrastructure improvements that will be implemented as part of the project have been accounted for in the impact analyses throughout the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR for issue areas such as noise, air quality and traffic would also apply to the infrastructure improvements to be implemented by the Applicant for the project. In addition, refer to Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the impacts of the mitigation measures required for the project.
DWP has indicated that while the Applicant will pay for the costs of construction of the new water line along Constellation Boulevard, DWP will be responsible for the actual construction of the water line. Construction of the new water line will be short-term, requiring only approximately three to four weeks for completion. In addition, potential air quality and noise impacts associated with construction of the water line will be less than significant. During construction of the water line, access to adjacent properties will continue to be available.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, cumulative impacts associated with construction of the project together with other related projects will be significant and unavoidable.
COMMENT NO. 28-9 The project description in an EIR must also list permits and other approvals required to implement the project. (Guidelines 15124 (d)). It is not until page 377, that one learns that the project will entail approval of an NPDES permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Fragmentation of project approvals can result in fragmented analyses. The project description must list all necessary approvals and include a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making.
RESPONSE NO. 28-9 Page 128 of Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR includes the various agencies that will approve activities undertaken by the project. The agencies listed include the Department of Public Works. In addition, the list of approvals includes "grading, excavation, foundation and associated building permits" as well as "other permits and approvals as deemed necessary." A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be included under these permits and approvals required by the Department of Public Works. In addition, a SWPPP is not a discretionary approval but is required as part of mandatory compliance with NPDES requirements. Thus, it is not necessary to separately include the preparation of a SWPPP in the list of anticipated approvals. No fragmentation of project approvals has occurred. Rather, the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-261 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
specific discussion of the SWPPP and its contents was appropriately included in the regulatory framework discussion within Section IV.F, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality.
COMMENT NO. 28-10
The DEIR lacks analyses necessary to form conclusions.
The Initial Study and DEIR make numerous conclusions unsupported by analyses. CEQA does not encourage conclusory statements: “To facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 [231 Cal.Rptr. 748, 727 P.2d 1029])
Said the court in Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376:
We do not impugn the integrity of the Regents, but neither can we countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed…
Yet, without analysis the Initial Study (p. B-38) states that wastewater impacts will be less than significant, because the amount of added wastewater is small. There is no analysis of total capacity versus total future growth which will utilize that capacity.
RESPONSE NO. 28-10 Please Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-3 regarding the demonstration in the Draft EIR that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to accommodate the demand generated by the project and related projects. Furthermore, as discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the project, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, implementation of the project would result in a net increase of approximately 0.10 percent of the Hyperion Treatment Plant's total remaining capacity. Implementation of water conservation measures such as those required by Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code would ultimately reduce wastewater flows below these anticipated levels. Additionally, based on correspondence with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, the sewer system in the project area is adequately sized to serve the proposed project. As such, the project would not be expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements and would not have a significant impact upon the City's wastewater system.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-262 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-11 The DEIR similarly concludes that the proposed project will not result in growth levels inconsistent with regional plans (p. 287), absent any substantive analysis. It is simply stated that the proposed project would only constitute a small percent of anticipated growth, so would not result in growth in exceedance of planned growth. However, any conclusion is impossible without knowing what other growth may also be occurring in the planning area within the planning period.
RESPONSE NO. 28-11 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-2.
COMMENT NO. 28-12 The DEIR concludes that there will be no significant impact on transit services (p. 614) without any review of transit capacity or ridership. This is further compounded by proposed traffic mitigation measures designed to increase use of transit, absent any analysis as to whether capacity exists to do so.
RESPONSE NO. 28-12 Section IV.J, beginning on page 613 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, summarizes the transit impact analysis prepared in accordance with Metro’s 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. More specifically, page 140 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR provides additional detail. During the weekday P.M.peak hour, the proposed project is forecast to generate demand for 122 new transit trips (97 inbound and 25 outbound trips). As stated on page 140 of Appendix G, over 25 bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the project site, with 12 of these transit lines and routes directly serving the site along one or more of the project frontages. A total of seven different bus transit providers provide service within the study area. As presented in Table 6-1, beginning on page 38 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, under the “No. of Buses During Peak Hour” column, these 12 transit lines provide service for an average (i.e., an average of the directional number of buses during the peak hours) of approximately 52 buses during the A.M.peak hour and roughly 49 buses during the P.M. peak hour. Therefore, based on the above calculated P.M. peak hour transit trips, this corresponds to less than three transit riders per bus generated by the proposed project.
While the Draft EIR anticipated that the existing transit service in the project area would adequately accommodate the project generated transit trips, additional research and field reviews have been conducted. Metro was contacted in an effort to obtain current transit ridership figures during the P.M. peak hour conditions for those lines that directly provide stops along the project’s adjacent roadways (i.e., Santa Monica Boulevard, Century Park West, Constellation Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars). Appendix Figure A6 shows these bus stop
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-263 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
locations. Based on the ridership data provided by Metro, Metro Lines 4, 16/316, 28, 704, and 728 provide service along these roadways. As many of these lines currently begin or end near the proposed project site, ample capacity exists to accommodate the forecast addition of an average of three project patrons per bus. Appendix A6 of the Final EIR contains copies of the Metro ridership data (refer to Appendix Tables A6-C1 through A6-C5) which shows the number of boardings (“Ons”) and alightings (“Offs”) as well as ridership (“Load”) for each of the above bus lines. The ridership data indicates average loads much lower than bus capacities (e.g., 40 persons without standing patrons and 60 persons with standing patrons). In addition, transit bus capacities were visually observed on Friday, May 16 and Saturday May 17, 2008 between 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. as summarized in Appendix Table A6-C6 of the Final EIR. Of the buses observed along Santa Monica Boulevard (i.e., both in the eastbound and westbound directions), only one bus (of the 121 buses observed in the two one-hour observation periods) had any standing patrons. Therefore, based on the combination of the obtained Metro ridership data and the visual observations conducted as part of the Final EIR, it can be reasonably concluded that a capacity of at least ten to twenty persons exist on buses during the P.M. peak hour. Thus, given the relatively low number of generated transit trips per bus and this capacity information, no impacts on existing or future transit services in the project area are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 28-13 The DEIR states that there will be no impact on library services, based once again on the small additional increment generated by the project (p. 532). However, no information as to current service levels, based on recognized performance standards such as books, facility size, staffing and other factors. These are just a few examples; others are addressed on the following pages.
RESPONSE NO. 28-13 Page 530 of Section IV.I.4, Libraries provides the current service levels, staffing, and collection size of the libraries that serve the project site. As analyzed in Section IV.I.4, Libraries, of the Draft EIR, the project’s demand for library facilities would represent less than a one percent increase in the demand for library facilities at both the Westwood Branch and Palms-Rancho Park Branch Libraries and, as such, would result in a nominal increase in the demand for library facilities at both libraries. As identified by the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL), both the Westwood Branch and Palms-Rancho Park Branch Libraries currently adequately meet the demand for library services within their respective communities. Thus, since the increased demand generated by the project would be nominal, impacts on these library facilities would be less than significant. Furthermore, the use of the other library facilities in the project vicinity would further reduce the project’s demand on the Westwood Branch and the Palms-Rancho Park Branch Libraries.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-264 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
It should also be noted that the proposed project would generate revenue to the City’s general fund in the form of net new property tax, direct (i.e., from on-site commercial uses) and indirect (i.e., from household spending) sales tax, utility user’s tax, gross receipts tax, real estate transfer tax on residential initial sales and annual resales, and other miscellaneous household- related taxes (e.g., parking fines). This revenue will further support the City’s ability to fund its library facilities.
COMMENT NO. 28-14
The DEIR improperly adopts a comparative approach in assessing potential impact.
Time after time, the DEIR and Initial Study dismisses potential impacts on the basis that the project would constitute only a small percent of growth in the area. Specific examples include impacts on wastewater systems, transit, planned growth, and libraries, as noted above.
This is contrary to the purposes of the CEQA as summed up in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692. In Kings County:
The significance of an activity depends upon the setting. (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b).) The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin...
Appellants… contend in assessing significance the EIR focuses upon the ratio between the project's impacts and the overall problem, contrary to the intent of CEQA.[emphasis added]
The court then quoted Selmi’s Judicial Development of CEQA as follows:
“One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other sources with which they interact. Perhaps the best example is air pollution, where thousands of relatively small sources of pollution cause a serious environmental health problem. … "This judicial concern often is reinforced by the results of cumulative environmental analysis; the outcome may appear startling once the nature of the cumulative impact problem has been grasped." (Selmi, Judicial Development of CEQA (1984) 18 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 197, 244, fn. omitted.)
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-265 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The court continued:
We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the overall problem, the less significance a project has…
Likewise in Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019 the court stated:
… the relevant issue to be addressed…is not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the traffic noise problem already existing
RESPONSE NO. 28-14 The analyses within the Draft EIR and Initial Study are based on the thresholds of significance adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2006. The analyses do not dismiss potential impacts on basis that the project would constitute only a small percent of growth in the area. Specifically, refer to Response to Comment No. 28-10 regarding the evaluation of impacts associated with wastewater provided in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR. In addition, the analysis of planned growth within the population and housing section of the Initial Study is appropriately based on whether the project would be consistent with adopted growth population and housing forecasts and whether the project would displace existing housing or people. In addition, the transit analysis provided in Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation of the Draft EIR is based on the ability of the existing transit system to accommodate the demand generated by the project. Finally, the analysis of libraries is based on the net population increase resulting from the project, the demand of library services anticipated at the time of project buildout, the project's proportional contribution to the demand and whether the project includes features that would reduce the demand for library services.
COMMENT NO. 28-15
The DEIR relies on illusive measures to eliminate or mitigate impacts.
The DEIR relies on illusive measures to conclude that no significant impact will occur. Some of these are beyond the control of the applicant. The DEIR concludes that there will be no cumulative impact on library services because other projects will implement measures to reduce
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-266 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
impacts (p. 533). The DEIR does not reveal what those measures are, and what will happen should those other projects not come to fruition.
RESPONSE NO. 28-15 As analyzed in Section IV.I.4, Libraries, of the Draft EIR, the number of persons generated by the project in combination with related projects is significantly overstated as it does not consider that much of the growth associated with the project and the related projects is already accounted for in the service population projections made by the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL). In addition, as the related projects are subject to the same environmental review process as the proposed project, it would be expected that other projects would implement measures as necessary to ensure that their respective impacts on library facilities are less than significant. Therefore, cumulative growth anticipated in the community, including the proposed project, would not cause a future population that would exceed either the expected service population of either the Westwood Branch or Palms-Rancho Park Branch Libraries. As such, cumulative impacts on libraries would be less than significant. Also refer to Letter No. 3 wherein SCAG confirms the conclusion within the Draft EIR that the project would be expected to be consistent with anticipated population projections.
It should also be noted that the proposed project (as well as most related projects) would generate revenue to the City’s general fund in the form of net new property tax, direct (i.e., from on-site commercial uses) and indirect (i.e., from household spending) sales tax, utility user’s tax, gross receipts tax, real estate transfer tax on residential initial sales and annual resales, and other miscellaneous household-related taxes (e.g., parking fines). This revenue will further support the City’s ability to fund its library facilities.
COMMENT NO. 28-16 In order to reduce impacts on traffic, the DEIR relies on implementation of TDMs, which are not even described in the main body of the DEIR. Should one wade through the numerous volumes to page 123 of Appendix G, one would learn that:
the required level of trip reduction may be difficult to achieve merely through on- site measures and programs, the second level/tier ..includes off-site TDM programs. This …level…extends beyond the project applicant’s control…[emphasis added]
Yet it is assumed that impacts will be mitigated via the TDM program.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-267 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-16 Please refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the project’s TDM Plan. The applicant’s commitment to support the TDM Plan could include support for the formation of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) and a Century City shuttle circulator. At each phase of the proposed project, the applicant would be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding, and that the applicant continues to fulfill its TDM commitments. It is not until Phase E that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of six percent trip reduction in the project’s commercial trip generation, which is necessary to mitigate anticipated significant traffic impacts at four intersections. As stated on page 625 of Volume I of the Draft EIR, it has been assumed that the required level of trip reduction will not be attained and that significant and unavoidable traffic impacts may occur in order to provide a conservative analysis. The Draft EIR, therefore, provides for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved.
COMMENT NO. 28-17 The DEIR relies on tangentially related measures to assure absence of impacts. We are told that the project’s impact on fire protection and emergency medical services would be mitigated to a less than significant level (p.497). However, none of the proposed mitigation measures address emergency medical services.
RESPONSE NO. 28-17 The mitigation measures identified in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR pertain to emergency medical services. As stated in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR, the Los Angeles Fire Department is a full-spectrum life safety agency that provides both fire protection and emergency medical services. As such, those mitigation measures that act to reduce impacts on fire protection services to a level of less than significant also act to reduce impacts on emergency medical services to a level of less than significant. For example, Mitigation Measure I.1-3 requires the Applicant to consult with the LAFD and incorporate fire prevention and suppression features as well as life-saving equipment (such as defibrillators) appropriate to the design of the project. Mitigation Measure I.1-1, which states that the Applicant shall provide payment of fees to LADWP for the construction of a 12-inch waterline, would improve water pressure, and thus fire safety, throughout Century City, including the project site. In addition, mitigation has also been provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR to ensure that design features are incorporated so that adequate access is available in the event of a LAFD response to the project site, regardless if it is a fire or medical emergency.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-268 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-18 The DEIR also relies on future plans or studies to mitigate or even to identify other impacts. For example, the site has not even been tested yet for lead based paint (p. 355). The DEIR assumes that no impacts on water quality will occur, because a SWPPP will be prepared and BMPs will be implemented, though we are not told what the plan will include or what BMPs will be implemented (p. 377) Rather the DEIR presents a smorgasbord of potential measures which may or may not be employed. Without knowing which measures will be implemented, or the efficacy of a given measure, one cannot conclude that no impacts will occur. In addition, the public and elected and appointed decision-makers would be afforded little opportunity to review and comment upon the plans and their efficacy.
RESPONSE NO. 28-18 The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures to address each of the issues cited in the comment above, to ensure that the New Century Plan will have no significant hazardous or water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure E-3 provides that “prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Applicant shall submit verification to the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety that a lead based paint survey has been conducted within the existing buildings to be modified or demolished. If lead based paint is found, the Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead based paint.” Mitigation Measure F-1 states that the New Century Plan “shall comply with the requirements of the applicable NPDES permit for stormwater discharge and with all applicable requirements of the RWQCB, EPA and local agencies including the City of Los Angeles regarding water quality.” The NPDES permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) prior to construction of the project. Thus, while a SWPPP is not required to be included in the Draft EIR, it is required in order to build the New Century Plan. Additionally, while not required at this stage of the project’s review process, the following is a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented by the project:
• Implement stormwater BMPs to treat and control the runoff from a storm event producing ¾ inch of rainfall in a 24 hour period. The design of structural BMPs shall be in accordance with the Development Best Management Practices Handbook Part B Planning Activities. A signed certificate from a California licensed civil engineer or licensed architect that the proposed BMPs meet this numerical threshold standard is required.
• Post development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates shall not exceed the estimated pre-development rates for developments where the increase in peak stormwater discharge rate will result in increased potential for downstream erosion.
• Maximize trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native and/or drought tolerant plants.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-269 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Promote natural vegetation by using parking lot islands and other landscaped areas.
• Incorporate shallow infiltration devices within on-site planters with underdrains and liners to treat runoff. Concentrate and direct roof runoff to these shallow infiltration devices for treatment before allowing flow to City storm drains.
• Establish sediment traps during construction.
• Incorporate erosion control and drainage devices, such as interceptor terraces, berms, vee-channels, and inlet and outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building Code. Protect outlets of culverts, conduits or channels from erosion by discharge velocities by installing a rock outlet protection. Rock outlet protection is a physical device composed of rock, grouted riprap, or concrete rubble placed at the outlet of a pipe. Install sediment traps below the pipe-outlet. Inspect, repair, and maintain the outlet protection after each significant rain.
• Any connection to the sanitary sewer must have authorization from the Bureau of Sanitation.
• Install roof runoff systems where site is suitable for installation. Runoff from rooftops is relatively clean, can provide groundwater recharge and reduce excess runoff into storm drains.
• Paint messages that prohibit the dumping of improper materials into the storm drain system adjacent to storm drain inlets.
• All storm drain inlets and catch basins within the project area must be stenciled with prohibitive language (such as NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN) and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping.
• Signs and prohibitive language and/or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping, must be posted at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area.
• Legibility of stencils and signs must be maintained.
• Materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar stormwater conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs.
• The storage area must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-270 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• The storage area must have a roof or awning to minimize collection of stormwater within the secondary containment area.
• Design an efficient irrigation system to minimize runoff including: drip irrigation for shrubs to limit excessive spray; shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; and flow reducers.
• Cleaning of oily vents and equipment to be performed within designated covered area, sloped for wash water collection, and with a pretreatment facility for wash water before discharging to properly connect sanitary sewer with a CIPI type oil/water separator. The separator unit must be designed to handle the quantity of flows; removed for cleaning on a regular basis to remove any solids; and the oil absorbent pads must be replaced regularly according to manufacturer’s specifications.
• Store trash dumpsters both under cover and with drains routed to the sanitary sewer or use non-leaking and water tight dumpsters with lids. Wash containers in an area with properly connected sanitary sewer.
• Reduce and recycle wastes, including paper glass, aluminum oil and grease.
• Store liquid storage tanks (drums and dumpsters) in designated paved areas with impervious surfaces in order to contain leaks and spills. Install a secondary containment system such as berms curbs, or dikes. Use drip pans or absorbent materials whenever grease containers are emptied.
• The owner(s) of the property will prepare and execute a covenant and agreement (Planning Department General form CP-6770) satisfactory to the Planning Department binding the owners to post construction maintenance on the structural BMPs in accordance with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan and or per manufacturer's instructions.
• Prescriptive methods detailing BMPs specific to the restaurant portion of the project are available. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate the prescriptive methods into the design plans. These prescriptive methods can be obtained at the public counter or downloaded from the City’s website at www.lastormwater.org.
For commercial uses:
• Cover loading dock areas or design drainage to minimize run-on and run-off of stormwater.
• Direct connections to storm drains from depressed loading docks (truck wells) are prohibited.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-271 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
• Repair/maintenance bays must be indoors or designed in such a way that doesn’t allow stormwater run-off or contact with stormwater runoff.
• Design repair/maintenance bay drainage system to capture all washwater, leaks and spills. Connect drains to a standard sump for collection and disposal. Direct connection of the repair/maintenance bays to the storm drain system is prohibited. If required, obtain an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit.
• Vehicle/equipment wash areas must be self-contained and/or covered, equipped with a clarifier, or other pretreatment facility, and properly connected to the sanitary sewer.
• The following activities are to be conducted under proper cover with drain routed to the sanitary sewer: storage of industrial wastes, handling or storage of hazardous wastes, metal fabrication or pre-cast concrete fabrication, welding cutting or assembly; painting, coating or finishing.
• Store above ground liquid storage tanks (drums and dumpsters) in areas with impervious surfaces in order to contain leaks and spills. Install a secondary containment system such as berms, dikes, liners, vaults, and double-wall tanks. Where used oil or dangerous waste is stored, a dead-end sump should be installed in the drain.
• Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site. Store trash dumpsters both under cover and with drains routed to the sanitary sewer or use non- leaking and water-tight dumpsters with lids. Use drip pans or absorbent materials whenever grease containers are emptied. Wash containers in an area with properly connected sanitary sewer.
• Utilize natural drainage systems to the maximum extent practicable.
• Control or reduce or eliminate flow to natural drainage systems to the maximum extent practicable.
• During construction, cleaning of vehicles and equipment to be performed within designated covered or bermed wash area paved with Portland concrete, sloped for wash water collection, and with a pretreatment facility for wash water before discharging to properly connect sanitary sewer with a CPI type oil/water separator. The separator unit must be designed to handle the quantity of flows; removed for cleaning on a regular basis (at least twice a year) to remove any solids; and the oil absorbent pads must be replaced regularly once in fall just before the wet season, and in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-272 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-19
Design features must be incorporated into mitigation monitoring programs
The DEIR notes in a number of sections that the potential impact will be mitigated due to project design features. Although Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines states that mitigation measures proposed by an applicant must be distinguished from other measures, they are all still mitigation measures that must be discussed and considered contemporaneously in the DEIR to be meaningful and lawful. They are not.
Project design feature identified in the DEIR often have nothing to do with the actual design of the project, but address such non-design issues as construction traffic (p. 582), air emissions (p. 264-265, 297-298) and construction noise (p. 464). This is yet another example of the DEIR failing to review the entire project. If each of the items noted as a “project design feature” is truly an integral part of project design, then these items must be included in Section 2, Project Description.
In 1988, the California Legislature passed AB 3180, effective January 1, 1989, which required that mitigation monitoring programs be prepared. This was in response to a number of studies which indicated that, in fact, many public agencies did not verify implementation of mitigation measures.
If a proposed action is adopted as a mitigation measure, it has to be included in the monitoring program with specific agency responsibility assigned to see that the measure is implemented. This is designed to increase the likelihood that the mitigation will actually occur. A project design feature may change or be deferred. Unless the change was determined by a public agency to be so significant that a new EIR was required, the impact the feature was intended to address could remain unmitigated.
The use of "design features" could be -- and is -- utilized as a means of doing an end run around the requirements of AB 3180. It is thus essential and required to formally include as mitigation measures all measures identified as reducing the potential negative effects of a project, including “design features“. This will assure decision-makers and the general public that all actions said to reduce the significance of a potential impact in an EIR will actually be implemented. Thus, all “design features” -- as a design feature is truly understood -- must be included in the mitigation monitoring program.
RESPONSE NO. 28-19 Project design features are elements of a proposed project which may or may not contribute to a reduction in impacts of a project. Each and every design feature of a project
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-273 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
need not be listed in the Draft EIR’s project description. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 states that “[t]he description of the project . . . should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” Section 15124 states that the following information must be contained in the Draft EIR’s Project Description: the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project; a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities, and the intended uses of the Draft EIR. All of this required information is included in the New Century Plan Draft EIR’s Project Description. Further, the project design features listed in the Draft EIR are evaluated as part of the project and therefore the impacts from these design features have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. Thus, the Draft EIR does evaluate the entire project.
Mitigation measures, unlike project design features, are specifically intended to reduce a project’s significant impacts to less than significant levels. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures for every environmental impact that the Draft EIR determines may be significant. These mitigation measures will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
The inclusion of project design features which may also reduce the New Century Plan’s impacts is not intended as an “end run” around the requirements of the MMRP. Those project design features that remain part of the project when it is approved by the City Council will be included as conditions of the City Council’s approval. Therefore, they will be required to be implemented as part of the New Century Plan.
COMMENT NO. 28-20
The geographic range of cumulative impacts must relate to the impact examined
In accordance with Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(3):
Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
The DEIR includes a list of related projects utilized to address cumulative impacts. All of the projects listed appear to be located either within Los Angeles or Beverly Hills. No projects in Santa Monica or Culver City, though development in these areas would be expected to, at a minimum, affect regional transportation systems and certain public service systems in common with the proposed project. No explanation is provided for the geographic limitation utilized, except in the case of emergency services, where projects within police and fire service areas are called out. The EIR must be revised to include development in Santa Monica, Culver City and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-274 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
elsewhere, consistent with the context of each potential impact. For example, the traffic study includes intersections along the 405 freeway, which would potentially be affected by growth in Santa Monica.
RESPONSE NO. 28-20 Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-10 for a full discussion of the formulation of the cumulative projects list as well as the incorporation of an annual growth rate in traffic volumes. A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to the occupancy of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. The radius of the related projects research was initially based on a radius of approximately one and one-half miles. After comments were received on the Draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the traffic analysis study area was expanded, the radius of the related projects was extended to approximately two miles from the project site. This radius was determined to be sufficient for purposes of identifying potential future traffic volumes at the study intersections. The related projects list totals over 100 development projects and was reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles. It should be noted that while the related projects are located within this radius of the project site, projects from throughout the vicinity were reviewed, considered and included on the list. Refer also to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for further discussion of the extents of the study area boundaries.
COMMENT NO. 28-21
Specific Flaws in the DEIR
In addition to the essential systemic flaws discussed above, the EIR must address the comments and questions below regarding how specific information in the DEIR is presented. Each of these items is itself, though, so basic that each must be addressed in order for the DEIR to be considered legally adequate and to provide decision-makers and the public with the information needed to evaluate the proposed project and its impacts
RESPONSE NO. 28-21 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-22 through 28-180 for responses to each specific point raised by the commentor. The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2006. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-275 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-22
Project Description It is critical that the project description be as clear and complete as possible so that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a proposed project. This must include not only the project itself but related infrastructure necessary for successful implementation of a proposed development. All necessary project approvals must also be identified. Without a clear and complete definition of the activities to be undertaken, the EIR becomes useless. The CEQA process cannot ensure that all impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible, because the ultimate extent of project activities is not fully defined.
RESPONSE NO. 28-22 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-8 regarding the infrastructure improvements that have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-9 regarding the intended use of the EIR and the list of anticipated approvals that is provided in Section II, Project Description.
COMMENT NO. 28-23 In addition the following questions and comments must be addressed.
1. (p. 98) Do floor area figures refer to gross or net floor area?
RESPONSE NO. 28-23 As indicated in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, all floor areas cited refer to floor area as defined in the Century City North Specific Plan, which is a different definition than that provided in the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC).
COMMENT NO. 28-24 2. (p.120) Would any of the recreational amenities be open to the public?
RESPONSE NO. 28-24 Renovation and/or redevelopment within the Shopping Center would provide new outdoor promenades, plazas, and open spaces for use by the public. In addition, many of the recreational amenities for project residents would be provided within the residential tower and, as such, would not be open to the public.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-276 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-25 3. (p.120) What portion of the parking structure would be 60 feet above grade? The surface of the upper level? The top of a parapet wall? The top of the canopy?
RESPONSE NO. 28-25 The code-required guard-rail and wall will be at their highest point 328’-6” AMSL; this vertical elevation corresponds to the Height Zone 1VL 45-foot ceiling above the mall plaza level. This measurement is in full conformance with LAMC section 12.21.2.C.3. Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stair ways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building, or fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, steeples, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts, water tanks, silos or similar structures, may be erected above the height limit specified in the district in which the property is located, but no such penthouse or roof structure, or any other space above said height limit shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space. In addition, Municipal Code 12.21.1.B.3 further restrains roof structures to being set back and sized appropriately, and roof equipment is subject to an absolute maximum height of twenty feet above the roof level. See Figure II-4 in the Final EIR which shows an enlarged portion of the 1930 Century Park West garage elevation as well as the elevation notes.
COMMENT NO. 28-26 4. (p.123) What is the maximum depth, in feet below grade, of subterranean parking?
RESPONSE NO. 28-26 The new subterranean parking areas will replace existing subterranean parking areas. However, the footprint of the lowest level of the existing subterranean parking area at 1801 Avenue of the Stars will be expanded somewhat to the north. The maximum depth of the existing subterranean parking area at 1930 Century Park West is approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Upon completion of the project, the maximum depth of this subterranean parking area would be approximately 251 feet AMSL, similar to existing conditions. The maximum depth of the existing subterranean parking area at 1801 Avenue of the Stars is approximately 240 feet AMSL. Upon completion of the project, the maximum depth of this subterranean parking area would be approximately 242 feet AMSL, and therefore would also be similar to existing conditions. Please also refer to Figures II-3 and II-4 of Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR regarding the depth of the proposed parking garages.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-277 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-27 5. (p.124) How will conformance with LEED standards be insured? To the extent implementation of LEED standards is utilized to reduce or eliminate a potential impact, the standards must be incorporated into the mitigation monitoring program for the project.
RESPONSE NO. 28-27 As described in Draft EIR Section IV.B, Air Quality, the Applicant currently proposes that LEED Certification be a design feature of the project. At a minimum, the project will be designed and constructed to achieve the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability. As a design feature, LEED Certification will become a condition of the New Century Plan’s approval, thereby ensuring the project’s conformance with LEED standards. In conformance with the City's Green Building Program, the LEED checklist and supporting documents will be reviewed by the Department of City Planning prior to the issuance of any building permit and again prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
COMMENT NO. 28-28 6. (p.125) The EIR must include complete information regarding the sign program. This must include not only overall square footage of signage, but location of each sign, square footage of each sign, and information as to whether each sign is lit or not and whether each sign is internally lit. It is noted that project elevations shown on pages 166 through 169 show numbered locations for signage. The requested information could be keyed to the numbered locations already identified in the DEIR.
RESPONSE NO. 28-28 See the revised signage elevations (Figures II-5 through II-8 of Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR) which conceptually illustrate an allocation of the requested amount of signage area in conformance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code’s signage regulations and which now include a key to allow the reader to judge the scale and type of sign depicted. For the purposes of ensuring an appropriately conservative analysis, all signs depicted are assumed to be either internally or externally illuminated in accordance with the LAMC. In addition, the Applicant would comply with existing conditions prohibiting new lit signage visible from adjacent R1 property west of Century Park West.
Since the EIR is not requesting explicit approval of specific and individual sign areas, dimensions, or characteristics—it is only describing the overall signage program and aggregate areas for each frontage—these conceptual exhibits fully and adequately illustrate the envelope of effects and potential impacts (even those that do not reach the threshold of significance) of the project’s signage program. The EIR does not remove the existing statutory requirement that each sign on each frontage of the building be permitted by the City of Los Angeles; at the time
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-278 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
of future permitting, each sign’s area, illumination, and proportion signage program will be reviewed both for conformance with the LAMC as well as with the project’s proposed signage program. Due to the combination of the EIR's existing signage program analysis and future review to ensure conformance, further detail and specific individuation of the signage at this time is not required.
COMMENT NO. 28-29 7. (p.127) Who absorbs the cost of City staff time expended on weekly meetings with on-site security personnel?
RESPONSE NO. 28-29 The responsibilities of the LAPD Senior Lead Officer include acting as a liaison to community businesses and organizations and keeping the community informed of crime in the area. Westfield's on-site security and the LAPD have a long-standing history of working cooperatively together and sharing information to ensure the safety of the Century City community and Westfield's visitors, and this relationship will continue with implementation of the New Century Plan. Additionally, Westfield Century City will generate millions of dollars per year in tax revenue for the City of Los Angeles after implementation of the New Century Plan, which can be used to provide additional funding to the LAPD.
COMMENT NO. 28-30 8. (p.128) A map of project phasing should be provided in the EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 28-30 Figure II-1 in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR provides a map of anticipated project phases.
COMMENT NO. 28-31 9. (p.128) Where will construction staging areas be located? Will parking be displaced?
RESPONSE NO. 28-31 As discussed in Topical Response No. 8, construction related truck staging would generally occur within the north, south, and east sides of the project site along Santa Monica Boulevard, Constellation Boulevard, and the service tunnel driveway, respectively. Century Park West would not be used for construction truck staging during excavation. Use of Century Park West during construction would be limited and would generally occur during Phase B, which includes construction of a new parking facility at 1930 Century Park West. In addition, as discussed in Topical Response No. 8, construction worker-related parking is anticipated to occur either on-site or in a combination of on-site and designated off-site parking areas. All construction activities will occur in accordance with a Construction Staging and Traffic
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-279 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Management Plan that will ensure that adequate access and parking is available throughout the construction period.
COMMENT NO. 28-32 10. (p.129) The EIR must identify all project approvals needed from any agency, not just those approvals to be granted by the City of Los Angeles. For example, as noted on page 363 that approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be needed. This and all other approvals must be noted in Section II.F.
RESPONSE NO. 28-32 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-9.
COMMENT NO. 28-33 11. (p.129) Haul routes and associated impacts must be identified in the EIR. Beverly Glen Boulevard must not be utilized as a haul route.
RESPONSE NO. 28-33 Potential impacts associated with haul routes are discussed in the Draft EIR. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for more information. Beverly Glen Boulevard is not proposed to be used as a haul route for the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-34
General Environmental Setting 1. (p. 130, 139) Where the height of other structures in the area is discussed, height above grade should be identified, as well as number of stories.
RESPONSE NO. 28-34 Refer to Figure II-2 within Section II, Corrections and Additions to this Final EIR which notes the height in feet and stories of other buildings in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-35 2. (p.144) Conclusions based on information in the city’s Urban Water Management Plan must address changes in circumstances since adoption of the plan, including judicial orders to reduce water export from Owens Valley and to reduce pumping in the Sacramento Delta.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-280 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-35 Section IV.K, Water Supply of the Draft EIR addresses recent changes in DWP's water supply. Also refer to Topical Response No. 12 regarding the various strategies that are being implemented by MWD and LADWP to ensure adequate water supply is available.
COMMENT NO. 28-36 3. (p. 146-151) Table 2 must provide totals for each land use type. The six page list is helpful, but numbers for total growth would more clearly present the magnitude of overall growth. It is not reasonable or efficient to expect each reviewer to separately total the one hundred or so projects.
RESPONSE NO. 28-36 Table 2 in Section III, General Description of Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR is adequate as it identifies all related projects in the vicinity based on information on file at the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and the City of Beverly Hills Department of Community Development. As Table 2 provides a detailed description of the type and amount of development proposed under each related project, no further totaling of the related projects is necessary.
COMMENT NO. 28-37
Aesthetics/views Rendered photographs (Figures 22 through 39) do not actually portray existing conditions. Rather, the photographs purporting to present “existing conditions” include projects that have not yet been built. The EIR must present photographs of actual existing conditions on the ground, with other projects included only in a separate analysis of cumulative impacts. This is most glaring in Figures 25 and 26 from vantage points 4 and 5, where major portions of the foreground will be occupied by the proposed project in combination with the Constellation Park Towers, clearing showing a significant, cumulative impact.
RESPONSE NO. 28-37 The visual simulations provided in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR appropriately include the proposed project at 10131 Constellation Boulevard and the new residential project under construction adjacent to the Century Plaza Hotel as these projects have been approved by the City of Los Angeles. However, as requested by the commenter, please refer to Figures III-9 and III-10 below on pages III-282 and III-283, respectively, which show raw site photos for the referenced views, corresponding to Figures 25 and 26 in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-281 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress Page III-282
Figure III-9 Composite View From Intersection of Eastborne and Warnall Avenues Without Other Proposed and Approved Projects Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, June 2008.
New Century Plan Page III-283
Figure III-10 Composite View From Intersection of Fox Hills Drive and Calvin Avenue Without Other Proposed and Approved Projects Source: Rios Clementi Hale Studios, June 2008.
New Century Plan III. Responses to Written Comments
Generally, the inclusion of the approved Constellation Park towers and the under- construction Century tower in these visual simulations allows the reader to more fully judge what the cumulative aesthetic effect of the proposed project will be. Additionally, in the specific case of these referenced views, since it is clear in the comparison that the inclusion of the Constellation Park and Century towers only incidentally changes the views, and the foreground in these photos is unaffected, cumulative aesthetic impacts from these projects are determined to be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-38 While the DEIR describes the surrounding area as high-rise and even notes numbers of building stories (pp.155-156, 172-173), information is not presented as to specific height above grade, in feet. The EIR must map the location of existing high structures and identify height in feet above grade for each.
RESPONSE NO. 28-38 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-34 and Figure II-2 provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-39 It is noted that one of the characteristics of an interesting skyline is buildings of varied heights silhouetted against the sky. Where buildings are so large as to essentially block the entire foreground view, they sky is not seen unless one cranes one’s neck straight up and hence there is no “skyline”. This must be addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 28-39 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 8-8 for a discussion of the proposed residential tower in the urban context of Century City, which is characterized by mid- to high- rise development that forms a dramatic skyline and is considered an aesthetic resource. The characteristics of a skyline are dependent on the location of the viewer. Century City’s skyline is visible on a clear day from locations throughout the Los Angeles Basin, extending from Palos Verdes to the south to downtown Los Angeles to the east, to the Hollywood Hills to the north. Since the proposed tower would be built among an existing cluster of mid- and high-rise buildings which currently project well above the viewers’ relative horizon, there are a very limited number of locations where substantial blocking of existing sky views could occur (refer to the visual simulations included in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR for illustrations and further discussion). At those sites where substantial sky blockage is expected, it is important to note that impacts would occur primarily well above a person’s normal cone of vision; at a viewer’s normal eye level and within a normal cone of vision, the blockage will be most pronounced at the lowest levels of the tower, with the effect becoming less substantial with each ascending story. Thus, the effect and magnitude of blue-sky blockage
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-284 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
associated with the proposed tower will be scarcely more substantial than that associated with a shorter tower, or, by comparison, with the existing 13-story building. In addition, there is an expansive golf course to the east of the commentor's location that provides wide open blue sky with no blockage in that direction. Furthermore, it is noted that the project would continue to provide for a variety of building heights, ranging from a maximum of 45 feet above the plaza level (approximately 60 feet above average grade) along the western portion of the site, to a maximum of 75 feet above the plaza (approximately 82 to 86 feet above grade) in the central portion of the site, to approximately 587 feet above ground level (approximately 579 feet above the plaza level) in the northeast corner of the site.
COMMENT NO. 28-40 Although the DEIR indicates that the intent is to incorporate the existing coral tree at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard, removal of vegetation is not generally addressed. What will happen to the existing mature Moreton Bay Fig? The EIR must identify any mature trees to be removed and identify any reduction in landscape area at the perimeter of the site.
RESPONSE NO. 28-40 As stated in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, a deep landscaped area would be provided at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard that is anticipated to incorporate the existing mature African coral tree. The African coral tree would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible, and an arborist would be hired to ensure proper care and relocation procedures. Similarly, the Moreton Bay Fig currently located at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica would also be relocated and preserved as feasible.
Tree removal was addressed in the Initial Study, provided as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, on-site vegetation consists primarily of ornamental landscaping which is not considered sensitive and is generally not afforded protection by the City of Los Angeles. Based on a field visit conducted by PCR biologists, no locally protected biological resources, such as oak trees or California walnut woodlands, exist on the site. There are 95 non- native ornamental trees around the perimeter of the site. These trees consist primarily of Ficus species, queen palms, Mexican fan palms, other palms, pine, jacaranda, coral, soapberry, and olive species. The proposed project would result in the relocation or removal of the 95 trees located around the perimeter of the site, primarily along Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard, which would be relocated or replaced. More specifically, primarily only the olive, pear, and pine trees adjacent to the building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars would be removed. On-site relocation is proposed for the existing palms along the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage, as well as for various other plant materials located in the existing planters. All trees proposed for removal will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio and removal of street trees will comply with the City of Los Angeles Street Tree Ordinance. Maintenance of the trees will also comply with
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-285 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
City requirements (a minimum 3 year survival is required). In addition, the project will include a landscape plan that will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines included in the Draft Greening of Century City Pedestrian Connectivity Plan. These guidelines are anticipated to include a minimum 36-inch box site for landscaping. In addition, upon completion of the proposed project, there would be approximately 208 trees located around the perimeter of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-41 In addition the following questions and comments must be addressed.
1. (p. 154) What is the height, in feet of each of the buildings discussed as “notable buildings”?
RESPONSE NO. 28-41 Please refer to Figure II-2 provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final, which notes the height in feet and stories of other buildings in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-42 2. (p. 155) What is the height, in feet, of high rises in the areas surrounding the project?
RESPONSE NO. 28-42 Please refer to Figure II-2 provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final, which notes the height in feet and stories of other buildings in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-43 3. (p. 156) How can a street create an aesthetic barrier for structures hundreds of feet tall?
RESPONSE NO. 28-43 Santa Monica Boulevard along the project frontage is a Major Class I Highway with three lanes in each direction and neighborhood access roads along the north and south sides of the main roadway. This major highway is typified by several conditions:
1. Significant grade change (sloping up from Century City towards the Comstock neighborhood)
2. Significant articulation of the carriageway and an attendant articulation of the medians, boulevard strips, and planting areas
3. Significant variation in the urban morphology between the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard and the north. The south side is typified by a cluster of high-rise towers to the east tapering successively down to the lower-rise shopping center, 1930 Century Park West building, and finally to the low-rise office and multi-family
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-286 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
buildings which continue to line Santa Monica Boulevard heading west. The north side is notable for the abrupt change at Club View Drive between the low-rise office and multi-family buildings to the west and the Country Club to the east.
The result of these interlocking conditions is that (as is apparent to the motorist eastbound or westbound on Santa Monica Boulevard), Century City’s northern edge is sharp, defined, and abrupt. There is no doubt aesthetically that it and the Comstock neighborhood to the northwest are different and separate entities. Contrast this situation at the southern end of Avenue of the Stars where the 2220 and 2222 Avenue of the Stars towers appear to sprout directly out of their low-rise surroundings.
COMMENT NO. 28-44 4. (p. 156) What is the height, in feet, of the multi-story office buildings to the west? 5. (p. 156) What is the height, in feet, of each of the buildings to the east? 6. (p. 157) What is the height, in feet, of each of the buildings to the south?
RESPONSE NO. 28-44 Please refer to Figure II-2 provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final, which notes the height in feet and stories of other buildings in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-45 7. (p.163) How many structures in Century City currently exceed 587 feet above grade in height? Which ones? 8. (p.163) How many structures in Century City currently exceed 500 feet above grade in height? Which ones?
RESPONSE NO. 28-45 Please refer to Figure II-2 provided in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final, which notes the height in feet and stories of other buildings in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-46 9. (p.163) If the 49-story tower is “visually prominent”, how can it not substantially alter views, as stated repeatedly in the DEIR (pp. 180. 184, 189)?
RESPONSE NO. 28-46 The proposed residential tower would serve as the most visually prominent feature of this specific project due to its height. However, since the tower would be located within an existing cluster of mid- and high-rise structures, the project would merely introduce one more vertical element within the existing group of buildings that define the skyline, rather than
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-287 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
introducing a single tower rising in isolation. View impacts are based on the extent to which a project affects or blocks recognized views of valued visual resources, including views from a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway. As described in detail in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, the project would not significantly impact views from a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway. Specifically, the project would not block focal views of distinctive buildings, panoramic views of the skyline, or any other scenic resources. As such, view impacts were determined to be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-47 10. (p. 164) The existing coral tree must be preserved. Care must be taken during construction to ensure that the tree, including its root zone, is not injured. This must be addressed in the EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 28-47 As stated in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, a deep landscaped area would be provided at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard that is anticipated to incorporate the existing mature African coral tree. The African coral tree would be preserved to the maximum extent feasible, and an arborist would be hired to ensure proper care and relocation procedures. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-40 for further discussion of tree removal and replacement.
COMMENT NO. 28-48 11. (pp. 166-169) It would be helpful if site elevations included some objects to provide a sense of scale, such as people or vehicles. As currently portrayed, for the most part the site elevations occupy only a small portion of each sheet, resulting in a dwarfed impression.
RESPONSE NO. 28-48 The elevations on pages 166 through 169 of the Draft EIR are identical in scale to those on pages 112 through 115. For reference, the two palm tree symbols used on the elevation drawings on pages 112 through 115 represent 50-foot and 80-foot trees, respectively. At this scale, an average 5’-6” human would appear about 1/16” tall on the page.
COMMENT NO. 28-49 12. (p. 170) As noted previously, specific information for each individual sign must be provided.
RESPONSE NO. 28-49 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 28-28.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-288 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-50 13. (p. 172) How long, in months, would each temporary impact be expected to occur?
RESPONSE NO. 28-50 As stated on page 172 in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, construction impacts would be temporary, occurring in phases over an approximate four-year completion period. The type and duration of specific construction impacts would be related to the nature of construction activity, the location of such activity, and the duration of each construction phase. More specifically, aesthetic and view impacts associated with construction of Phase A would last approximately 42 months; impacts associated with Phase B would last approximately 15 months; impacts associated with Phase C would last approximately 21 months; and impacts associated with Phases D and E would last approximately 18 months (construction phases would overlap).13 Collectively, aesthetic and view impacts associated with construction of the project would last approximately four years or 48 months.
COMMENT NO. 28-51 14. (p. 201) How can blockage of the sky and increased signage, as viewed from residential areas “enhance the livability” of adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west and north? Won’t these areas be degraded, instead?
RESPONSE NO. 28-51 As discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10, above, proposed signage would be implemented in accordance with LAMC requirements and such signage would not result in significant aesthetic or lighting impacts. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-39, the proposed buildings would not substantially block views of the sky, as analyzed in detail in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein on page 201, the project would enhance the livability of the neighborhoods by providing high-quality architectural design, landscape amenities, and improved pedestrian access within and around the Shopping Center. The presence of the high quality development in Century City is expected to create a more desirable and appealing place to shop, entertain, and live. By its expansion of commercial offerings and inclusion of residences, the project will increase the amount and diversity of offerings to the community. The increased and enhanced retail areas also can be expected to increase the amount of City sales tax revenue generated on-site which will provide more available funds for other services and amenities in the surrounding area. Similarly, the project’s permit and mitigation fees (such as the Quimby park fee) will serve to increase the funds available for local parks, schools, libraries, and public services. In the
13 Based on the construction phasing presented in Table 34 on page 468 in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-289 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
absence of the project, these funds would not be generated and thus, would not be available for their individual community uses.
COMMENT NO. 28-52 15. (p. 214) Photographs of actual, existing conditions must be provided, not rendered photographs showing additional buildings.
RESPONSE NO. 28-52 The visual simulations provided in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR appropriately include the proposed project at 10131 Constellation Boulevard as this project has been approved by the City of Los Angeles. However, refer to Response No. 28-37 for visual simulations of the project without the proposed project at 10131 Constellation Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 28-53 16. (p.214) While it is recognized that aesthetic evaluations are largely subjective, it would seem that the proposed tower would loom over the existing low rise residential uses to the north, not “contribute to the scenic resource”. As shown in Figure 25, there is no skyline, only a megalithic wall of glass and concrete.
RESPONSE NO. 28-53 Please see Response to Comment No. 28-43 for a discussion of the existing visual distinction and functional barrier that exists between the project site, located in Century City, and the residential neighborhood to the north. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 8-8 for a discussion of the proposed residential tower in the urban context of Century City and Response to Comment No. 28-39 for additional discussion of the local skyline itself.
The residential tower proposed addresses the scale of the Santa Monica Boulevard edge of Century City by setting back its northern façade above the 20th floor, and by creating a distinct profile by its series of additional set-backs above that height as well as its unusually slim profile when viewed from the north or south. This slim profile in fact creates the least visual impact on the residential areas to the north.
COMMENT NO. 28-54 17. (p. 214) Figure 29, from the golf course, appears to present views from the middle of the golf course over one thousand feet from the project site, whereas other portions the golf course, such as the sixth hole, and adjacent residences exist only a hundred feet of so from the site. Views from these much closer locations, no more than one or two hundred feet north of Santa Monica Boulevard must be provided.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-290 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-54 Views from private locations such as within the private golf club, where entry and usage is restricted to members and members’ affiliates, are not the focus of the types of environmental impacts to be analyzed under CEQA; however, for purposes of a conservative analysis, a select number of representative private view locations were identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR, including the referenced Los Angeles Country Club photo simulation. In response to the suggestion to modify the simulation drawing provided in Figure 29 on page 185, the proposed tower would be largely hidden from view from the southern holes of the golf course due to the large number of mature trees that line the edge of Santa Monica Boulevard. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The Draft EIR presents representative views from all locations. In addition, additional views from areas to the north have been provided and are included in this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-55 18. (p.217) Maintenance of construction barriers must include graffiti removal.
RESPONSE NO. 28-55 Mitigation Measure A.1-1 provided on page 217 in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, requires that construction barriers would be maintained in a visually attractive manner throughout the construction period. Such maintenance would include graffiti removal.
COMMENT NO. 28-56 19. (p.218) All internally lit signs visible from any residential area must be extinguished at midnight.
RESPONSE NO. 28-56 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please see Response to Comment No. 13-10 regarding lighting associated with proposed signage. As discussed therein and addressed more fully in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, project signage would be illuminated in a manner that conforms to LAMC requirements, minimizes light spill-over and glare, and results in a less than significant impact. In addition, the single-family residential neighborhood to the north/northwest of the New Century Plan will be buffered by its distance from the project, of approximately 342 feet, and is separated from the project by Santa Monica Boulevard and commercial uses located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, the impact of illuminated signage within the project would have minimal impacts to these single-family residences due to the distance of these homes from the project. Specifically, the proposed project signage program will be in full conformance with LAMC Section 14.4.E, “Sign Illumination Limitations”:
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-291 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
No sign shall be arranged and illuminated in a manner that will produce a light intensity of greater than three foot candles above ambient lighting, as measured at the property line of the nearest residentially zoned property.
As shown on Figure II-2 of Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR, the horizontal distance between the edge of the project site and the nearest single-family residential parcel is approximately 342 feet. Since lighting intensity diminishes in an inverse-square proportion to the linear distance, the maximum intensity of the signage can be derived from this statutory limit:
Intensity of signage [fc(1)] Maximum Intensity [fc(2)] = ------Distance 2 Thus, fc(1) 3 fc = ------(342’) 2
Thus, the maximum radiant intensity for the entire Santa Monica frontage is:
fc(1) = 350,892 footcandles
Assuming that all of the signage is illuminated, we can derive a maximum number of lumens for the entire frontage:
Maximum output [Lumens] Intensity of signage [fc(1)] = ------Maximum Sign Area [sq ft] Thus, Lm 350,892 fc = ------4,237 sq ft
Thus, the maximum combined lighting output for the entire Santa Monica frontage will not be more than 1,486,729,404 Lumens and will be in compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
Furthermore, Westfield agrees to extinguish all existing internally lit signs under the control of Westfield that are visible from any residential area by 10:00 P.M.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-292 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-57 20. (p. 218) All internally lit signs visible from any residential area must utilize LED lights.
RESPONSE NO. 28-57 Please see Response to Comment No. 13-10 regarding lighting associated with proposed signage. As discussed therein and addressed more fully in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, illumination for building identification signs would be designed as an internal source (i.e., Gulfstream's existing can-letters), or as uplights (similar to the existing monument signs along Santa Monica Boulevard), and would result in a less than significant impact. Several of the new signs may utilize energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, and as the lighting in older signs is replaced, they too may be retrofitted with LEDs.
COMMENT NO. 28-58 21. The EIR must address the potential for cumulative growth to create a tunnel effect from streets within Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 28-58 Since the proposed construction along Constellation Boulevard and Century Park West will be shorter in height than the existing building to be demolished, there is no potential for contribution on the part of this project towards an increased visual “tunnel effect” along either Constellation Boulevard or Century Park West. Likewise, there is no substantial “tunnel effect” possible along Santa Monica Boulevard due to the open space provided by the golf course immediately opposite from the project site.
As regards Avenue of the Stars, the proposed tower will incrementally increase the “tunnel effect” along this street. However, as explained in Response to Comment No. 24-1 above, both sides of Avenue of the Stars are zoned C2-2-O, thus the proposed project is keeping with the land use development planned for this area.
COMMENT NO. 28-59
Aesthetics/Light, Glare, Shading Inadequate information has been provided regarding proposed signing to evaluate potential impacts. The information requested above as to size, location and lighting of individual signs must be provided.
RESPONSE NO. 28-59 The proposed signage concept is described in detail on pages 164 and 170 within Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, with associated illustrations
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-293 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments provided in Figures 17 through 20 on pages 166 through 169, respectively. Please see Response to Comment Nos. 11-22, 13-10 and 28-28 for additional discussion of proposed signage and associated lighting. In addition, please refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR for additional graphics that provide further specificity regarding the conceptual signage within the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-60 The DEIR has chosen to consider an impact to shade and shadow to be significant if shadow- sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October) on any sensitive uses. Sensitive uses in the area include residential uses and the Los Angeles Country club Golf Course.
The source of the threshold is the City of LA Thresholds Guide. However, no rationale has been presented for use of this threshold to analyze aesthetic impacts in residential areas. The threshold addresses only the middle of the day. While shade and shadow impacts on solar access/solar power are greatest in the middle of the day, and impacts on areas with outdoor lunch time seating would certainly be affected in the middle of the day, many, if not most, residents are elsewhere in the middle of the day. In addition, as discussed below, this threshold virtually guarantees that almost no individual projects would ever meet the threshold of significance.
Shade and shadow move progressively from west to east as the sun moves from east to west throughout the day. Due to the City’s location north of the equator, shadows do not generally fall due east or west, but slightly in a northwesterly or northeasterly direction. Before noon, shadows are cast in a westerly/northwesterly direction. After the noon hour, shadows are cast in an easterly/ northeasterly direction.
RESPONSE NO. 28-60 As discussed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, two significance thresholds were utilized to evaluate the significance of project shadows. The sources of these thresholds are the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) and the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP). The rationale for using these documents is provided below.
The City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) is a guidance document intended to inform and streamline CEQA analyses conducted in the City. It was prepared with technical input from 18 City departments and bureaus, including the Environmental Affairs Department. The Thresholds Guide identifies screening criteria and significance thresholds to evaluate project impacts. As stated therein on page vii, "the screening criteria and significance thresholds are based on a variety of factors, including existing local, state, and federal
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-294 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
regulations, administrative practices of other public agencies, and commonly accepted professional standards. Each threshold has been reviewed with respect to meeting the following goals: objectivity and applicability, defensibility, practicality, nexus between impacts and mitigation, and legal liability." These thresholds are typically applied to all projects throughout the City of Los Angeles.
The CCNSP also sets forth shading criteria applicable to all properties and development within the Specific Plan area, in which the project is located. The CCNSP shading threshold is more stringent than that of the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), defining a significant shadow impact as one affecting any detached single-family residence located outside the Specific Plan area for more than two hours between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Thus, the Draft EIR has evaluated shading impacts from the project during both the morning and evening hours. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR, and as further discussed in Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR, shadow impacts affecting residential properties would be less than significant, regardless of which threshold is applied.
Refer to Figures 40 through 43 of the Draft EIR which demonstrate the shadow patterns that occur within the project vicinity throughout the day during each of the four seasons. Shadows are cast in an west and east direction during the early morning and late afternoon periods of the day contrary to the statement made in this comment. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-6.
COMMENT NO. 28-61 Thus, areas to the west could be in shadow as early as dawn, but in no case would areas to the west be shaded past solar noon, i.e. 12:00 p.m. during winter and 1:00 p.m during Daylight Savings Time. Within the time frame specified in the threshold, this would equate to no more than the hours between 9:00 a.m. and noon Pacific Standard Time between late October and early April, i.e. three hours maximum; this would equate to no more than the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Savings Time between early April and late October, i.e. four hours maximum. Thus, no area to the west/northwest could ever be in shadow in excess of the specified threshold. Any actual analysis of shadowing in these areas becomes moot, seemingly designed not to actually evaluate potential impacts but to simulate evaluation of impacts already known to be impossible due to the design of the chosen threshold.
RESPONSE NO. 28-61 Shading thresholds are based on the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). Additionally, the Draft EIR also uses the significance threshold of the Century City North Specific Plan, which uses a threshold of two hours of shading from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. to determine impacts; under this threshold, there were also no significant impacts to residential uses to the north. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-60 for a discussion of the two
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-295 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
shading thresholds used and the rationale for their use. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-62 Similarly, areas to the east could be in shadow as late as sunset, but in no case would areas to the east be shaded before solar noon, i.e. 12:00 p.m. during winter and 1:00 p.m during Daylight Savings Time. Within the time frame specified in the threshold, this would equate to no more than the hours between noon and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time between late October and early April, i.e. three hours maximum; this would equate to no more than the hours between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Savings Time between early April and late October, i.e. four hours maximum. Thus, no area to the east/northeast could ever be in shadow in excess of the specified threshold. Any actual analysis of shadowing in these areas also becomes moot, seemingly designed not to actually evaluate potential impacts but to simulate evaluation of impacts already known to be impossible due to the design of the chosen threshold.
RESPONSE NO. 28-62 Additionally, as a significant shading impact on the Los Angeles Country Club Golf Course has been determined under the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), it is clear that a building can exceed the specified significance threshold. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-60 for a discussion of the two shading thresholds used and the rationale for their use. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-63 In fact, only properties due north of a project could ever be subject to shadows in excess of the chosen threshold from a single project. In addition, this would only apply to projects that cover a wide area from east to west, as a shadow that extends due north at solar noon would have been somewhat to the west just minutes earlier and will continue to move to the east.
The threshold is geared to the hours when the sun is highest in the sky and shadows are at their smallest, when few areas would be affected, as opposed to the worst case situation just after dawn or just before dusk, when shadows can extend over large areas. For example, at the winter solstice, shadows at 8:00 a.m., about an hour after dawn, are two times longer than those at 9:00 a.m., and shadows at 7:00 a.m., just after dawn, are ten times longer than shadows at 8:00 a.m. and twenty times longer than those at 9:00 a.m.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-296 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-63 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-60, 28-61, and 28-62 for a discussion of the two shading thresholds used and the rationale for their use. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-64 Even if the required minimum time for casting shade and shadow under the chosen threshold were reduced, the threshold would still improperly limit the scope of impacts to be examined. Outdoor recreation areas are often heavily used in the afternoon hours after 3:00 p.m. Other areas, such residential patios are heavily used in the evening, especially during the summer when sunset does not occur until around 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Savings Time. The standard for Phase I development in the Century City North Specific Plan is preferable, i.e. no more than two hours between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. However, some residents might enjoy breakfasting on a sunny outdoor patio, an activity which could be precluded by the proposed project so shadows may create an impact even before 7:00 am. The EIR must examine impacts on shade/shadow during hours when many residents would be most affected, i.e. 7:00am to 9:00 am in the morning and 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm in the evening during the summer and 7:00 am to 5:00 pm in the winter.
RESPONSE NO. 28-64 The Draft EIR does evaluate the shading impacts to residents living north of the project, from the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., using the significance threshold established by the Century City North Specific Plan. Applying a significance threshold of two hours of shading during this time period, the Draft EIR determined that there would be no significant impacts to residences to the north of the project. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-60 for a discussion of the two shading thresholds used and the rationale for their use. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 28-65 In any case, as illustrated n [sic] Figures 40 through 43, the cumulative impact of the proposed project when combined with past development and anticipated future development clearly results in a shadowing in surrounding areas for many hours over an extended period. Thus cumulative impacts are significant even under the unsatisfactory threshold utilized in the DEIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-297 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-65 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-60 regarding the shading significance thresholds. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site. As discussed therein as well as in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, cumulative shadow impacts on residential uses, including those within the Comstock Hills area, would be less than significant based on both accepted significance thresholds used in this analysis.
COMMENT NO. 28-66 The discussion of shade and shadow must also address the effect increased shade will have on gardens and landscaping in residential areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard and the golf course. The discussion must address minimum sun requirements of common landscape and garden plants, such as most roses and tomatoes. The effect on golf course turf must also be addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 28-66 As shown in the shadow diagrams provided in Figures 40 through 43 of the Draft EIR and the additional figures provided in Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR, shadowing of the residential area to the north of the project site will occur only in the morning and only for very limited times. At the most extreme, a single-family residence will be shaded for up to 30 minutes and the broader residential area will be shaded for one hour and thirty minutes. This increase in shadowing, especially in the limited time of day and year, will not have an effect on roses, tomatoes, or turf. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for a discussion regarding shading impacts in relation to the golf course.
COMMENT NO. 28-67 In addition the following questions and comments must be addressed.
1. (p. 223, 230-233) Shadows at noon, when shadows extend furthest north, must be shown.
RESPONSE NO. 28-67 Shadows do not inherently extend furthest north at noon as illustrated in the shadow analysis provided in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR. As shown in the accompanying exhibits (see Figures 40 through 43 therein), at noon on the key days, the project’s shading would pass over the golf course; the noted times on the exhibits have been selected to highlight important moments when the shadows either begin or cease to shade a residential area. Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site. This comment is noted
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-298 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 28-68 2. (p. 225) As noted previously, specific information for each individual sign must be provided.
RESPONSE NO. 28-68 Proposed signage is described in detail on pages 164 and 170 within Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, with associated illustrations provided in Figures 17 through 20 on pages 166 through 169, respectively. Please see Response to Comment Nos. 11-22, 13-10, and 28-28 for additional discussion of proposed signage and associated lighting, which will comply with LAMC requirements.
In addition, please refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR for additional graphics that provide further specificity regarding the conceptual signage within the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-69 3. (p.227) The EIR must address lighting, light spillage and glare from the outdoor amenity terrace, with particular attention to impacts on residential uses to the north.
RESPONSE NO. 28-69 The amenity terrace of the new residential tower will have a screened parapet along the north side of the structure that will contain noise and light. Additionally, by virtue of the angle and distance between the terrace and closest residential neighbors to the north, there will be very little light spillage or glare from the terrace impacting residences to the north.
COMMENT NO. 28-70 4. (p. 229) Project design features designed to reduce glare, such as screening of rooftop parking lots, must be included in the mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project.
RESPONSE NO. 28-70 Please refer to Mitigation Measure A.1-5 on page 218 of the Draft EIR, which requires screening of the rooftop parking area. With regard to glare, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant. In addition, project design features included in the Draft EIR to reduce glare, such as the use of non-reflective glass in all exterior windows and building surfaces and the screening of rooftop parking areas, will be included as conditions of the New Century Plan’s City Council approval and therefore will be
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-299 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
mandatory elements of the project. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-19, for a discussion regarding project design features and mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 28-71 5. (p. 230-233) Do the shadows shown in Figures 40 through 43 include structures proposed but not yet built, or only existing structures?
RESPONSE NO. 28-71 The shadow diagrams provided in Figures 40 through 43 of the Draft EIR account for existing structures within the project vicinity and include the project at 10131 Constellation Boulevard since that project has been approved and is located near the project site. The evaluation of cumulative shading impacts starting on page 236 of the Draft EIR accounts for all known related projects in the vicinity.
COMMENT NO. 28-72 6. (p. 237) CEQA defines a cumulative impact (Section 21083(b)), as the effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects [emphasis added], the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. By this CEQA established definition, the cumulative impact of the proposed project together with past projects, clearly result in a significant impact on residences to the north. This must be addressed in the EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 28-72 The cumulative impact analyses within the Draft EIR are accurate. The list of related projects used to prepare the impact analyses throughout the Draft EIR includes reasonably foreseeable development within the project area. In addition, the cumulative analyses account for existing environmental conditions, which includes past projects that have been completed.
Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site. As discussed therein as well as in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, cumulative shadow impacts on residential uses, including those within the Comstock Hills area, would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-73 7. (p. 238) There must be no new lighted signs visible from any residential area. Mitigation Measurea.2-3 must be revised to state: No new lit signage shall be visible from adjacent R-1 property to the west of Century Park West or from any residence north of Santa Monica Boulevard.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-300 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-73 As discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10, above, the signage proposed as part of the project is permitted by and would meet all applicable LAMC requirements, and such signage would not result in significant aesthetic or lighting impacts. As analyzed in the Draft EIR Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, based on the presence of existing signage, street lights, and vehicle lights along the heavily traveled Santa Monica Boulevard, the New Century Plan is not expected to substantially increase light levels at the residences north of Santa Monica Boulevard. Furthermore, the single-family residential neighborhood to the north/northwest of the New Century Plan will be buffered by its distance from the project, of approximately 342 feet, and is separated from the project by Santa Monica Boulevard and commercial uses located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, the impact of illuminated signage within the project would have minimal impacts to these single-family residences due to the distance of these homes from the project. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-56 for a calculation that illustrates that the proposed project signage program will be in full conformance with LAMC. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 28-74 8. (p, 238) All existing internally lit signs visible from any residential area must be extinguished at 10 p.m.
RESPONSE NO. 28-74 Westfield has agreed to extinguish all existing internally lit signs under the control of Westfield that are visible from any residential area by 10:00 P.M. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-56. Furthermore, the single-family residential neighborhood to the north/northwest of the New Century Plan will be buffered by its distance from the project, of approximately 342 feet, and is separated from the project by Santa Monica Boulevard and commercial uses located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, the impact of illuminated signage within the project would have minimal impacts to these single-family residences due to the distance of these homes from the project. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-56 for a calculation that illustrates that the proposed project signage program will be in full conformance with LAMC.
COMMENT NO. 28-75 9. (p. 238) All existing internally lit signs visible from any residential area must utilize LED lights.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-301 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-75 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-57.
COMMENT NO. 28-76
Air Quality 1. (pp.264-265) Items listed as project design features to eliminate or reduce the potential adverse effect of the proposed project must be included in the mitigation monitoring program.
RESPONSE NO. 28-76 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please see Response to Comment No. 28-19 for a discussion regarding the difference between project design features and mitigation measures. As demonstrated throughout the analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include project features and mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality (see Subsection 3.b, Project Design Features, and Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, each in Section IV.B, Air Quality). Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 and Response to Comment No. 17-3 regarding construction impacts and to Section II, Corrections and Additions for additional mitigation measures that have been included to address air quality impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-19 regarding project design features.
COMMENT NO. 28-77 2. (p. 265) What rooftop areas are not already committed to uses other than solar facilities, including recreation, parking, and a helipad?
RESPONSE NO. 28-77 Please refer to Figure 4 on page 110 of the Draft EIR. With regards to photovoltaic generating structures, they can be installed above mechanical equipment and on shade structures over parking and recreational areas. Of the listed uses, the only use that cannot accommodate solar facilities is the emergency helipad.
COMMENT NO. 28-78 3. (p. 265) Is solar power realistic in light of the high degree of shade and shadow existing on the site? If not, why is it even listed?
RESPONSE NO. 28-78 The proposed project creates very little shadowing of itself and the locations thought to be viable for solar harvesting. The annual amount of shading of the site by other existing off-
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-302 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments site projects is considered minimal and does not have any impact on the viability of solar energy collection.
COMMENT NO. 28-79 4. (p. 266) Is it anticipated that significant numbers of vehicles would be able to make use of electric vehicle charging stations?
RESPONSE NO. 28-79 The Applicant is in the process of exploring and evaluating the possibility of including electric vehicle charging stations on-site. The precise number of electric vehicle charging stations has not yet been identified.
COMMENT NO. 28-80 5. (p. 267) Who will determine what is the “maximum practical extent” for use of recycled materials?
RESPONSE NO. 28-80 The Applicant, along with its contractors and vendors, will work together to establish targets which at a minimum will meet the LEED criteria listed.
COMMENT NO. 28-81 6. (p. 274) The EIR must map all areas where localized significance thresholds would potentially be exceeded.
RESPONSE NO. 28-81 The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology published by the SCAQMD does not require a map or other means of identifying all areas where LSTs would potentially be exceeded. According to SCAQMD guidance (Final June 2003: Localized Significance Threshold Methodology), “LSTs are derived based on the location of the activity (i.e., the source/receptor area), the emission rates of NOX, CO, and PM10, and the distance to the nearest exposed individual.” (page 1-2). However, since the evaluation conducted in support of the Draft EIR includes refined dispersion modeling, this information can be found in Appendix B-1, including data showing localized concentrations of criteria pollutants for the area adjacent to the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-82 7. (p.275) Construction impacts must include construction of necessary infrastructure, including a new water line and roadway improvements.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-303 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-82 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-8 for a discussion regarding infrastructure improvements required for the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-83 8. (p. 278) What trip length was assumed in calculating mobile emissions?
RESPONSE NO. 28-83 The off-site construction haul route was assumed to encompass 20 miles round trip from the project site to the haul site. This distance originates from the URBEMIS air quality model recommended for use by SCAQMD that includes a default distance of 20 miles where the specific destination for hauling has not been determined. Please refer to Appendix B-1 of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-84 9. (p. 280) While individual generators would be required to meet SCAQMD requirements, use of generators when combined with other activities on-site could result in a significant cumulative impact. This must be addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 28-84 Because the on-site diesel generators would be operated for a maximum of two hours per month for routine testing and maintenance purposes, and for a maximum of 200 hours per year for emergency purposes (due to power loss), they are expected to result in minimal emissions individually and collectively. The maximum daily emissions from these generators would occur during a day-long power outage, which would force the cessation of retail activities and curtailment of non-essential power usage in the residential units. Thus, emissions from stationary and area sources would be reduced. Therefore, combining concurrent emissions from day-long emergency generator usage with other onsite operational activities would result in emissions substantially lower than those shown in the Draft EIR for a typical operational day.
COMMENT NO. 28-85 10. (p. 287) Absent information regarding other growth in the subregion, one cannot conclude that the proposed project will not result in growth levels inconsistent with regional plans. Simply assuming no impact because the proposed project would only constitute a small percent of anticipated growth in erroneous, as one does not know whether only a few other development would result in similar growth levels or hundreds.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-304 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-85 Per Section IV.G, Land Use, “The project would be consistent with the General Plan Framework Long-Range Land Use Diagram, which identifies the project site as a Regional Center targeted for high-density growth and economic development. The Framework also states that development of Regional Center sites integrating housing with commercial uses is encouraged in concert with supporting services, open space, and amenities. The proposed density is within the allowable density for the site, with approval of the requested CCNSP amendment to expand the definition of “Shopping Center” to include 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West, and treat all three properties as a unified site”. Since the project is consistent with allowable density for the project site, using percentages of the projected growth increment published in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) illustrates compliance with regional growth projections. The RTP does take into account other developments in the annual growth factors, which are included in this analysis. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6 for SCAG's concurrence regarding the consistency of the project with growth projections.
COMMENT NO. 28-86 11. (p. 297-298) Measures designed to reduce emissions, such as a prohibition on engine idling and recycling must be included in mitigation monitoring programs.
RESPONSE NO. 28-86 The Draft EIR erroneously listed 10 minutes as the time limit on idling of diesel- powered vehicles, although the state law limits the time to 5 minutes. The mitigation measure has been revised to include the stricter state standard. Refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions of the Draft EIR. Because this is an Airborne Toxic Control Measure with state-wide applicability, operators and drivers of vehicles to which this law applies are required to comply with the law and the Applicant expects compliance with this mitigation measure to be easily achieved. In addition, the Applicant will communicate this requirement to employees, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and visitors as warranted, using appropriate means such as signage, verbal instruction, or contract documentation.
COMMENT NO. 28-87 12. (p. 299) Vehicle idling for more than ten minutes must also be prohibited for delivery and service vehicles in the operational phase of the project as well.
RESPONSE NO. 28-87 As noted above in Response to Comment No. 28-86, idling of diesel-powered vehicles will be limited to five minutes. Because this is an Airborne Toxic Control Measure with state- wide applicability, operators and drivers of vehicles to which this law applies will be told of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-305 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
these compliance requirements, and the Applicant will monitor and enforce compliance with this requirement as necessary.
COMMENT NO. 28-88 13. (p. 297) Where localized significance thresholds will be exceeded in residential areas, provision must be made for temporary, voluntary relocation of sensitive individuals such as children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems.
RESPONSE NO. 28-88 Project features and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, such as controlling exhaust emissions, enhanced dust control measures, and limiting idling time provide more meaningful reductions of potentially harmful pollutant levels for all nearby residents, rather than voluntarily relocating concerned citizens. In addition to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR and those outlined in Response to Comment No. 13-7, the following are proposed to further reduce emissions:
Mitigation Measure B-12: The applicant shall install shaker plates at construction site exits, to minimize dirt track out and dust generation.
Mitigation Measure B-13: The Applicant shall operate street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1 on roads adjacent to the construction site in a nearly continuous manner so as to minimize dust emissions. Paved parking and staging areas shall be swept daily.
Mitigation Measure B-14: An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to each construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Any reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt.
These additional mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. It should be noted that emission estimates contained in the Draft EIR do not account for the efficacy of these enhanced control strategies.
COMMENT NO. 28-89
Historic Resources As noted on Page 323, an adverse change to a historic resource would result from alteration of the resource or its surroundings. The DEIR examines only structures on the project site. The
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-306 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
EIR must examine how the proposed project may affect the historic context of historic resources in the area, including those recognized by the City of Los Angeles in the West Los Angeles and Westwood Community Plan Areas.
RESPONSE NO. 28-89 The project site is not located within the Westwood Community Plan. As such, no analysis regarding the project's impact on historical resources within the context of the Westwood Community Plan is necessary. The project site is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan. As stated therein, there are no designated City Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Community. However, the Tongva or Serra Springs located at University High School, approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the project site, is listed as California Historical Landmark No. 522. This landmark is associated with Explorer Gaspar de Portola who camped at a village on the site known as Kuruvungna, meaning "a place in the sun," in 1769, traveling the route that became known as the Camino Real. Construction of University High School in 1925 unearthed evidence of an Indian Village at this site. In addition, the spring was also the former water supply for the town of Santa Monica. It received its names from the Tongva Indians who occupied the site, and from Father Junipero Sera who is believed to have said mass there. Due to the distance of the New Century Plan site and intervening development, including the I-405 Freeway, the proposed project would have no impact on this resource.
In addition, PCR conducted a cultural resources records search at the CHRIS South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. A review of survey data collected and evaluated indicates that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been identified within the project site. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area, and the entire site has been subject to ground disruption and development over the years.
COMMENT NO. 28-90
Geology and Soils 1. (p. 343) What will be the depth of excavation for the garage below grade, in feet?
RESPONSE NO. 28-90 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-26.
COMMENT NO. 28-91 2. (p. 343) What is the planned finished floor elevation at 1930 Century Park West?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-307 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-91 See Figure II-4 in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR which shows an enlarged portion of the 1930 Century Park West garage elevation as well as the elevation notes.
COMMENT NO. 28-92
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. (p. 355) Why has no sampling for lead based paint yet been conducted?
RESPONSE NO. 28-92 Although lead based sampling has not yet been conducted, Mitigation Measure E-3 requires that a survey be conducted before the issuance of demolition permits. If lead based paint is found, all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal will be implemented.
COMMENT NO. 28-93 2. (p. 362) In light of concerns regarding methane raised in the Playa Vista area, is compliance with City regulations adequate to ensure no adverse impacts? How will it be ensured that regulations are implemented?
RESPONSE NO. 28-93 The Draft EIR has thoroughly analyzed potential methane hazard impacts associated with the New Century Plan. As discussed in the Hazards Technical Report, located in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, a methane soil gas testing was performed at multiple locations within and surrounding the project site in 2007, in accordance with the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Methane Mitigation Standards. Testing at 1801 Avenue of the Stars and the southwest corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Century Park West did not detect methane gas (Hazards Technical Report, page 4-1). Testing at 1930 Century Park West detected some methane gas concentrations at a depth lower than the depth of the current parking structure (Hazards Technical Report, page 4-1). Ambient methane gas levels within the lowest level of the current parking structure did not indicate values within detectable limits (Hazards Technical Report, page 4-1). Nonetheless, to ensure the protection of construction workers at the site, Mitigation Measure E-4 requires the implementation of Cal-OSHA worker safety regulations in order to preclude an exposure to unsafe levels of soil gases, such as methane. Thus, the New Century Plan should result in no significant hazards impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-308 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-94 3. (p. 363) Is it planned that excess groundwater will be conveyed to the storm drain or the sanitary sewer? Where does excess groundwater go currently?
RESPONSE NO. 28-94 As noted in Section IV.D, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, currently a dewatering system in the form of a subdrain system exists beneath the existing basement at 1801 Avenue of the Stars. If the current subdrain system is maintained operational, a new subdrain system may not be required. As noted in Section 7.0 of the Geotechnical Report, supplemental dewatering may be required, but such a determination is premature at this stage, as it will depend on the foundation of the structure.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 45 feet below the ground surface at 1930 Century Park West, which is at a depth lower than the planned finished floor elevation at this location. Therefore, a dewatering system to convey groundwater is not likely to be required at this location.
COMMENT NO. 28-95 4. (p. 363) Is excess groundwater on the site of suitable quality for landscape use? If so, why is it being discharged to the sewers?
RESPONSE NO. 28-95 The groundwater at the project site flows at a rate that is insufficient to capture for landscaping use. Moreover, it is likely that the quality of the groundwater may not suitable for landscaping, depending on the minerals present in the groundwater.
COMMENT NO. 28-96
Hydrology and Water Quality 1. (p. 371) How will on-site drainage facilities retain and/or treat and the [sic] 85th percentile storm event? The EIR must explain, specifically, how this will be achieved.
RESPONSE NO. 28-96 The project will meet the City of Los Angeles Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements of filtering the first flush or ¾ inch rain fall flow and to retain the corresponding volume via a detention storage tank for use throughout the site for landscaping and irrigation purposes.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-309 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-97 2. (p. 377) What opportunity will be afforded the general public as well as local elected decision-makers to comment upon the SWPPP?
RESPONSE NO. 28-97 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-18, above, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be reviewed and approved by the City in order to comply with NPDES requirements. The SWPPP is evaluated by the Bureau of Public Works and Department of Building and Safety based on the standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The BMPs that are proposed to be contained within a SWPPP are described in Response to Comment No. 28-18.
COMMENT NO. 28-98 3. (p. 379) Inasmuch as the DEIR does not indicate which BMPs will be implemented nor indicate how effective a given BMP would be, there is no basis for concluding that implementation of the specific measures would render impacts insignificant.
RESPONSE NO. 28-98 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-18 and Section II, Corrections and Additions, for a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented by the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-99
Land Use In accordance with Guidelines Section 15125(d), an EIR is to discuss any [sic] inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. The DEIR has instead listed policies with which the DEIR argues that the project is compatible, generally failing to identify potential conflicts. These include the following general plan goals and policies which relate to the proposed project and/or surrounding properties that may be affected by development pursuant to the proposed plan:
RESPONSE NO. 28-99 The Draft EIR appropriately includes local and regional policies that are relevant to development of the project site. A detailed analysis of consistency with these policies is provided in Section IV.G. Land Use of the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, the project would be generally consistent with these relevant local and regional policies. SCAG has confirmed general consistency with the regional policies relevant to the project. Refer to the comments
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-310 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments and responses within Letter No. 3 of Section III, Response to Written Comments of this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-100
Century City North Specific Plan: 2g. A project shall be designed to reasonably assure that it will not cast a shadow for more than two hours between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm upon any detached single family dwelling located outside the specific plan area.
RESPONSE NO. 28-100 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-60 regarding shading significance thresholds. As discussed therein and addressed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, the above referenced threshold has been utilized in the shadow analyses prepared for the project. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for additional discussion of shadow impacts affecting the residential neighborhood north of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 28-101
West Los Angeles Community Plan 1-1.1 Protect existing single family residential neighborhoods from new out-of scale development and other incompatible uses. 1-1.2 Promote neighborhood preservation in all residential neighborhoods. …
RESPONSE NO. 28-101 As discussed on pages 416 and 417 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project would support the land use polices of the Communtiy Plan referred to in this comment. Also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 10-6 and 24-1 regarding consistency of the project with with surrounding land uses and expected development patterns.
COMMENT NO. 28-102 Program: In discretionary project approval, the decision-maker should not approve densities in excess of those in adjacent or surrounding neighborhoods.
RESPONSE NO. 28-102 The New Century Plan project site is designated for Regional Commercial uses within the General Plan Framework and the West Los Angeles Community Plan, and has been occupied by a Shopping Center since the mid-1960s. As discussed in Section II, Project
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-311 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Description, the Westfield Century City Shopping Center lies within a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise office buildings, hotels, entertainment and residential uses. Commercial uses are located directly north, east, and south of the site, with single-family and multi-family residential uses to the west separated from the Shopping Center by Century Park West. The New Century Plan is consistent with the West Los Angeles Community Plan’s land use designation for the site and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
COMMENT NO. 28-103 2-2.5 Require that the first floor street frontage of structures, including mixed use projects and parking structures located in pedestrian oriented districts, incorporate commercial uses.
RESPONSE NO. 28-103 The New Century Plan is consistent with Policy 2-2.5 of the West Los Angeles Community Plan. The New Century Plan proposes to include commercial uses throughout the first floor of the Westfield Century Shopping Center, and include commercial uses within at least the first three floors of the residential building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, to strengthen the interaction between pedestrians and Westfield’s street frontage. Additionally, the Santa Monica, Avenue of the Stars, and Constellation street frontages are proposed to comply with the draft Greening and Pedestrian Connectivity Plan for Century City, the goals of which include creating active building entrances facing the street and encouraging new pedestrian oriented programs.
COMMENT NO. 28-104 In addition the following questions and comments must be addressed.
1. (p. 403) What is the purpose of the commercial corner ordinance and why should the proposed project be exempt?
RESPONSE NO. 28-104 As described in Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.03, Commercial Corner Developments include lots located in certain commercial zones, in which the corner lot "adjoins, is separated only by an alley adjacent to, or is located across the street from," a lot zoned as residential. The commercial corner ordinance, LAMC Section 12.22.A.23, sets forth certain requirements and conditions on the uses of Commercial Corner Developments.
The New Century Plan includes a commercially zoned lot, 1930 Century Park West, located across the street from residential zones to the west, which could make the lot subject to the commercial corner ordinance if it were ever developed as a separate parcel. The purpose of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-312 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is clarify that the CCNSP and the New Century Plan’s conditions of approval shall supercede this ordinance at 1930 Century Park West, since the CCNSP and the project’s conditions of approval will include many of the same restrictions on use required by the commercial corner ordinance, such as a 45-foot maximum height restriction and restrictions on illuminated signage visible from adjacent residential uses to the west.
COMMENT NO. 28-105 2. (p. 403) What is the concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses in the vicinity? Does any undue concentration exist? Will a finding of public necessity and convenience be necessary for project implementation?
RESPONSE NO. 28-105 The Shopping Center has an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the on-site sale and service of alcoholic beverages at 18 establishments. Fifteen establishments currently utilize this CUP. Outside the Shopping Center, there are only four establishments which serve alcohol within a 1,000 foot radius. Additionally, adjacent uses provide a very strong demand for restaurant establishments in the Shopping Center which serve alcohol. High- and mid-rise office buildings and hotels -- including the 36-story MGM building, the 39-story SunAmerica building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel -- bound the project site to the south and to the east, creating a dense urban landscape. Commercial uses are located to the north, and single- and multi-family residential buildings are located to the west, north, and south of the project site. New multi-family residential projects to the east and south are currently in the process of being developed. These uses are in close proximity to the project site and will have easy access to the Shopping Center uses, including dining. Thus, there is not an undue concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses in the area.
A number of findings must be made for approval of the CUP for on-site sale and service of alcoholic beverages, including a finding that “the location of the project will be desirable to the public convenience and welfare.”
COMMENT NO. 28-106 3. (pp. 408, 410, 412) While the proposed project and others in Century City make use of pedestrian connections within developments and in raised walkways over the street, placement the plaza level above the street with limited access from the public sidewalk and orientation of commercial uses away from the public street, toward the raised plaza creates not a pedestrian friendly environment, as perceived from the street, but an exclusionary environment designed to separate those in the raised plaza and associated commercial uses from hoi polloi pedestrians and bicyclists on the street. The proposed project must address ways to integrate commercial uses with improved access from the public sidewalk, if it is to be truly pedestrian friendly.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-313 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-106 The New Century Plan is proposed to comply with the draft Greening and Pedestrian Connectivity Plan (the Greening Plan) for Century City, which will be used as the basis for a new Appendix to the CCNSP. The goal of the Greening Plan is to create a better pedestrian environment and experience for Century City, by creating active building entrances facing the street and encouraging new pedestrian oriented programs. The New Century Plan will implement these principles on the Santa Monica Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, and Constellation Boulevard street frontages of the project site, to encourage pedestrian interaction between the Shopping Center and surrounding sidewalks. Additionally, the project will improve the portion of the designated pedestrian corridor running through the Westfield Century City Shopping Center by enhancing the Shopping Center’s open air design, installing new outdoor promenades, plazas and opens spaces. In addition, the project proposes to incorporate new off-site improvements to create a better pedestrian crossing at Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as the creation of a new green linear parkway along the west side of Century Park West that will incorporate new planting and a jogging path.
COMMENT NO. 28-107 4. (p. 408) By what stretch of the imagination is the proposed residential tower not out of scale with the stable residential neighborhood to the north? 5. (p. 408) How is the neighborhood to the north/northwest buffered?
RESPONSE NO. 28-107 The proposed residential building will be constructed in an area designated for Regional Commercial uses and zoned C2-2-O, which imposes no height limits on buildings. Additionally, there are many other high-rise buildings located in the vicinity, including the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica building, and the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers. The residential building will be constructed along a major commercial transportation corridor, Santa Monica Boulevard, and will be surrounded by commercial uses to the south, east and west, and the Los Angeles Country Club directly to the north. While there are single-family residences to the north of the project, they are separated from the proposed residential building by commercial buildings and multi-family uses located on the north side of Santa Monica, and Santa Monica Boulevard, a six-lane highway with a width of well over 200-feet at the intersection of Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars.
The single-family residential neighborhood to the north/northwest of the New Century Plan will be buffered by its distance from the project (approximately 342 feet) and its separation from the project by Santa Monica Boulevard, the northern frontage road, a strip of multi-story commercial uses, and a service alley. For instance, as discussed in the Draft EIR Section IV.H, Noise, “due to a combination of distance and the presence of intervening structures that would serve as noise barriers,” there would be no noise impacts from operation of the New Century
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-314 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Plan at the single-family homes located to the north. Additionally, the impact of illuminated signage within the project would have minimal impacts to these single-family residences due to the distance of these homes from the project (refer to Response to Comment No. 28-73).
COMMENT NO. 28-108 6. (p. 408) How does a roadway provide a buffer?
RESPONSE NO. 28-108 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-43 and 28-107.
COMMENT NO. 28-109 7. (p. 414) Won’t a high rise about looming skyward just under six hundred feet affect the character of the lower density neighborhood to the north/northwest? How can it not?
RESPONSE NO. 28-109 As described throughout the analysis in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid-and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36- story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Furthermore, please refer to Response to Comment No. 10-6 for a discussion of the reduced size project that was considered within the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR.
As discuss above in Response No. 28-107, given the distance between the project site and the single-family residential neighborhood to the north and northwest, as well as the proposed project’s consistency with existing uses in Century City, the residential building would not affect the character of the neighborhood. For a discussion of the proposed project's shading impacts on this area, please refer to Topical Response No. 11.
COMMENT NO. 28-110 8. (p. 406) What is the distance, in feet, between the nearest residence in the area to the north/northwest and the proposed project?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-315 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-110 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-43 and 28-107. The horizontal distance from the project’s parcel-line along Santa Monica Boulevard to the nearest single-family residential parcel is approximately 342-feet. According to the City of Los Angeles’ topographic maps, the project site is also 25 to 30 feet vertically below the elevation of those same residential properties.
COMMENT NO. 28-111 9. (p. 406) What is the distance, in feet, between the nearest single family residence in the area to the north/northwest and the proposed project?
RESPONSE NO. 28-111 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-110.
COMMENT NO. 28-112 10. (p. 417) Absent information regarding other growth in the West Los Angeles area, one cannot conclude that the proposed project will not result in growth levels inconsistent with the adopted plan. Simply assuming no impact because the proposed project would only constitute a small percent of anticipated growth is erroneous, as one does not know whether only a few other developments would result in similar growth levels or hundreds.
RESPONSE NO. 28-112 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-2 regarding the project's consistency with population and housing projections.
COMMENT NO. 28-113 11. (p. 420) The Family Lounge already exists and is not a part of the proposed project. The EIR must address the project itself. Will the proposed residential use be family friendly or geared toward adults? Will any new public amenities at all be provided in the project?
RESPONSE NO. 28-113 The residential component of the proposed project is not exclusive to any one type of lifestyle (i.e., singles, families, empty-nesters). The proposed residential units would range in size from two to five bedrooms and therefore, could accommodate any of these lifestyles. However, data from the census tract in which the project site is located shows that the age of the household heads in owner-occupied units in the project area is skewed heavily in the direction of over 55 years of age. Thus, occupants of the project's residential units are likely to include a large number of older residents or "empty nesters."
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-316 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Renovation and/or redevelopment within the Shopping Center would provide new outdoor promenades, plazas, and open spaces for use by the public. It is also anticipated that family-friendly facilities would also be provided as part of the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-114 12. (p. 422) The EIR must present existing and proposed square footage and FARs for each of the three, currently separate building lots.
RESPONSE NO. 28-114 The existing buildings on 1930 Century Park West and 1801 Avenue of the Stars were constructed before the CCNSP Ordinance was passed in 1981, therefore they are not required to abide by the CCNSP’s FAR limitations. Nonetheless, the FAR for these sites are within the CCNSP’s FAR limits of 6:1 for those areas within the Core Area, which includes 1801 Avenue of the Stars, and 4.5:1 for those areas within the Buffer Area, which includes 1930 Century Park West. The Shopping Center parcel spans both the Core and Buffer Areas.
The FAR for the existing 1801 Avenue of the Stars site is approximately 2.8:1; this is calculated by dividing the 298,718 square foot existing building by the 105,232 square foot lot area. This FAR is within the CCNSP’s 6:1 FAR limit. The existing FAR for the 1930 Century Park West property is approximately 2:1; this is calculated by dividing the 62,246.5 square foot existing building by the 32,827.2 square foot lot. This is within the CCNSP’s 4.5:1 FAR limit for the Buffer Area. The existing FAR of the Shopping Center is approximately 1:1; this is calculated by dividing the total existing floor area of the site, 833,393 square feet, by the lot area, 814,807.2 square feet.
The New Century Plan proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to extend the definition of the Shopping Center site to include 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West, and permit the transfer of floor area and density within the site as a whole. As discussed in the Draft EIR Section IV.G, Land Use, the Core Area of the project (i.e. the central and eastern portions of the site) would have a post-project FAR of 2.8:1, and the Buffer Area (i.e. the western portion of the site along Century Park West) would have a FAR of 1.1:1. The overall site would have a FAR of 2.4:1. Thus, the New Century Plan would be consistent with the FAR limitations of the Century City North Specific Plan.
COMMENT NO. 28-115 The EIR must clearly indicate how much development, in square feet, will be transferred.
13. (p. 422) Will the lots within the unified site from which development is transferred be deed restricted?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-317 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-115 The Shopping Center is currently defined by the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) as Parcel A of Parcel Map No. 3784. Floor area and density can currently be transferred within the existing Shopping Center site. The proposed CCNSP amendment would add two parcels, 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West, to the definition of the Shopping Center site. Following the adoption of that amendment, floor area and density could be transferred within the redefined Shopping Center site, between these three parcels. Deed restrictions are not required because to ensure accurate accounting and use of floor area and density within the Shopping Center, the utilization of floor area within the Shopping Center will be documented through the recording of a covenant against the site, approved by the City. Moreover, the CCNSP's requirement that a project have sufficient CATGP Trips before any construction is permitted is an additional protection against overdevelopment. Like the use of floor area, the utilization of CATGP Trips will also be documented in a covenant recorded against the site and approved by the City.
COMMENT NO. 28-116 14. (p. 432) Absent information regarding other growth in the West Los Angeles area, one cannot conclude that the proposed project will not result in growth levels inconsistent with the adopted plan. Simply assuming no impact because the proposed project would only constitute a small percent of anticipated growth is erroneous, as one does not know whether only a few other developments would result in similar growth levels or hundreds.
RESPONSE NO. 28-116 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-2.
COMMENT NO. 28-117 15. (p. 441) Absent information as to the specific location and height, in feet, of the other buildings referenced in the area, one cannot conclude that the proposed project would be in scale with the surrounding area.
RESPONSE NO. 28-117 As discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 above, the height of the proposed residential tower would be comparable to other nearby high-rises. In addition, please refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for Figure II-2 that illustrates the heights of surrounding high-rises in the area. Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid- and high-rise buildings, and as such, the development of additional high- rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-101, the project would be consistent in scale with the surrounding area. Refer to Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-318 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-118 16. (p. 441) Does the proposed residential tower not exceed the height of any existing buildings? Which ones?
RESPONSE NO. 28-118 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 regarding building heights. In addition, please refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for Figure II-2 that illustrates the heights of surrounding high-rises in the area.
COMMENT NO. 28-119 17. (p. 441) Wouldn’t it make more sense to place the high rise building further south, where is actually would be in the core of the regional center, rather than at the very northerly edge of the site?
RESPONSE NO. 28-119 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-7 and 24-1 regarding building heights and the suggestion to locate the proposed residential tower further to the south. As discussed therein, unlike the northeasterly portion of the site, the southerly area of the project site is not zoned for high-rise development.
COMMENT NO. 28-120 18. (p. 441) Why is a height transition zone provided to the west but not to the north?
RESPONSE NO. 28-120 The proposed maximum building heights conform to land use limitations required by the current zoning designations for the site specified in the Century City North Specific Plan. Specifically, three height districts apply to the project site: Height District No. 2 along the eastern side of the site allows for unlimited building height and stories; Limited Height District No. 1 (1L) in the central portion of the site restricts building heights to a maximum of 75 feet and 6 stories; and Very Limited Height District No. 1 (1VL) in the western portion restricts building heights to a maximum of 45 feet and three stories as measured from the Shopping Center’s plaza level. With approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would allow the heights of all buildings within the project site to be measured from the Shopping Center’s plaza level (consistent with the current requirements of the 1VL Height zone), the project would be consistent with these limitations that provide a transition in heights across the project site.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-319 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-121
Noise 1. (p. 464) Measures designed to reduce noise must be included in mitigation monitoring programs to ensure implementation.
RESPONSE NO. 28-121 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and is included as Section IV of this Final EIR. The MMRP includes measures to mitigate noise.
COMMENT NO. 28-122 2. (p. 467) Would construction vehicles be permitted to utilize Century Park West?
RESPONSE NO. 28-122 As discussed in Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, use of Century Park West during construction would be limited and would generally occur during Phase B, which includes construction of a new parking facility at 1930 Century Park West. Century Park West would not be used for construction truck staging during excavation.
COMMENT NO. 28-123 3. (p. 482) The construction relations officer must be available 24/7 and not just nine to five on weekdays.
RESPONSE NO. 28-123 Mitigation Measure H-5, as indicated in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR, specifies that a construction team will be provided to serve as a liaison with the surrounding property owners. The construction team would be available during construction hours. During non-working hours, an automated recording would be available.
COMMENT NO. 28-124 4. (p. 482) All construction vehicles, not just haul trucks, must be prohibited from using Century Park West or Beverly Glen Boulevard.
RESPONSE NO. 28-124 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a description of the proposed haul routes. Use of Century Park West for primary construction staging during excavation is not proposed. Use of Century Park West during construction would be limited and would generally occur
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-320 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
during Phase B, which includes construction of a new parking facility at 1930 Century Park West.
Beverly Glen Boulevard may also be used by some construction worker vehicles. However, given the proximity of this roadway to the project site, heavy use of this roadway by construction vehicles is not expected. In addition, this roadway is not included within the proposed haul route.
COMMENT NO. 28-125
Public Services 1. (p. 486) What density of commercial development would be considered “high density”?
RESPONSE NO. 28-125 The Fire Code identifies high-density as principal business districts or centers. The project is considered to be a high-density development.
COMMENT NO. 28-126 2. (p. 486) Aren’t automatic sprinklers normally required for high density development?
RESPONSE NO. 28-126 As discussed in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Division 118 (Sec. 57.118.11) and LAFD Standard No. 59, the project would include an automatic sprinkler system throughout the residential and commercial buildings and subterranean garage area.
COMMENT NO. 28-127 3. (p. 489) Although the edge of the project site is approximately 1.4 miles from the nearest fire station, isn’t the residential tower over 1.5 miles from the fire station? What are the implications?
RESPONSE NO. 28-127 As stated in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR, the project site is located approximately 1.4 miles from the nearest fire station when measured from 10250 Santa Monica Boulevard. This distance was conservatively adjusted in the Draft EIR. Specifically, based on correspondence from the LAFD, the project site is located approximately 1.0 miles from Fire Station No. 92 when measured from 1930 Century Park West. The residential tower at 1801 Avenue of the Stars would also be approximately 1.4 miles away from Fire Station No. 92. The LAFD has concluded that this is an acceptable distance from the nearest fire station and is within the recommended maximum response distance of 1.5 miles. Therefore,
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-321 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
there are no implications with respect to the project site's distance from the nearest fire station and the analysis provided in Section IV.I.1 of the Draft EIR is accurate.
COMMENT NO. 28-128 4. (p. 491) Distance between the residential tower, specifically, and local fire stations must be shown on Table 39.
RESPONSE NO. 28-128 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-127 for a discussion regarding the distance from the residential tower to the closest fire station.
COMMENT NO. 28-129 5. (p. 491) Are any of the listed fire stations equipped with equipment designed for fighting high rise fires? If so, what equipment is provided?
RESPONSE NO. 28-129 The equipment of the three fire stations located within the vicinity of the project site is listed on page 491 in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR. As stated therein, Fire Station No. 92 is equipped with a truck and engine company, fire engine, and paramedic rescue ambulance; Fire Station No. 71 is equipped with a fire engine and paramedic rescue ambulance; and Fire Station No. 37 is equipped with a truck and engine company, fire engine, and paramedic rescue ambulance. The project site lies within a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise office buildings, hotels, entertainment, and residential uses. Thus, the Fire Department has the equipment in place for fighting high-rise fires. In addition, project features, including a rooftop emergency helicopter landing facility on top of the proposed tower at the northeast corner of the project site, would further reduce impacts with regards to fire protection and emergency medical services.
COMMENT NO. 28-130 6. (p. 496) What portion of anticipated incidents would be for fire incidents and what portion would be calls for emergency medical assistance?
RESPONSE NO. 28-130 As stated in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR, the conclusion that the residential component of the proposed project could potentially generate 41 additional incidents per year was calculated by dividing the number of annual incidents for Fire Station No. 92 (2,701 incidents) by the population of the district (36,767 persons), and then multiplying this amount by the number of project-generated residents (553 residents). This same method can be applied to calculate how many of these 41 incidents would be basic life support emergency
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-322 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
medical service (EMS) incidents, advanced life support EMS incidents, and fire incidents. Utilizing the information provided in Table 40 of the Draft EIR, it can be calculated that implementation of the project would generate 7.1 basic life support EMS incidents, 21.4 advanced life support EMS incidents, and 12.1 fire incidents, for a total of 41 incidents per year.
COMMENT NO. 28-131 7. (p. 496) What would be the response time to the residential tower, not just the southerly perimeter of the entire project site?
RESPONSE NO. 28-131 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-45 for a discussion of the factors considered by the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) in determining impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services.
COMMENT NO. 28-132 8. (p. 496, 497) The DEIR must address the impacts of construction of the new, twelve inch water line in Constellation Boulevard.
RESPONSE NO. 28-132 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-8.
COMMENT NO. 28-133 9. (p. 496) How can it be stated that emergency response would not fall below acceptable levels, i.e. 5 minutes, when it already slightly exceeds five minutes?
RESPONSE NO. 28-133 The emergency response time for fire incidents for Fire Station 92 is 5.2 minutes. Five minutes is the generally accepted timeframe for emergency response. As discussed in Section IV.I.1 of the Draft EIR and in Response to Comments No. 11-45, based on numerous factors set forth by the Fire Department, the project will not result in significant impacts associated with fire protection and emergency response. Furthermore, all on-site security personnel are trained in both first aid and CPR on an annual basis and are also trained on how to use automated external defibrillator (AED) machines, and thus would be able to provide medical assistance until LAFD units arrived. In addition, the proposed project would generate revenues that could be used to help meet the capital outlay required to maintain fire protection services. The development of the project would also replace older buildings with new buildings that would comply with the LAMC Fire Code, the Los Angeles General Plan, the General Plan
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-323 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Safety Element, and all other applicable ordinances and requirements. Thus, impacts with respect to fire protection and emergency response would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-134 10. (p. 497) The DEIR states that the project’s impact on fire protection and emergency medical services would be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, none of the proposed mitigation measures address emergency medical services. How would impacts be mitigated?
RESPONSE NO. 28-134 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-17 for a discussion of how emergency medical services are included in the mitigation measures provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-135 11. (p. 499) Inasmuch as the DEIR did not even calculate the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services which would be generated by commercial uses, nor was any information provided regarding staffing levels, nor were any measures identified for the mitigation of impacts on emergency medical services, it cannot be stated that no significant impacts on fire and emergency medical services would occur.
RESPONSE NO. 28-135 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-17 for a discussion of how emergency medical services are included in the analysis as well as the mitigation measures provided in Section IV.I.1, Fire Protection, of the Draft EIR. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 11-45 for a discussion of how the conclusion of less than significant impacts to fire protection services was made based on the analysis prepared in consultation with the Fire Department.
COMMENT NO. 28-136 12. (p. 508) How will construction of the water line in Constellation Blvd. affect emergency access?
RESPONSE NO. 28-136 LADWP is expected to be responsible for construction of the water line along Constellation Boulevard. The City's standard practice during such construction will be to ensure that adequate emergency access remains available along Constellation Boulevard. Furthermore, as DWP has indicated that construction of the 12-inch water line in Constellation Boulevard would be completed in approximately three to four weeks, impacts would be short lived.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-324 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-137 13. (p. 532) On what basis is it determined that a one percent increase in demand for library services would create no impact? The EIR must provide information as to current service levels, based on recognized performance standards developed by such groups as the American Library Association. These include books, facility size, staffing and other factors.
RESPONSE NO. 28-137 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-13 regarding the analysis of the project's impact on library services.
COMMENT NO. 28-138 14. (p. 532) Impacts on other library facilities mentioned must be examined on both a project specific and cumulative basis.
RESPONSE NO. 28-138 As stated in Section IV.I.4, Libraries, of the Draft EIR, the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) has identified the Westwood Branch Library and the Palms–Rancho Park Branch Library as the library facilities that would serve the Century City area, including the project site. As such, the analysis of both project and cumulative impacts on library facilities was focused on these two libraries. While Section IV.I.4 identified additional library facilities in the project vicinity that would further reduce the project’s demand on the Westwood Branch and the Palms-Rancho Park Branch Libraries, as these libraries are not anticipated to be the primary sources of library services for the project site, a detailed analysis of these additional libraries is not necessary.
COMMENT NO. 28-139 15. (p. 533) On what basis is it assumed that other projects would implement measures to reduce impacts on library services, when the proposed project would not? The proposed residential portion of the project is fairly large compared to most of the other residential projects listed on pages 146-151.
RESPONSE NO. 28-139 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-15 regarding the analysis of the cumulative impact on library services.
COMMENT NO. 28-140 16. (p. 540) What specific recreation amenities will be provided on-site? Will active recreation facilities be provided?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-325 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-140 The residential component of the project would include recreational facilities and open space for building tenants, including a fitness room, and a rooftop terrace with lawn and planted garden areas, as well as an outdoor lap pool. Additional amenities such as common activity/multi-purpose rooms would also be provided to serve project residents. Renovation and/or redevelopment within the Shopping Center would provide new outdoor promenades, plazas, and open spaces for use by the public. It is also anticipated that family-friendly facilities would also be provided as part of the project.
COMMENT NO. 28-141 17. (p. 542) The EIR must address demand for public park space generated by the proposed project. The EIR must address the types of facilities that are typically provided only at a public park, such as ballfields.
RESPONSE NO. 28-141 Section IV.I.5, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, states that the analysis of parks and recreation impacts was based on comparing the park and open space ratio associated with the project to the standards set forth by the Quimby Act, the Public Recreation Plan (PRP), and the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). To be consistent with the standards set forth in the regulatory guidance documents, the analysis of impacts was based on the acreage of open space available per the project’s estimated residential population. The proposed project would essentially provide its residents with a “neighborhood park” totaling approximately 46,000 square feet (1.05 acres) that is customized to the type of residential development proposed. Based on the estimated number of residents generated by the project (553 residents), the project would exceed the City’s short- and intermediate-range standards for neighborhood parks as well as the open space requirements set forth in LAMC Section 12.21 and 17.12. However, this area would not be dedicated to the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, mitigation has been proposed to ensure that through the provision of on-site recreational amenities and open space areas as a credit against the dedication of open space, payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of these methods, the project would comply with the maximum requirements established under the Quimby Act. With this mitigation measure, impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-142 18. (p. 542) The DEIR calculates need only for neighborhood park land. Need for community parkland must also be addressed.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-326 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-142 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-141. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I.5- 1 would ensure that through the provision of on-site recreational amenities and open space areas, payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of these methods, the project would comply with the parks and recreational requirements set forth by State law. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-143 19. (p. 545) The EIR assumes that compliance with park dedication requirements will mitigate cumulative impacts. However, the City’s park dedication ordinance is structured in a manner that generally guarantees that required dedications or in-lieu fees will not be adequate to provide for anticipated need. The park dedication or in-lieu fees stipulated in Section 17.12.B of the Zoning Code are on a sliding scale that, even at the highest dedication requirement falls short. AS an example, for projects at a density of 100 or more dwelling units per acre, the required parkland or equivalent fee is 32 percent of lot area. As detailed on page 543, for the 2.41 acre residential portion of the project site, this equates to .77 acres. The EIR anticipates that the project would generate a need for 1.1 acres of neighborhood parkland. The EIR does not calculate need for community park, but as the desired ratio is the same as for neighborhood parkland 1.1 acres of community park land would also be needed, for a total of 2.2 acres of park land needed. Thus dedication requirements fall short of need based on the parkland ratios identified in the DEIR itself.
RESPONSE NO. 28-143 Although the project’s provision of on-site open space would help reduce the need for project residents to use community parks in the area, project residents would still be expected to utilize community park amenities including sports fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and children’s play areas. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure I.5-1 in the Draft EIR would ensure that the proposed project would comply with the parks and recreational requirements set forth by State law. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-141 and 28-142.
COMMENT NO. 28-144 20. (p. 543) The proposed project includes a request to treat all of the three areas comprising the project site as a unified site. Thus, park dedication should be calculated based on the whole site, not just a fragment thereof. Development of 262 dwelling units within the total 22-acre site results in a residential density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre. At that density, 7.8 percent of a project site is to be dedicated for parks per LAMC 17.12.B. This equates to 1.7 acres of land or in-lieu fees, which still falls short of the 2.2 acres needed but is less inadequate.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-327 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-144 Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 17.12.B states that the area of land within a subdivision required to be dedicated for park and recreation purposes shall be based on the “percentage of gross subdivision area” of the project. Since the area to be subdivided for residences is approximately 2.41 acres, it is appropriate to base the project’s park dedication on a percentage of this acreage, not a percentage of the entire 22-acre Shopping Center.
COMMENT NO. 28-145
Traffic and Circulation The DEIR traffic study is based on the assumption that trip generation from the project will be nearly a quarter less than that for similar uses generating traffic at standard rates. Specifically, a fifteen percent reduction for transit use is assumed and a further ten percent reduction for passby trips is taken. It is not clear, however, whether or not traffic generation rates stipulated in the West Los Angeles Traffic Improvement and Mitigation Plan (TIMP) may already include factors to account for transit use and passby trips. The EIR must present impacts for a worst case condition under which the transit and passby trip reductions do not occur.
RESPONSE NO. 28-145 As this comment essentially restates detailed comments contained under the Traffic and Circulation section of the comment letter, please refer to Response to Comment No. 4-3 for a detailed discussion regarding the transit reduction employed in the Draft EIR traffic analysis.
As described in Section 8.1, beginning on page 60, Appendix G within Volume III of Draft EIR, pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the site. In this instance, the adjacent roadways to the project site include Santa Monica Boulevard, Constellation Boulevard, Avenue of the Stars, and Century Park West. The pass-by traffic forecast has been based on criteria set forth in the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation policy on pass-by trips.
The WLA TIMP trip generation rates do not reflect pass-by trip generation. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project were forecast based on trip rates per thousand square feet of development for the Shopping Center and office components of the project, per number of seats provided for the cinema component of the project, and per number of dwelling units for the residential component of the project. In addition to the trip generation forecast for the proposed project (which is essentially an estimate of the number of vehicles that could be expected to enter and exit the site access points), a forecast was made of likely pass-by trips that could be anticipated at the site. Pass-by adjustments have been applied to the A.M.and P.M. peak hour traffic volume forecasts, as well as to the daily traffic volume forecasts, for the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-328 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
existing and proposed Shopping Center components, based on criteria set forth in the LADOT policy on pass-by trips. It is important to note that while LADOT policy on pass-by trips reflects a reduction of ten percent for Shopping Centers of 600,000 square feet or more, pass-by reductions ranging from a low of 16.6 percent and a high of 23.7 percent were calculated using the equations contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, published in 2004. Therefore, it can be concluded that the LADOT policy, which was applied to the trip generation forecasts for the proposed project, is significantly less aggressive than the reductions contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook and results in a more conservative forecast of vehicle trips for the proposed project (i.e., employing the lower pass-by adjustment factor results in higher trip generation forecasts for the project).
COMMENT NO. 28-146 The DEIR almost completely neglects impacts on residential areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard. Overflow parking analyses are limited to areas west of the proposed project. Only one street north of Santa Monica Boulevard is even mentioned in the discussion of cut through traffic. These areas must be fully addressed.
RESPONSE NO. 28-146 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-4 and 13-5 for a detailed discussion of the neighborhood parking intrusion survey conducted within the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association limits and the street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-147 The identified thresholds of significance generally reflect the greater impact created by small increases in traffic as capacity is approached. However, the sliding scale utilized for identification of neighborhood traffic impacts fails to address increased significance of small amounts of traffic for any volume over 3,000 trips per day, utilizing a straight percentage standard instead. Thus, for example, any increase exceeding two hundred trips per day would be considered significant on a street averaging 2,000 ADT, but an increase of four hundred trips would be considered acceptable on a street already overburdened, at 6,000 of 8,000.
This is contrary to the purposes of CEQA. In its repudiation of the comparative ratio approach, the court in Citizens for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated: In the end, the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. [emphasis added] (Citizens for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98), 120, quoting Remy, et al., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (10th ed.1999))
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-329 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The EIR must address the significance of additional trips on neighborhood streets already suffering from cut through traffic in terms of impact on residents, not just utilize a numeric standard that renders greater impacts more acceptable where conditions are already unacceptable. Cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects must be addressed. The EIR must address traffic diversion and calming measures outlined in the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide. The EIR must not treat any neighborhood streets as environmental sacrifice zones.
RESPONSE NO. 28-147 Refer to Response to Comments Nos. 13-4 and 13-5 for a detailed discussion of the neighborhood parking intrusion survey conducted within the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association limits and the street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-148 In addition the following questions and comments must be addressed.
1. (p. 562-566) The LOS presented for some of the intersections appear to be overly optimistic, for example the intersection of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard stated to be operating at LOS A. Could this be a typo?
RESPONSE NO. 28-148 The neighborhood street segment impact analysis, as summarized in Section 14 on pages 128 through 132 in Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, was prepared in accordance with LADOT standards. According to LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies & Procedures, March, 2002, page 10: “A local residential street shall be deemed significantly impacted based on an increase in the projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.” The following threshold criteria have been established:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SEGMENT IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Projected Average Daily Project-Related Traffic With Project (Final ADT) Increase in ADT 0 to 999 16 percent or more of final ADT 1,000 or more 12 percent or more of final ADT 2,000 or more 10 percent or more of final ADT 3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-330 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
In the Comstock HOA area (north of the project site), the following roadway designations/classifications are contained in the City of Los Angeles Circulation Element of the General Plan (Source: Generalized Circulation, West Los Angeles map): 1) Comstock Avenue, Local, 2) Warnall Avenue, Local, 3) Ensley Avenue: Local, 4) Club View Drive; Collector. Section B, Selection/Performance Criteria for Street Designations, page 77 of the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan, adopted in September, 1999 by the City of Los Angeles City Council, indicates a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day for Collector type roadways. While the section does not outline specific carrying capacities for local streets, other jurisdictions generally indicate that volumes up to 2,500 vehicles per day are typical. As shown in Section IV.J, Table 63 on page 609 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, no more than 134 average daily trips is added to any single roadway segment (i.e., Street Segment No. 6, Club View Drive, north of Santa Monica Boulevard). This particular roadway segment is classified as a Collector which pursuant to the General Plan has a carrying capacity of up to 10,000 vehicles per day. Finally, it is important to note that pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, a project is not required to mitigate any existing identified deficiencies.
COMMENT NO. 28-149 2. (p. 567) Traffic volumes for streets north of Santa Monica Boulevard must also be presented. These include Ensley Avenue, Warnall Avenue, Manning Avenue, and Westholme Avenue.
RESPONSE NO. 28-149 As a point of clarification, Intersection No. 21: Westholme Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard was included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis and was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Refer to Figures 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4, pages 57 through 59 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR for a presentation of the existing A.M, P.M. and weekend peak hour traffic volumes. Three street segments along Manning Avenue were also included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Street Segment Location No. 2: Manning Avenue south of Pico Boulevard, Street Segment Location No. 3: Manning Avenue west of Motor Avenue, and Street Segment Location No. 4: Manning Avenue east of Motor Avenue) and were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. In addition, two intersections along Manning Avenue were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (i.e., Intersection No. 18: Manning Avenue/Pico Boulevard and Intersection No. 19: Motor Avenue/Manning Avenue) and were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Refer to Figures 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4, pages 57 through 59 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR for a presentation of the existing AM, P.M. and weekend peak hour traffic volumes at these locations.
As part of the Final EIR and based on several public comments regarding existing traffic volumes along roadways north of Santa Monica Boulevard within the Comstock HOA, recent 24-hour (automatic) directional traffic counts were conducted of all roadways leading into or
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-331 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
out of the Comstock HOA. Copies of these data are contained in Appendix A6 of the Final EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 13-4 for a detailed discussion of the segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR, associated roadway carrying capacities based on various street designations, as well as current average daily traffic volumes along the local roadways of Warnall Avenue and Ensley Avenue.
COMMENT NO. 28-150 3. (p. 567) The traffic volumes presented for neighborhood street segments appear relatively high for neighborhood streets. What would be a typical volume for a quiet residential street, not subject to cut through traffic?
RESPONSE NO. 28-150 Refer to Response to Comment 13-4 for a detailed discussion of the segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR and associated roadway carrying capacities based on various street designations.
COMMENT NO. 28-151 4. (p. 567) What would be a typical volume for a neighborhood collector not subject to cut through traffic?
RESPONSE NO. 28-151 Refer to Response to Comment No. 13-4 for a detailed discussion of the segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR and associated roadway carrying capacities based on various street designations.
COMMENT NO. 28-152 5. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) Based on the notes for Tables D-1, D-1A and D-2 in the traffic study appendices, peak hour trip generation rates were interpolated from the West Los Angeles TIMP Specific Plan. Appendix A to the WLATIMPSP (p. A-1) shows a generation rate of .55 trips per condominium dwelling unit and .49 trips per apartment unit. However, according to footnote 7 to each of the tables, the DEIR traffic analysis is based on only .38 trips per dwelling unit. Why was this lower rate utilized, contrary to the Specific Plan?
RESPONSE NO. 28-152 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for a discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast. The trip generation rates and forecast was reviewed and accepted by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Through the scoping process for the Draft EIR traffic analysis, the characteristics of the proposed project were carefully
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-332 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
considered and reviewed by the department. The A.M.and P.M. peak hour trip generation forecasts were based on ITE Land Use Code 232 (High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse) average trip generation rates and were determined to be most representative of the characteristics of the residential tower. As no weekend trip rates are provided in the Century City North Specific Plan or West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, weekend average trip rates provided for ITE Land Use Code 232 in the ITE “Trip Generation” publication were used to forecast the weekend peak hour traffic volumes.
Refer also to Response to Comment No. 7-11 for a detailed discussion of site specific trip generation surveys conducted for five other representative condominium towers in the vicinity of the proposed project as well as for comparisons with other recent EIR traffic analyses associated with two other development projects within the City of Beverly Hills.
COMMENT NO. 28-153 6. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) An analysis reflecting the .55 trips per condominium rate must be provided.
RESPONSE NO. 28-153 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-152 for a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the Draft EIR trip generation rates for the residential component of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 28-154 7. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) The traffic study assumes a 15 percent reduction in trip generation due to the proximity of the site to the transit plaza. Has this been achieved anywhere within Los Angeles? If so, where?
RESPONSE NO. 28-154 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for a discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast. The trip generation rates and forecast was reviewed and accepted by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.
As summarized in Section 6.5, beginning on page 43 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, with construction of the MGM Tower building (formerly referred to as the Constellation Place project), a Metro transit area for bus layover operations was designed and constructed at the southeast corner of the Century Park West/Constellation Boulevard intersection. The Metro transit area is situated directly across from the New Century Plan project site. The transit area was designed specifically to accommodate the layover of Metro
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-333 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
buses, as well as other operators. The transit area provides a total of six bus layover positions. Access to the transit area is provided via an inbound only driveway along the east side of Century Park West, south of Constellation Boulevard (i.e., access via northbound right-turns only). Egress from the transit area is provided via an exit only driveway on Constellation Boulevard (i.e., egress via northbound right-turns only). In addition, another three overflow layover transit positions are provided along the east-west segment of MGM Drive between Century Park West and the north-south segment of MGM Drive. Active bus stops are also provided along both the north and south sides of Constellation Boulevard, which borders the project site to the south, as well as other roadways surrounding the site (particularly along the Santa Monica Boulevard frontage). Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided across the east leg of the Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard intersection.
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) includes the definition of a Transit Center as a fixed facility that consolidates and supports passenger loading, including passenger rail stations and major bus transfer centers. Major bus transfer centers are defined as serving at least eight bus lines, including fixed route shuttles and providing a sheltered waiting area, signage with a listing of bus routes to the center, and bus bays restricted to bus use. The CMP also includes the definition of a Transit Corridor as a series of transit nodes where frequent transit activity occurs. A transit node is defined as the intersection of two bus lines or fixed route shuttles, each with evening peak hour headways of ten minutes or less. Within the project study area, the CMP identifies the Avenue of the Stars/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection as a Transit Corridor Intersection. The Century Park East/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection is also identified as a Transit Corridor Intersection in the CMP.
As shown in Table 6-1, pages 38 through 41 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, over 25 bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the project site, with 12 of these transit lines and routes directly serving the site along one or more of the project frontages. A total of seven different public bus transit service providers operate in the immediate vicinity of the project site. For these reasons, it was determined that the CMP transit reduction adjustment of 15 percent was appropriate to incorporate into the project’s commercial trip generation analysis. No transit reduction was applied to the residential component of the project. This reflects similar approaches and trends as those for commercial developments around transit centers and residential mixed-use developments around transit centers. Based on discussions with LADOT and review of the significant number of transit providers, transit routes, transit headways, as well as the integration of the Rapid Bus along the completed Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway, this adjustment was incorporated into the project commercial trip generation forecasts.
Refer also to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for a discussion of the comparative analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR which shows that the actual combined Shopping Center driveway traffic counts are significantly lower than the existing Shopping
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-334 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Center trip generation forecast for the weekday A.M.and P.M. peak hours and the weekend peak hour, even applying both a pass-by and transit reduction to the trip generation forecast. Thus, the project’s forecast trip generation, utilizing the peak hour ITE/WLATIMP trip generation rates, is a very conservative estimate of the project’s actual trip generation.
Further, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has submitted a comment letter (dated April 28, 2008) regarding the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project. SCAG staff has reviewed the project and determined that it is located in an area with existing public transit service and would support alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking. The project was also determined to support growth anticipated in the SCAG forecasts and reduce resident’s long commutes that can adversely impact transportation performance indicators. Therefore, SCAG staff agrees with the consistency finding with the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
COMMENT NO. 28-155 8. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) The traffic analysis assumes a ten percent reduction in trips due to pass-by trips. Wouldn’t trip rates in the WLA TIMP already reflect this?
RESPONSE NO. 28-155 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-146 for a detailed discussion of the pass-by trip reductions employed in the project trip generation forecast contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-156 9. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) Is it reasonable to assume that ten percent of the individuals in a movie theater are there as a result of a passby trip? Has this been documented? Isn’t going to a movie usually a planned, destination type activity?
RESPONSE NO. 28-156 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-146 for a discussion of pass-by trips. Typically, pass-by reductions are applied to Shopping Centers as a whole. As the trip generation forecast contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis for the Shopping Center was prepared to reflect a more conservative approach and thus, separated out the cinemas, the pass-by reduction was appropriately applied to each Shopping Center component. Refer also to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a discussion of the conservative nature of the trip generation forecast, in that it does not account for internal capture (e.g., the interaction between the residential units and the Shopping Center uses).
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-335 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 28-157 10. (p. 577 and Traffic Study Appendices) How would the reductions in calculated trip generation due to the transit plaza and passby trips affect the ability of the City to assess trip fees?
RESPONSE NO. 28-157 Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for discussion of the required Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) Fee associated with the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (TIMP). The funds obtained through this fee will be utilized by the City to construct transportation improvements throughout the plan area.
COMMENT NO. 28-158 11. (p. 577) Will the project be monitored in the future to determine if the assumed reductions have been achieved? What if a lesser proportion of trips utilize transit or occur as passby trips? How will impacts be mitigated?
RESPONSE NO. 28-158 Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for a discussion of the project’s TDM plan and the requirement to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial trip generation during the P.M. peak hour. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels. The Draft EIR conservatively provides, however, for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved. In addition, at each phase of the project the project applicant will be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding, and that they are continuing to fulfill the TDM commitments.
COMMENT NO. 28-159 12. An analysis based on no reduction due to the transit plaza must be presented.
RESPONSE NO. 28-159 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-155 for a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the 15 percent transit reduction employed in the trip generation forecast for the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 28-160 13. An analysis based on no reduction due to passby trips must be presented
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-336 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-160 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 4-3 and 28-146 for a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the 10 percent pass-by reduction employed in the trip generation forecast for the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 28-161 14. (p. 581) A sliding scale must also be utilized for streets with volumes at 4,000, 5,000 and above. Are volumes above 3,000 ADT unusual?
RESPONSE NO. 28-161 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-148 for a discussion of the City of Los Angeles local residential street segment impact threshold criteria and carrying capacities associated with various roadway designations. The Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Transportation) has established the upper sliding scale impact criteria range to be an 8 percent project-related increase in average daily traffic volume for local residential streets carrying 3,000 or more projected total average daily vehicles. The comment regarding the establishment of additional impact criteria for additional traffic volume ADT ranges is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project. Traffic volumes above 3,000 ADT for local roadways is not uncommon throughout the greater Los Angeles region.
COMMENT NO. 28-162 15. (p. 582) Measures designed to reduce construction related impacts must be included in mitigation monitoring programs to ensure implementation.
RESPONSE NO. 28-162 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and is included as Section IV of this Final EIR. The MMRP includes numerous mitigation measures to reduce construction-related impacts. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP).
COMMENT NO. 28-163 16. (p. 614) What is the capacity of existing each transit line serving the site? 17. (p. 614) What is the current ridership of each transit line serving the site? 18. (p. 614) What is the excess capacity, if any, of each existing transit line serving the site? 19. (p. 614) Absent the above information, how can it be concluded that no impact on transit services would occur?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-337 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-163 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-12 for a detailed discussion regarding transit impacts associated with the proposed project. Transit impacts have been concluded to be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 28-164 20. (p. 615) Is February the slowest shopping month? If not, what is? Parking studies for an average month must be provided.
RESPONSE NO. 28-164 The February shared parking demand analysis is provided in the Draft EIR for informational purposes only, so as to demonstrate that during many time periods of the year a substantial surplus in parking is forecast to occur. However, parking for the project will be provided to accommodate the worst case peak parking demand associated with the holiday shopping period (i.e., December period). The Draft EIR includes recommendations to accommodate the forecast peak parking demand, therefore additional review is not required. Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis for additional discussion of the mitigation measures as it relates to project parking.
COMMENT NO. 28-165 21. (p. 616) Parking intrusion in residential areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard must also be examined in the EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 28-165 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-4 and 13-5 for a summary of the neighborhood parking intrusion survey that was conducted as part of the Final EIR for the residential area north of Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 28-166 22. (p. 616) Observations of parking intrusion must start before the start of business in the morning in order to observe employees parking off-site. Many businesses open before 9:00 am, especially office uses.
RESPONSE NO. 28-166 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-4 and 13-5 for a summary of the neighborhood parking intrusion survey that was conducted as part of the Final EIR for the residential area north of Santa Monica Boulevard. As the existing Shopping Center does not contain a large general office component and the Shopping Center is not open prior to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-338 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
10:00 A.M., the parking intrusion surveys were conducted between 9:00 A.M.and 1:00 P.M. and between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. so as to capture the peak arrival times for restaurant employees.
COMMENT NO. 28-167 23. (p. 619, 620) Is each employee forced to purchase a monthly parking contract? What about employees who use transit or bicycle?
RESPONSE NO. 28-167 Based upon information provided by the Applicant, each employee that utilizes their personal vehicle for commute purposes is required to purchase a monthly parking pass. Employees who utilize transit, bicycle or walk are not required to purchase monthly parking passes. In addition, page 628 within Volume I of the Draft EIR contains Mitigation Measure J- 7, which indicates that the Applicant will be required to maintain a parking registration program for the site. As part of the employee parking registration requirement, employees shall sign an acknowledgement that they will not park outside of designated structures and/or assigned areas within structures or other secured parking lots. Refer also to Mitigation Measures J-8 and J-9, also on page 628 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, for additional measures related to project parking.
COMMENT NO. 28-168 24. (p. 620) If parking keycards are non-transferrable how does that affect employees with more than one vehicle? 25. (p. 620) If keycards are non-transferrable, would each member of a carpool be required to purchase a keycard, even though only one vehicle per carpool would be in the garage at any given time? Wouldn’t this discourage carpooling?
RESPONSE NO. 28-168 Pursuant to the requirements in the employee parking contract, each employee is required to provide information about the vehicle(s) that they will utilize to commute to work. The parking keycard is subsequently assigned to an individual employee. In order to prevent multiple entries with the same keycard, the cards must be utilized in an appropriate sequence (i.e., an entry followed by an exit). Additionally, the driver of a carpool is only required to purchase a monthly pass.
COMMENT NO. 28-169 26. (p. 624) Specific intersections which would experience cumulative impacts unless mitigated must be identified. This could easily be achieved by adding extra columns to Table 61 noting the overall V/C change and significance of the impact.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-339 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-169 Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a detailed discussion of cumulative impacts and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 28-170 27. (p. 626) The EIR must examine impacts related to required improvements at the intersection of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard and to the intersection of Westfield Shopping Center Driveway and Santa Monica Boulevard, including construction impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 28-170 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for a discussion of the physical improvements proposed at the Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard and Shopping Center Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard intersections. Construction of these improvements is not anticipated to cause secondary significant impacts. The improvement at Century Park West/Santa Monica Boulevard can be accomplished without roadway widening and the widening proposed at the main Shopping Center driveway at Santa Monica Boulevard can be accomplished on-site as the driveway will be widened to provide an additional existing approach lane to Santa Monica Boulevard. Construction of the improvements is also expected to occur outside of peak hours.
COMMENT NO. 28-171 28. (p. 626) Will additional right-of-way be required to implement the intersection improvements? 29. (p. 626) Would any need for additional right-of-way result in the need to reconfigure project plans?
RESPONSE NO. 28-171 No additional public right-of-way will be required for the construction of the project’s physical improvement measures. The construction of the Shopping Center Driveway/Santa Monica Boulevard improvement will require additional width that is currently owned by the project applicant.
COMMENT NO. 28-172 30. (p. 626) Will the project applicant fully fund the required improvements?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-340 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-172 The project applicant will fully fund the physical improvement measures. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 18-17 and 28-157 for a discussion regarding the Applicant’s requirement to pay the required WLA TIMP TIA Fee prior to issuance of any building permit.
COMMENT NO. 28-173 31. (p. 626) As noted on pate [sic] 121 of the Traffic Study, the overall TDM trip reduction to help mitigate impacts on affected intersection comprises approximately six percent of pm peak hour trips. The study already assumes a 15 percent reduction due to transit use. Is it realistic to anticipate a total decrease of over twenty percent? Has this been achieved elsewhere in Los Angeles? If so, where?
RESPONSE NO. 28-173 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 4-3 and 28-159, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for a discussion of the project’s TDM Plan. In addition, based on the results of the required annual TDM report associated with the MGM Tower office building (formerly referred to as Constellation Place), it has been determined that the building has more than achieved the trip reduction performance standard established in the TDM Plan (i.e., a p.m. peak hour trip reduction of 10 percent). In fact, the MGM Tower office building is generating approximately 50 percent of the PM peak hour traffic volumes established for the building in the TDM Plan (i.e., approximately 400 PM peak hour trips currently [year 2007] compared to the TDM Plan target of 805 PM peak hour trips).
COMMENT NO. 28-174 32. (p. 626) TDM measures appear designed to foster alternate means of transportation, including transit. How would the TDMs affect transit ridership? How many riders would be added? How would this affect the transit system?
RESPONSE NO. 28-174 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-12 for a detailed discussion of anticipated transit ridership increases and current transit ridership as well as Response to Comment No. 28-174 for a discussion of the Transportation Demand Management Plan.
COMMENT NO. 28-175 33. (p. 626) Some of the TDMs are require cooperation from other parties and are beyond the control of the applicant. How, then, can implementation be assumed?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-341 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-175 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-159 and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for a discussion of the project’s TDM plan. For measures to be implemented throughout Century City, the applicant is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) for all of Century City which could develop and deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist with physical improvements to waiting areas and transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver car trips.
COMMENT NO. 28-176 34. (p. 628) Is the proposed off-site parking excess parking under City codes?
RESPONSE NO. 28-176 Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis, for a discussion of project parking and the need for off-site parking.
COMMENT NO. 28-177 35. (p. 628) As an additional mitigation measure, trip generation by the project must be monitored on at least an annual basis until three years after occupancy of all phases. If actual trip generation exceeds that in the EIR, additional mitigation measures must be imposed.
RESPONSE NO. 28-177 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-159 for a detailed discussion of monitoring the project’s trip reduction efforts associated with the TDM Plan.
COMMENT NO. 28-178
Water Supply Water Supply Assessments may make heavy reliance upon adopted Urban Water Management Plans. However, significant changes in water availability have occurred since adoption of the Los Angeles UWMP.
In September 2006, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was ordered to cut Owens Valley pumping to 57,412 acre feet per year, only sixty percent of what DWP had anticipated to pump that year. DWP remains under orders to restore flow in the Owens River and restore Mono Lake, thereby reducing allowable pumping far below estimates in the UWMP. Pumping
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-342 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
from the Sacramento Delta has also been reduced to protect the delta smelt, resulting in a reduction in water available from MWD. Thus, supplies projected in the UWMP will be unavailable.
RESPONSE NO. 28-178 Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR addresses potential impacts to the conclusions contained in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan based on the most current information available to date. As discussed therein, the current Remedial Order from Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. vs. Kempthorne, et al., limiting pumping in the Sacramento Delta, will sunset in September 2008, when a new Biological Opinion concerning the Delta smelt will be issued. Therefore, the current Remedial Order will have no direct impact on the New Century Plan, and it cannot be determined at this time how the new Biological Opinion will impact the amount of water that MWD can pump from the Sacramento Delta. Nonetheless, as the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power receives only approximately one-third of its water from the MWD, and since restoring the Sacramento Delta's water capacity is a high priority for MWD, the Governor, and the California Legislature, MWD’s water supply may be restored to previous levels in the next few years.
Further, the New Century Plan includes a number of water conservation features designed to further reduced the project’s water demand. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-15 for a list of these water conservation measures. In addition, please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for further discussion of water supply. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project accounted for the reduced pumping from the Owens Valley in their analysis.
COMMENT NO. 28-179 The DEIR assumes that because supplies are projected in the UWMP, it can be assumed that water will be available, even though events recounted in the DEIR itself make it unlikely that the projected water supplies will actually be available. The water supply assessment indicates that additional supplies are available from the San Fernando groundwater basin. However, pumping is limited by stipulations in San Fernando v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 650079, designed to prevent overdraft of the basin. In addition, the basin has been contaminated with hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and other volatile organic compounds. Increased pumping from that basin is therefore limited, as noted in the UW0MP.
The assessment must not rely on water that will be unavailable due to environmental issues, legal issues, or contamination. The assessment must also address the Water Shortage Contingency Plan included 00in [sic] the UWMP.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-343 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 28-179 The case cited by the commenter, San Fernando v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 650079 was decided in 1979. The implications of that decision have long been considered by the Department of Water and Power, and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not assume any groundwater pumping beyond that permitted by this decision. For further discussion of the implications of the Remedial Order issued in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. vs. Kempthorne, et al. concerning water pumping in the Sacramento Delta, please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-178.
The UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to provide for a sufficient and continuous supply of water in the event of a water supply shortage. This plan includes restrictions on various types of water use during a water shortage, actions that could be taken by the Metropolitan Water District to augment its water supplies, and consumption reduction methods to be implemented by the Department of Water and Power. The New Century Plan will comply with all of the measures included in the UWMP Water Shortage Contingency Plan that apply to DWP customers. Furthermore, as the UWMP is based upon the General Plan growth potential, the proposed project, which is consistent with the General Plan, is already factored into the UWMP.
Further, the New Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects. For a full list of these water conservation measures, please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-15.
COMMENT NO. 28-180
Alternatives to the Proposed Project The EIR fails to seriously address any alternative that would address some of the most objectionable aspects of the proposed project in addition to traffic: Aesthetic impacts, including altered views, light and glare, and shade and shadow. EIR must consider an alternative which would reduce impacts on residential areas to the north.
The EIR must address creation of a limited height, buffer area at the northerly portion of the site similar to what is provided on the westerly portion of the site. This would require relocation of the residential tower to the southerly edge of the site, further from residential uses north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The City must accord the same consideration to residents north of the site as is accorded those west of the site.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-344 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The EIR must address an alternative which reduces the height of the proposed tower to approximately twenty five to twenty eight stories. An alternative that would include increased setbacks from Santa Monica Boulevard must also be addressed. This could allow greater preservation of on-site trees and would reduce the potential for a tunnel effect as viewed from Santa Monica Boulevard.
RESPONSE NO. 28-180 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
As discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with views or light and glare. Thus, in accordance with CEQA, an alternative that focuses on the issues of views and light and glare is not required to be addressed in an EIR.
As discussed in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Resources of the Draft EIR and summarized in Topical Response No. 11, potential impacts associated with shading would be limited to shading of the golf course during a few months of the year. Specifically, although project generated shading would occur on areas of the golf course that are already shaded during portions of the day by existing buildings, and the shading generated by the project at any given location on the golf course would occur for far less than the three-hour threshold, the project would result in shading of different areas of the golf course for more than three hours during the winter solstice and spring equinox. Thus, it was conservatively assumed that such shading impacts during the winter solstice and spring equinox would be significant. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this impact. Specifically, to eliminate this impact, the residential tower would need to be reduced from the proposed height of 587 feet above grade to approximately 200 feet above grade. As discussed in more detail in Section V, Alternatives, a building of this height would not provide for the program of uses proposed by the project. The inability to provide for the proposed uses, together with the investment that would be necessary to construct a state-of-the-art landmark building, would result in a project that would not be feasible and would not meet the basic project objectives.
Furthermore, as discussed throughout this Final EIR, the project is in full conformance with the City of Los Angeles’ zoning and height limits for the project area. Specifically, the limited height buffer along Century Park West is not a project feature, rather it is an aspect of the site’s specific zoning. A comparison of the linear distance between the higher height limit areas of the project site and the surrounding single-family residential areas demonstrates that such distances are similar to the east and the north. Specifically, along Century Park West, the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-345 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
single-family lots nearly abut the edge of the City right-of-way; thus, combining the approximately 100-foot wide right-of-way with the 210-foot wide strip of land zoned within Height District 1VL yields a buffer of approximately 310 feet between the taller structures on- site and the nearest single-family residences. To the north, the minimum linear, horizontal distance from the project’s parcel edge to the edge of the nearest residentially zoned properties is ever greater at approximately 342 feet.14 This distance includes the total right-of-way for Santa Monica Boulevard (including all carriageways, medians, traffic islands, frontage roads, and sidewalks) as well as the commercially-zoned strip of land and alley fronting on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, the total approximate buffer between the project’s taller elements and the single-family residential areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard is more generous than that along Century Park West.
Please also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-7 and 24-1 above regarding building heights and the suggestion to locate the proposed residential tower further to the south. As discussed therein, the southerly area of the project site is not zoned for high-rise development, nor would a tower in that location be in conformance with the Specific Plan. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-40 regarding tree removal and replacement.
COMMENT NO. 28-181
Conclusion As currently presented, the DEIR is inadequate to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The document must be revised and re-circulated in accordance with Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) (4) in order that the public and decision-makers may be fully informed of the impacts of the proposed project.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments. Please keep me informed regarding the progress of this project, including but not limited to any hearings or release of additional documentation.
RESPONSE NO. 28-181 The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2006. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
14 Distance as per the City of Los Angeles’ Cadastral map 132b157.dxf file downloaded from the NavigateLA server.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-346 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 29
Ms. Jeanne Grant 10569 Kinnard Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 29-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR’s executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacity is available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for all in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 29-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-347 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 30
Chris Hannan [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 30-1 I am writing in response to the proposed New Century Plan (ENV-2006-1914-EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096.
My name is Chris Hannan and I live on Club View Drive. I am also on the board of the Comstock Hill Homeowners Association just north of this proposed project. Since I moved into this neighborhood in 2003, I have watched one project proposed after another from Santa Monica Blvd, to Ave of the Stars to Wilshire/Comstock. This latest prosposed [sic] project noted above needs to be scaled down to eliminate shading on our homes, mitigate traffic, pollution, noise and other density issues that impact us. These are all vital issues. You can not [sic] walk 2 steps in Los Angeles without being told or shown why everyone must think green and do more to protect the environment [sic]. Why does it appear that in this Century City area "think green" means green as in "MONEY" and not the environment, [sic] not to mention the residents.
RESPONSE NO. 30-1 Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR regarding shading impacts. As summarized therein and described in detail in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in any significant shading impacts on residential uses.
As also demonstrated throughout the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include project features and mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to traffic, air quality, and noise (see Subsection 3.b, Project Design Features, and Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, each in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). In addition to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, in order to further reduce construction emissions impacts, additional air quality mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR.
With respect to the green elements of the project, as discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project would be designed and built in accordance with the criteria of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. At a minimum, the project would be designed and constructed to achieve the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-348 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments sustainability. LEED standards would be incorporated through measures that would reduce energy and water usage and thus reduce associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, Air Quality, such measures would include but would not be limited to the following: measures to reduce the project’s heating and cooling loads; use of energy-saving technologies and components to reduce the project’s electrical use-profile and water usage; incorporation of commissioning and energy efficiency audits which are processes that ensure that the project’s lighting, mechanical, heating, cooling, ventilation and other energy and water-consuming systems are operating at their designed levels of efficiency; promotion of use of alternative transportation such as mass-transit, ride-sharing, bicycling, and walking; establishment of programs and incentives to decrease employee, visitor, and resident dependence on private, traditional fuel automobiles; utilization of trees and other landscaping, including drought tolerant or native plants; re-use and recycling of demolition materials; and implementation of recycling and waste reduction programs and strategies for tenants, shoppers, and residents.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-349 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 31
Ronald Kaplan 1729 Ensley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 31-1 My neighborhood, Comstock Hills, is just north of the proposed Westfield Project. After four long and very inconvenient years I personally celebrated the completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway last year. I still cannot say that all the personal sacrifices, that my neighbors and all the commuters is worth all the costs to the community and the federal government of this enormous project. If you drive the Westside streets you know that traffic is not a breeze today. During peak traffic hours there are long lines and long waits at the traffic signals through the entirety of this recently completed roadway. It was not even designed to absorb the current traffic levels; clearly it cannot handle more car trips or major construction.
RESPONSE NO. 31-1 Please refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures for a summary of the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 31-2 On the heals [sic] of the Santa Monica Boulevard project my neighborhood is now faced with another four year project with Westfield's proposal to construct a 49-story mixed use tower, the tallest building on the entire Westside. When will it stop?
RESPONSE NO. 31-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of the construction-related impacts of the proposed project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Please refer to Response to Comment No. 8-7 for a discussion of how the proposed residential tower fully conforms to the City of Los Angeles’ specific zoning height district and the broader Federal Aviation Administration height limits for the area.
COMMENT NO. 31-3 According to the Draft EIR, the 13 story 1801 Avenue of the Stars (at SM Blvd.) will be demolished and replaced by a tower consisting of 3-4 floors of retail, a floor of recreational
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-350 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
amenities, and 44 additional stories of 262 condominiums. Even with this new roadway traffic is not a breeze.
RESPONSE NO. 31-3 As part of the project the existing building located at 1801 Avenue of the Stars will be replaced with a 49-story tower that includes up to four levels of retail uses, 262 multi-family residential apartment or condominium units, and associated recreational amenities. Please refer to Topical Response No. 1 of this Final EIR regarding associated traffic impacts. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 31-4 These units represent the fifth tower of residences in excess of 40 stories to be built simultaneously in Century City This does not include 362 units to be built in adjacent Beverly Hills. The cumulative affect of all this construction results in significant impacts to our neighborhood regarding noise, poor air quality, unmitigated traffic, toxic hazards, and eventual shading of our residences from this tall, massive structure. My neighborhood has already endured the noise and obstructions caused by construction vehicles that illegally use our streets as routes and staging areas for the past 4 years.
RESPONSE NO. 31-4 The Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project for each issue area covered in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts analysis takes into consideration the development of 108 related projects anticipated to be constructed in the project vicinity (63 in the City of Los Angeles and 45 in the City of Beverly Hills). Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project.
As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, of this Draft EIR, significant cumulative noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures H-1 through H-5 are recommended in the Draft EIR to help minimize these construction-related noise impacts. However, cumulative operational noise impacts (e.g., roadway noise, stationary- source noise, parking-related noise) would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, significant cumulative impacts to air quality would occur during construction and operation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-9 are recommended in the Draft EIR to help minimize impacts to air quality during construction and operation of the proposed project. In addition to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, in order to further reduce construction emissions impacts, additional mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-351 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
and Additions, of the Final EIR. However, cumulative impacts from toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions and odors during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for detailed discussion of the transportation mitigation measures proposed for the proposed project. In addition, it should be noted that all roadways included as part of the haul route are either designated Major Highways or Secondary Highways. Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction.
As discussed in Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, cumulative impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would not occur. All development located within the vicinity of the project site would be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal regulations pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, with adherence to such regulations, the simultaneous development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively significant impacts.
As discussed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, although project-generated shading would occur on areas of the golf course that are already shaded during portions of the day by existing buildings, and the shading generated by the project at any given location on the golf course would occur for far less than the applicable three-hour threshold, the project would result in shading of different areas of the golf course for more than three hours during the winter solstice and spring equinox. Thus, it is conservatively assumed that such shading impacts during the winter solstice and spring equinox would be significant. Based on this conservative approach, cumulative shading impacts on the golf course associated with the project and other nearby related projects would also be significant. As described in Topical Response No. 11, no significant project or cumulative shading impacts would result in any residential areas.
COMMENT NO. 31-5 Construction noise during the early morning hours and at night has disturbed our sleep.
RESPONSE NO. 31-5 Noise mitigation measures are provided in Section IV.H, Noise (subsection 5), of the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure H-2, provided on page 481 therein, limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays, consistent with LAMC requirements.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-352 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 31-6 The construction vehicles have blocked our driveways, broken our streets and driveway aprons.
RESPONSE NO. 31-6 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts for a discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project and the requirement for posting of a surety bond in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer for maintenance of haul route streets.
COMMENT NO. 31-7 Just coming off the Santa Monica Boulevard Project we are again being asked to endure the low air quality and unacceptable levels of noise of yet another massive project.
RESPONSE NO. 31-7 As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, potential noise impacts associated with both short-term construction and long-term operation of the project were identified and noise mitigation measures were recommended to reduce the potential significant noise impacts during construction. No significant impacts would result from noise associated with operation of the project. Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, discloses all potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project. In addition, both the Draft and Final EIR include mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts.
COMMENT NO. 31-8 Not to speak of the lit signage damage to SM Blvd. of an increase to over 4000 sq. ft.
RESPONSE NO. 31-8 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage along Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 31-9 Westfield proposes to build 465,404 sq. ft. of new commercial, restaurant and office space. Where is the attention to quality of life in our neighborhood?
RESPONSE NO. 31-9 Upon completion of the project the project will result in a net increase of 104,440 square feet of commercial uses. Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. However, this comment is noted for the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-353 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 31-10 Please help me understand how our major roadways will absorb the construction traffic and the additional car trips of the resulting structures. You know that we will once again be faced with commuters cutting through our neighborhood at dangerous speeds and blowing through stop signs.
RESPONSE NO. 31-10 Please refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts. As indicated therein, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts associated with cut-through traffic on residential street segments.
COMMENT NO. 31-11 We are already dealing with the increased parking problems from our commercial neighbors, and the proliferation of suspect handicapped placarded vehicles and it will be exacerbated.
RESPONSE NO. 31-11 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-3 through 13-6 (i.e., Comstock Hills Homeowners Association letter) for detailed discussions of the parking intrusion and supplemental traffic count analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR. The comment is noted and will be provided to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts for a discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 31-12 This is not what the Westside Community Plan envisioned to protect our quality of life. Please take all this into consideration in your evaluation of this project.
RESPONSE NO. 31-12 CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. In addition, please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-9 regarding the New Century Plan’s consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. The comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-354 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 32
Kristin Kopelson, MS, RN, NP 1681 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 32-1 I write to you in consideration of the following historical points and appeal to your foresight in understanding my concern about the increase density planned for Century City.
1) There is a reason for the L.A. urban sprawl. Residents no longer found enough quality of life to stay in their homes in downtown and adjacent communities. Now we have urban blight. Once grand and majestic homes now rot in many once grand and thriving neighborhoods of L.A. Century City and Westwood will follow suit. It is a matter of time. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but this growth without any regard for humankind will lead to blight.
2) Currently, West L.A. is and has been a desirable alternative to points closer to the city center, however, it is becoming less so by the day. The growth in West L.A. the last decade was nearly intolerable. I am not alone in this feeling, and have lost many neighbors to suburbia, such as Calabasas or points farther, safer, cleaner, quieter. We have very little reason to stay in West L.A. As citizens of West L.A., my family, neighbors, and I find protecting our quality of life is next to impossible when facing big business interests. The city leaders have not provided enough protections to prevent a decline.
3) Growth and development do not necessarily equal good for a city or its people. A cup can hold more water that its volume due to surface tension but there is a point when a another drop is added and it all floods over.
RESPONSE NO. 32-1 Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. The Draft EIR includes a detailed analysis of the potential physical impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the project and cumulative development. The project is consistent with SCAG projections regarding growth. In addition, there is no evidence that Century City is subject to urban blight. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-355 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 32-2 Currently, the infrastructure does not support the current population adequately.
RESPONSE NO. 32-2 Section IV.F, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, provides a discussion of the existing storm drain system that serves the project site. Currently, there are no known deficiencies. Specifically, the project site currently generates a total peak flow of 49.8 cfs during a 50-year event which is adequately accommodated by the existing storm drain system. Section IV.K, Water Supply, of this Draft EIR, provides a discussion of existing water demand for the project site, as well as the existing water distribution system serving the project site. Currently, there are no known deficiencies. Specifically, the project site currently generates a demand of approximately 157,298 gallons per day or 176 acre-feet per year which is meet by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power through their water distribution system. Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, provides a discussion of existing wastewater generation for the project site, as well as the existing sewer collection and treatment system serving the project site. Currently, there are no known deficiencies. Specifically, the project site currently generates approximately 157,298 gallons per day which is adequately accommodated by the existing sewer collection and treatment system. Therefore, infrastructure adequately supports the current population.
COMMENT NO. 32-3 Our schools parks, and roads are exceeding capacity.
RESPONSE NO. 32-3 As indicated in the Draft EIR, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with schools and recreation. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures for a summary of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-5 for a discussion regarding the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-141 for a discussion regarding the analysis of parks and recreation in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 32-4 Our children are in danger of being mowed over in our neighborhoods by commuters. Walking to and from school is unheard of because cut through traffic is routine. Stop signs and speed limits are ignored, even in residential areas and school zones.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-356 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 32-4 Refer to Response to Comment No. 16-2 for a discussion of the neighborhood street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 32-3 for a discussion of the project’s traffic impacts and mitigation measures. The comment contains introductory, opinion, anecdotal, or general information, and is not a specific comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Thus, the comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 32-5 Our soccer fields in Cheviott [sic] Hills and Westwood are dirt because grass cannot grow due to overuse. West L.A. T-ball plays 5 games on one baseball field at the same time because there is not enough space to accomodate [sic] all of the children. Homby [sic] Park picnic tables are staked out in the wee hours of the morning, leaving no chance for casual visitors to enjoy them.
RESPONSE NO. 32-5 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-141 for a discussion regarding the project's impact on parks and recreational services. It is important to note that pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, a project is not required to mitigate any existing identified deficiencies.
COMMENT NO. 32-6 I appeal to your common sense and dignity to think of the residents, the families, of this community when planning. Regard for infrastructure to support this massive growth should be of highest importance.
RESPONSE NO. 32-6 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 32-2 through 32-5 for a discussion regarding the adequacy of infrastructure to support the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-357 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 33
Bonnie Levine 1711 Ensley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 33-1 My name is Bonnie Levine home owner and member of the Comstock Hills, Neighborhood Association My address being 1711 Ensley Avenue L.A., Ca 90024 North of said project, five minute walk from my home....
Please note that I am going on the record opposing this project as it stands, for many reasons...The number one reason a building 49 stories in this location I feel is not only a hazard but a target that we do not need in this or any other neighborhood.
Thanking you in advance for your time, Bonnie Levine
RESPONSE NO. 33-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Relative to building heights, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. In addition the proposed building height would be consistent with surrounding high-rise buildings.
Hazards associated with the project are addressed in Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, because the proposed residential tower would reach over 200 feet above ground level (AGL), the project Applicant would be required to submit the appropriate forms with the Federation Aviation Administration (FAA) at least 30 days prior to construction. The FAA may require that any structure which exceeds an overall height of 200 feet AGL be required to be marked and/or lighted. Compliance with these notification requirements and the incorporation of FAA recommendations would ensure the project would result in an impact that is less than significant with regard to airport safety. Further, the residential tower is located within the core of Century City, a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise buildings. The scale of the project's residential tower is consistent with the surrounding buildings and is not itself creating a target.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-358 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 34
Joan and Steve Little 1527 Club View Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024
COMMENT NO. 34-1 The above referenced plan incorporates 465,000 sq. ft. of new space including 49 stories that will consist of mixed commercial/residential use. The 49 story building will be one of the tallest buildings in Century City and will also be the fifth residential tower that is under construction or scheduled for current construction in the immediate area. With the immediately adjacent Beverly Hills project at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, the total new residential units approved to enter the market will be approximately 1,200 units. I ask, why is there an approval process if not to prevent just such an oversupply coming on the market at one time?
RESPONSE NO. 34-1 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 12-2. In addition, as discussed in Letter 3, the project would provide needed housing within Los Angeles.
COMMENT NO. 34-2 Why is there an approval process that would allow for so many new units prior to making infrastructure improvements to support them?
RESPONSE NO. 34-2 With the exception of fire flow capacity which requires mitigation, there is adequate infrastructure to support the proposed project. As discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the current storm drain system within the adjacent street’s would not be negatively affected by the project. Therefore, no upgrades or improvements to the existing storm drain system would be required. As discussed in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, the sewer system in the project area is adequately sized to serve the proposed project. As such, no substantial off-site improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed project. As discussed in Section IV.K, Water Supply, with regard to domestic water, the water mains have adequate capacity to accommodate the water demand that would be generated by the proposed project. However, in order to provide adequate fire flow capacity to the project as requested by the Los Angeles Fire Department, water infrastructure improvements would be required. The Applicant has been coordinating with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Los Angeles Fire Department during the development of the project plans in order to ensure that adequate water flow is provided. With implementation of Mitigation Measure I.1-1 as described in Section IV.I.1, Fire
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-359 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Protection, of the Draft EIR, potential impacts related to the provision of fire flow to accommodate the project would be reduced to a less than significant level. As outlined in Mitigation Measure I.1-1, adequate fire flow capacity would be provided prior to the occupancy of the residential component of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 34-3 Why is there an environmental review process if not to look at the cumulative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, both during and after construction?
RESPONSE NO. 34-3 The Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project for each issue area (e.g., air quality, noise, traffic, etc) covered in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts analysis takes into consideration the development of 108 related projects anticipated to be constructed in the project vicinity (63 in the City of Los Angeles and 45 in the City of Beverly Hills). Please refer to these sections in the Draft EIR for a discussion on cumulative impacts.
COMMENT NO. 34-4 I beg that you look seriously at the environment of the immediately adjacent residential areas. My neighborhood is immediately north of the proposed project. Club View Drive’s southern terminus is immediately adjacent to the project’s northern border. The project admittedly requires massive demolition and massive construction for 4 years. This will cause serious deterioration of our environment, a fact [sic] is not disputed by either the applicant or the Draft EIR. During construction the air quality will be impaired; the noise level will be impacted; the level of traffic on our streets will be impacted. During construction we will have to deal with vehicle staging and hauling routes. Commuters have fewer lanes to use on Santa Monica Blvd during construction and use our streets as an escape from gridlock. Claims made as to traffic routes have been made to us during several recent projects, but in spite of any ‘agreements’ our street continues to bus workers to current projects and no one will do anything about it because its an easier route for the driver. More of this will undoubtedly happen.
RESPONSE NO. 34-4 Club View Drive is separated from the project site by Santa Monica Boulevard, a Major Class I Highway with three lanes in each direction and neighborhood access roads along the north and south sides of the main roadway. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts, including discussion of the project's Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, which will be designed and implemented in compliance with LAMC requirements. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-360 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). The Draft EIR does address the cumulative construction impacts of the project in conjunction with related projects in the surrounding area. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 17-3 for a discussion of the reasons why the project is proposed not withstanding significant and unavoidable impacts.
COMMENT NO. 34-5 What we are saying is not speculation. For the past 4 years we have endured the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway project. Traffic has been a nightmare. Neighbors fought neighbors for protection as traffic patterns turned topsy turvy from one month to the next. We need the city to take our “environment” seriously and prevent this from happening again. Another four years of construction will put us at our wit’s end.
RESPONSE NO. 34-5 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts, including discussion of the project's Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, which will be designed and implemented in compliance with LAMC requirements. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction (specifically, see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation).
COMMENT NO. 34-6 We need the environmental review process to do something about our environment. We need you to require that any construction include what protections can be made for us. We ask that you make requirements that will force work trucks to use major thoroughfares, and that will force the workers to use major thoroughfares. To that end we ask that at least during construction, the ingress and egress to our area be limited at the critical use hours. Our neighborhood is particularly susceptible to workers going south in the morning, turning on to Comstock/Club View from Wilshire Blvd. We ask that during construction, no right turn be allowed at that intersection from Wilshire on to Comstock/Club View from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Furthermore the same thing happens in reverse in the evening, that is, traffic from the construction site will turn from Santa Monica Blvd. into our neighborhood as an easy cut through. We ask that no right turns be allowed during construction from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. from the Santa Monica Blvd frontage road onto Club View Drive, Ensley Ave., Warnall Ave., and Comstock Ave. Alternatively the northbound egress from our area (Comstock Ave. and Wilshire Blvd.) can be adjusted to limit the way traffic can travel when exiting our area going north. The theory in this case is that if they cannot exit where they want to go, they will not enter.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-361 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 34-6 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts, including discussion of the project's Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), which will be designed and implemented in compliance with LAMC requirements. While the routes mentioned in the comment are not anticipated to be affected by construction worker travel, the project Applicant will work with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to support implementation of the suggested am and P.M.peak hour turn restrictions during project construction periods. If approved by LADOT as part of the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, the project Applicant will fund the installation of the turn restriction signage. The CSTMP will limit workers to utilize major roadways (arterials) and not local residential roadways.
COMMENT NO. 34-7 We need to recover from the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway fiasco; we need your help in keeping construction and construction related traffic out of our residential area. We ask that you please make these traffic mitigations a specific condition of any final environmental impact report and not leave it in the hands of various City departments who have the goal of moving traffic and do not have the goal of protecting our environment.
RESPONSE NO. 34-7 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR and Response to Comment No. 34-6.
COMMENT NO. 34-8 We also must consider the height of the proposed building. Forty-nine stories is simply too high. It will cast shadows. And the lighted signs that will face our area will quadruple from 900 sq. feet to 4,000 sq. ft. We ask than any approvals limit ANY signage that has lights that face single family residences. We further ask that the building height be reduced by at least 10 stories. We understand that these will not improve the construction impacts, however, we ask that you give serious consideration to the long term impacts of shadows and lights on existing residential area and make your recommendations accordingly.
RESPONSE NO. 34-8 Please refer to Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR as well as Response to Comment No. 30-1 regarding shading impacts. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 28- 180, to eliminate the project’s shading impact, the residential tower would need to be reduced
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-362 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
from the proposed height of 587 feet above grade to approximately 200 feet above grade. As discussed in more detail in Section V, Alternatives, a building of this height would not provide for the program of uses proposed by the project. The inability to provide for the proposed uses, together with the investment that would be necessary to construct a state-of-the-art landmark building, would result in a project that would not be feasible and would not meet the basic project objectives.
Relative to building heights, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories.
Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage along Santa Monica Boulevard. As discussed therein, all signage will be consistent with the allowable sign area and lighting restrictions set forth by the LAMC.
This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-363 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 35
Annette Mercer 2647 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 35-1 I have reviewed the DEIR for the above referenced document and have several comments on the potential environmental effects of this project. The proposed project would remodel the eastern portion of the mall and remove two office buildings, replacing them with 262 condominium units (in a new 49 story building), parking, additional retail space (104,440 net square feet), and new office space.
RESPONSE NO. 35-1 This comment generally reiterates information provided in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. However, the number cited for additional retail space should be noted as 104,440, as it is the total net new commercial area after implementation of the project and accounts for the increase in retail area and a decrease in office area.
COMMENT NO. 35-2 The city has not adequately or accurately stated existing conditions nor implemented and monitored mitigations promised by past projects.
I appreciate the efforts that Westfield and the Century City Chamber have made in pursuing the long overdue mass transit connections and TDM measures that Century City needs but believe that the DEIR still overstates the existing conditions. Specifically, the document refers to the “transit plaza” (page 5, Exec. Summary). This is a bus layover facility on property owned by JMB and not under the control of Westfield. There are none of the features of a transit plaza here. A transit plaza would include local area maps, bus system maps and fare information, a phone, and benches or other amenities. It is the City’s responsibility to ensure that this and all the past projects that have claimed this is a transit hub have actually produced what is stated. To date this is not the case. If we believe past project documents, this should be a transit center and in the discussion of traffic, a trip reduction of 15 percent is credited because of this “transit plaza”. But it doesn’t exist yet and Westfield should not be given credit for it since previous projects were claiming to be implementing it.
RESPONSE NO. 35-2 Refer to Response to Comments Nos. 4-1 through 4-3 and Response to Comment No. 28-154 for clarification regarding the existing transit layover site at the southeast corner of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-364 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard as well as discussion regarding the application of a 15 percent transit reduction as part of the project’s trip generation forecast. It was determined that the CMP transit reduction adjustment of 15 percent was appropriate to incorporate into the project’s trip generation analysis. Refer also to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation for additional discussion.
COMMENT NO. 35-3 Similarly, the 2000 Avenue of the Stars project Traffic Study (6/2002) and subsequent DEIR promises to implement a transportation demand management program (TDM) program and participate in the Transportation Management Organization that “is to be developed by the Constellation Place project” (page 58 of the Traffic Study). And yet, The New Century Plan promises to include a TDM and TMO. Credit and reduction of impacts seems to be promised by every project and there is still no actual program(s). An existing condition of this project should be these TDM and TMO programs – with proven data to show their effect. Until that happens, no further development approvals should be made and past projects that have used this “mitigation” should be penalized.
RESPONSE NO. 35-3 Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for a detailed discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the project. At each phase of the proposed project, the applicant will be required to show that the implementation of the TDM Plan is proceeding and that the applicant is continuing to fulfill its TDM commitments. It is not until Phase E that the project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal. The Draft EIR conservatively provides, however, for overriding considerations in the event that this goal is not achieved.
COMMENT NO. 35-4 In addition, page 392 shows the CCNSP and the pedestrian pathway which doesn’t exist in reality (although one can obviously walk through the mall). A couple of crosswalks and bridges does not make a “pedestrian oriented” walkway! The City must not give Westfield credit for measures that other projects were given credit for (but didn’t accomplish) and needs to go back and demand past projects fulfill their commitments. Then we can see what the existing condition is and what the impacts are.
RESPONSE NO. 35-4 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, the New Century Plan is fully consistent with Section 10 of the CCNSP regarding maintenance of a pedestrian corridor through Century City. The proposed project would improve the portion of the designated pedestrian corridor running through the Westfield Century City Shopping Center by enhancing the Shopping Center’s open
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-365 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
air design, installing new outdoor promenades, plazas and opens spaces. This landscaped, continuous pedestrian walkway through the Shopping Center would also continue to be connected to the existing Avenue of the Stars pedestrian bridge to the east, and to the existing pedestrian crosswalk south of the site near the Macy’s building, in compliance with the CCNSP. The New Century Plan also proposes to enhance the Shopping Center’s street frontages, to activate sidewalks and make them more pedestrian friendly, which will further strengthen the pedestrian corridor through Century City.
COMMENT NO. 35-5 The City has not produced its annual infrastructure report. How can anything be analyzed if we don’t know what the existing condition is? No development approvals should be made until this information is included in the analysis.
RESPONSE NO. 35-5 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-4.
COMMENT NO. 35-6 On page 548 the classification of Overland Ave., between Santa Monica and Pico Blvds. should be amended to say that the Council has approved downgrading to a collector street. This action will be incorporated into the revision of the WLA Plan. Does this change the traffic analysis?
RESPONSE NO. 35-6 Refer to Response to Comment No. 20-1 for clarification of the description of Overland Avenue. This clarification does not affect the Draft EIR traffic analysis or the Draft EIR conclusions.
COMMENT NO. 35-7 Does the statement of existing retail space include the “carts” ? Is this retail square footage in the totals and included in the parking calculations? And if not, why not?
RESPONSE NO. 35-7 Carts are an ancillary use within the center and, as such, have not included been included in the square footage totals.
COMMENT NO. 35-8 Page 556 states that during high parking demand seasons parking will be available in the lot behind the Century Plaza Hotel and the MGM Tower. This lot has been named as a spot for overflow parking by 2000 Avenue of the Stars, the Related condominiums, the hotel, and others.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-366 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
What is the actual space available and how many actual spaces are there that are shared? The existing conditions are not clear and therefore any analysis of impact is suspect. Where do the condo employees park? Are all condo spaces valet ? Are these really available to shoppers? Perhaps additional parking under 1801 Avenue of the Stars is necessary.
RESPONSE NO. 35-8 Any need for additional off-site parking (e.g., during peak Shopping Center time periods) is anticipated to be provided at the Century Park West parking structure located one block south of the project site. The entrances and exits to this parking structure are located along the south side of MGM Drive, just south of the existing MGM office tower. A total of 2,360 spaces are provided within this parking structure. The Draft EIR specifically addresses parking availability within the Century Park West parking structure during non-holiday and holiday time periods (refer to Appendix Tables A21 through A24 within Appendix A of the Draft EIR traffic impact study document [contained within Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR]). As shown in Appendix Tables A22 and A24, a total of 1,448 spaces were available for a Friday condition during the December 2005 holiday period and a total of 1,941 spaces were available for a Tuesday condition during the December 2006 holiday period, respectively. Much higher parking availability occurs during the Saturday conditions for the surveyed holiday conditions. Therefore, the Draft EIR correctly concludes that ample parking availability exists to accommodate the anticipated parking demand during the holiday periods. Lastly, parking accumulation count data was also collected for the MGM tower parking structure and surpluses were also documented in Appendix Tables A22 and A24.
Section II, specifically on page 123 within Volume I of the Draft EIR, notes that four levels of primarily subterranean parking would be provided below the residential and Shopping Center uses within the new building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars. Four levels of subterranean parking are already present at this location. The majority of these spaces would be reserved for use by project residents and their guests and would be accessible via a designated secured driveway off Avenue of the Stars. In addition, some retail parking may be provided within the 1801 Avenue of the Stars subterranean parking structure. Separate entry and exit driveways would be provided via Avenue of the Stars for residents and Shopping Center patrons, with vehicular connections to the main parking areas beneath the Shopping Center. Both self-park as well as valet service will be available for future residents and guests. Figures 13 and 14 on pages 121 and 122 of Volume I of the Draft EIR show the proposed project vehicle access scheme for parking Levels A and B, respectively. Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis, for additional discussion of the parking analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-367 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-9 The DEIR understates the number of proposed changes in the area environment. There are no comments regarding the planned update to the West LA Plan and the TIMP. The DEIR should state what current status of the TIMP is, what its payment will be, and how much of the project is exempted because it is residential.
RESPONSE NO. 35-9 Both the West LA TIMP and the West LA Community Plan Update are in the first year of a three year update. The update of those two plans is still in the public-outreach and information gathering phase therefore no draft information is available to include for comparison in the EIR. The West LA TIMP requires the payment of fees prior to building permit issuance. An estimate of the project fees is noted in the DOT clearance letter found in Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 35-10 The project overstates the benefits to the community:
The project claims to provide options for play (page 6). There are1.05 acres (page 77) of open space and recreational opportunities! But while the new residents can use these as well as city facilities, the public cannot use (or even see) the rooftop terrace or other condo amenities. The “open space” in the mall is not a recreational amenity but rather a shopping comfort. This is not a relief of pressures on city facilities or a benefit to the community but merely a selling point for the developer. For the city to meaningfully gain park space, land must be purchased and set aside in West LA. Failing that, the developer should provide substantial improvements to Rancho Park and the Cheviot Recreation Center & Pool. Cumulative numbers show 7562 new residents in the area but no recreational benefits accruing from this project.
RESPONSE NO. 35-10 The use of the word "play" as identified by the commentor on page 6 of the Draft EIR is utilized in the sentence: "The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the Shopping Center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub." In this context, the term "play" refers to the enjoyment of the proposed project's shopping, dining and entertainment venues by residents, patrons, and visitors, not to parks and recreational services.
As discussed in Section IV.I.5, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would essentially provide its residents with a “neighborhood park” totaling approximately 46,000 square feet (1.05 acres) that is customized to the type of residential development proposed. Based on the estimated number of residents generated by the project
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-368 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
(553 residents), the project would exceed the City’s short- and intermediate-range standards for neighborhood parks as well as the open space requirements set forth in LAMC Sections 12.21 and 17.12. However, this area would not be dedicated to the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, mitigation has been proposed to ensure that through the provision of on-site recreational amenities and open space areas as a credit against the dedication of open space, payment of in- lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of these methods, the project would comply with the maximum requirements established under the Quimby Act. With this mitigation measure, impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Similarly, as all related projects with residential uses would also be required to comply with the requirements of the Quimby Act, the PRP, and LAMC Sections 12.21 and 17.12, potential cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level.
COMMENT NO. 35-11 Benefits to housing stock are overstated. This project is not providing housing that will reduce commuting. What is the average salary of a Westfield Century City (or tenant) employee compared to the cost of these luxury units? Luxury condo units were not the intent of the dwelling unit objectives in the West LA Plan.
RESPONSE NO. 35-11 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6. As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, the project would provide a mix of unit types and would increase needed available housing in an area with an established employment base. The project is located on Santa Monica Boulevard, a major route with several public bus line stops. The availability of transit service along with the range of unit types would accommodate future population growth and enable a reasonable portion of the City's work force to both live and work in the City. Additionally, as stated in many adopted regional and local planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. While the project would not eliminate the housing shortage in the City, it would promote the goal of generating more housing.
COMMENT NO. 35-12 The design as a LEED building is commendable; I hope that the claims of pedestrian connectivity, access to transit, and other factors are verified and that there is actually a benefit, not just a sales point.
RESPONSE NO. 35-12 As outlined in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be designed and built in accordance with the criteria of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. In addition, the design of the proposed project would
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-369 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
conform to the Urban Design Guidelines included in the Draft Greening of Century City Pedestrian Connectivity Plan in both its large-scale planning and in specific, pedestrian-scale design decisions, in order to enhance the pedestrian connectivity and experience in Century City, and would also enhance connections to existing and proposed mass-transit systems.
COMMENT NO. 35-13 The landscaping plan (page 10) will only be a benefit if proposed plantings on Santa Monica Blvd. are done with the input of the community and aligned with the recently completed Transit Parkway project. Since there is no pedestrian experience along Santa Monica Blvd. now because of the entrance to the shopping center parking, an emphasis on safety and accessibility would be more of a benefit to strive for. In addition, a pedestrian cannot cross Santa Monica Blvd. between Avenue of the Stars and Beverly Glen.
RESPONSE NO. 35-13 The new landscaping plan creates a more pedestrian accessible and visually penetrable façade for the Shopping Center. There will be a new major pedestrian access point just to the east of the existing entrance drive off of Santa Monica Boulevard as well as other terraces for restaurants and other uses that will have people and activity visible from the street. With the gradual and eventual intensification of transit along Santa Monica Boulevard, the project opens itself up and creates a more pedestrian friendly landscape and active edge along the street.
In addition, there is a pedestrian crossing at the corner of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard, halfway between Avenue of the Stars and Beverly Glen Boulevard. The Greening of Century City project proposes to create a more visible pedestrian path and better direct access on the north side of the street by inclusion of a new stair way and widening of the sidewalk.
COMMENT NO. 35-14 Many of the statements in the DEIR are not measurable or enforceable actions.
The loss of street trees (page 20), is stated as less than significant. But with the continuous construction in Century City there have been many lot clearings and loss of mature trees, as well as maintenance issues along Avenue of the Stars. The minimum size of the replacement trees must be stated, as should the ratio of replacement to removed trees (at least 2:1). In addition, a monitoring and replacement plan ensuring an at least 5 year survival rate should be required.
RESPONSE NO. 35-14 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-40 regarding tree removal and replacement. As stated therein, all trees proposed for removal will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-370 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
removal, replacement and monitoring of street trees will comply with the City of Los Angeles Street Tree Ordinance.
COMMENT NO. 35-15 The DEIR states that signage will be consistent with the zoning, etc. (page 21). However Westfield currently has illegal signage on their property. How will the signage promises be enforced? There should be no offsite signage, no supergraphic signs visible outside the property, no signs on light poles, and no electronic signage.
RESPONSE NO. 35-15 As described in Draft EIR Section II, Project Description, and Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare and Shading, proposed signage would be similar in type and size to existing signage. The amount of signage proposed, and the illumination of this new signage, will fully comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Signage restrictions will be enforced through conditions on the project’s City Council approval. Additionally, no new illuminated signage will be visible from adjacent R1 property to the west of Century Park West.
COMMENT NO. 35-16 Page 34 (mitigation measure B-5) states that emissions will be improved by limiting the time construction vehicles idle to 10 minutes on or off site. How will off site trucks be monitored? Have you told the drivers this and do they agree? Will it be in their contracts and can the public ask them to turn off their engines? How will the haul route be policed?
RESPONSE NO. 35-16 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-86.
COMMENT NO. 35-17 Page 87 says people will be “encouraged” to use transit and rideshare. What does this mean? Specifics are necessary and should include facilities (bike racks and showers), free transit passes and employees having to pay to park a single occupancy vehicle, and other incentives. There must be trip counters and penalties if trips go over the agreed to figures.
RESPONSE NO. 35-17 Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project. The comments regarding the specific recommendations for components of the plan will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-371 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-18 Impacts are understated.
The transit plaza gets a 15 percent reduction in trips which then reduces impacts to less than significant. But the transit plaza doesn’t exist… so and if it did should not be credited to Westfield.
RESPONSE NO. 35-18 Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-2 for clarification regarding the existing transit layover site at the southeast corner of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard as well as discussion regarding the application of a 15 percent transit reduction as part of the project’s trip generation forecast.
COMMENT NO. 35-19 The project would have a four year construction period (2009-2012, page 11) which, in a stand- alone case, might be considered short term and therefore not significant. However, this project is the latest in a long series of projects in Century City and the ongoing construction impacts are neither short term nor insignificant. Air quality, for example, (page 29) has been affected for over 10 years, not the short term exposures portrayed. Additionally, the analysis does not recognize that there are many potentially susceptible people in the project area: the elderly (many Century City residents), the infirm (there is a hospital nearby), children (BHHS and public and private schools down wind), and patrons of Rancho Park, as well as kids at the mall (a favorite hangout). Other cumulative construction impacts that have been understated are traffic, noise, and aesthetics.
RESPONSE NO. 35-19 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction noise and traffic impacts, including discussion of the project's Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, which will be designed and implemented in compliance with LAMC requirements. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction (specifically, see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). The Draft EIR does specifically address the cumulative construction impacts of the project in conjunction with related projects in the surrounding area. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 17-3 for a discussion of the reasons why the project is proposed not withstanding significant and unavoidable impacts.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-372 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
With regard to the analysis of air quality impacts during construction, the Draft EIR relies on methodologies and significance criteria established by the City, the SCAQMD, and other relevant agencies. Potential impacts to air quality are determined on a worst-case daily basis for most pollutants, or shorter duration (one and eight hour standards) for some pollutants, in accordance with the established guidance. Ambient air quality standards are established by the United States EPA and California Air Resources Board to be health protective of sensitive populations, including children, the elderly, and the infirm. Thus, the impacts are properly assessed and stated in the DEIR.
Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-16 regarding cumulative aesthetic impacts.
COMMENT NO. 35-20 Traffic impacts are understated. Why are any increases at intersections that are already LOS F rated as less than significant? These already are out of compliance with the citywide performance standards for acceptable Levels of Service (page 557). Mitigation measures must do more than improve the V/C ratio from 1.059 to 1.055 (both are LOS F and still unacceptable). If mitigation is not available then the project needs to be revised and the city needs to address the cumulative traffic impacts in the area. The fact that over half of the study area intersections are operating at unacceptable levels (and you didn’t even analyze intersections east of Century City in Beverlywood) makes it unbelievable that increases in traffic are considered less than significant. The southbound onramp to the 405 at National was also not studied, yet is the route signed on westbound Pico. In addition, use of the pre-Santa Monica Blvd construction counts does not reflect changes in traffic patterns even if the volumes have been adjusted. Actual traffic counts should be used to validate predictions.
RESPONSE NO. 35-20 Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-9 for a discussion of the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria for significance. The City’s sliding scale threshold criteria indicates that an increase of 0.010 or more in an intersection’s volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio constitutes a significant impact if the intersection is forecast to operate at Level of Service (LOS) is E or F. A significant impact is considered less than significant if it is reduced to a less than significant level (i.e., an increase in the V/C ratio of less than 0.010). Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for a detailed discussion of the project’s mitigation measures. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project. Refer to all Response to Comments contained in Comment Letter No. 7 for a summary of the additional analysis that was performed as part of the Final EIR for locations south and east of Century City. Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-373 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction.
COMMENT NO. 35-21 The Haul Route discussion (page 61 and 74) is inaccurate and understates impacts. The document states that the haul route does not pass any schools. It does not pass the schools which would get the students from the new residential units but a route using Pico and Overland to the I-10 would pass Le Lycee, Temple Isaiah, St. Timothy’s, Overland ES, Notre Dame Academy, Notre Dame ES, and Palms Rec/Preschool. Beverly Hills High School is nearby off Olympic Blvd. The impacts of noise, air pollution, and traffic must be addressed and mitigated. Page 78 says there will be 1220 trips per day of construction traffic alone during the peak phase. While none (supposedly) will be during the am peak, what is the effect on the schools of this traffic mid day, the effect of trucks idling along Overland (which they will), safety of children crossing Overland and Pico to reach their school, etc.?
RESPONSE NO. 35-21 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts for a discussion of the proposed haul route. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 18-14 for a summary of the construction worker and construction truck traffic impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR. As a point of clarification, the proposed haul routes (as described in Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts) do not include roadways adjacent to the following schools as noted in the comment.
• Le Lycee Private High School and Elementary School is located south of the I-10 Freeway along the west side of Overland Avenue at 3261 Overland Avenue and is not adjacent to any proposed haul route. One of the two proposed haul routes for the project includes only the section of Overland Avenue between Pico Boulevard and the I-10 Freeway, however, this route does not extend south of the I-10 Freeway.
• Palms Elementary School is located at 3520 Motor Avenue and is not adjacent to any proposed haul route.
• Beverly Hills High School is located at 241 Moreno Drive and is not adjacent to any proposed haul route.
While the comment notes correctly a total of 1,220 trips per day (i.e., associated with the worst case scenario in which Phase overlaps with both Phases B and C construction activities) for construction, this figure reflects both construction worker vehicles (automobiles) as well as trucks (delivery and haul trucks) in addition to the application of a passenger car equivalence (PCE) factor. A PCE factor of 3.0 cars per truck for a tandem trailer haul truck (i.e., one tandem trailer haul truck has the same impact on intersection operations as three passenger vehicles) was utilized in the Draft EIR. The peak construction activity forecast reflects a total
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-374 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
of only 21 tandem trailer haul trucks per day, not 1,200 trips per day, as suggested by the commentor. As mentioned in Response to Comment No. 18-14, the traffic impacts due to construction activities are forecast to be less than significant based on the City's significance criteria. In addition, truck deliveries will be limited to off-peak periods to the extent feasible such that idling by trucks can be minimized.
COMMENT NO. 35-22 The school discussion is confusing (page 74) as it somehow predicts that the 89 students are distributed through the ES, MS, and High School (44, 24, and 21 respectively). Given that Westwood Charter ES cannot accommodate these students, it is understating the problem to say that 44 students won’t fit. WW Charter has already moved some of its students to Overland ES and considered redrawing its boundaries. It has no room on its property to expand classroom space. The next closest public school (Fairburn ES) is also full and sending kids to Warner ES. The worst case impact would be all 89 in one grade level. In any case, the students will move through the grades so capacity at all levels must be available. The situation is even worse with the cumulative effects (page 75) since 562 students would be added to the area. That is an entire new elementary school’s worth!
RESPONSE NO. 35-22 Section IV.I.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR utilized student generation rates established by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Developer Fee Program Office in order to calculate the number of students generated by the proposed project. These generation rates are established for a variety of uses including residential (single-family detached, single-family attached, and multi-family), retail and services, offices, research and development, industrial/warehouse/ manufacturing, hospitals, hotels/motels, and parking structures. For each of these uses, three generation rates are provided: one for elementary school students, one for middle school students, and one for high school students. Thus, utilizing these generation rates, it is possible to estimate the number of elementary school, middle school, and high school students that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the 44 elementary school students, 24 middle school students, and 21 high school students that would be generated by the project were calculated using these student generation rates that are both use and school level specific. As such, the number of elementary school, middle school, and high school students that would be generated by the project are reasonable estimates, and these students would not be in the same school or grade level.
Similarly, the same student generation rates were also used to calculate the number of students that would be generated by the project in combination with related projects in Section IV.I.3 of the Draft EIR. Thus, the determination that 197 elementary school students, 189 middle school students, and 176 high school students that would be generated by
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-375 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
cumulative development is a reasonable estimate. As such, all of these students would not be in the same school or grade level.
As analyzed in Section IV.I.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would generate approximately 44 elementary school students, 24 middle school students, and 21 high school students. With the addition of the project-generated students, all school facilities serving the project site would be able to accommodate the new students with the exception of Westwood Charter Elementary School, which would experience a shortage of 166 seats. Similarly, development of the project in combination with the related projects identified in Section IV.I.3 of the Draft EIR would result in a shortage of 319 seats at Westwood Charter Elementary School. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of SB 50 fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from implementation of a project to levels that are less than significant. Thus, the payment of developer fees would serve to mitigate all project-related impacts and cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no other mitigation measures are required.
COMMENT NO. 35-23 The discussion of trips is unclear. The DEIR states (page 393 and elsewhere) that 1259.706 Replacement Trips are available for 1930 Century Park West (in addition to other trips). But these “replacement trips” stem from the assumption that the long-closed drive through bank was 7077 sq. feet and generated 1358.784 trips (of which 99.078 trips were utilized when the space was later used for offices). This assumption is false (1) because the drive through bank is long gone, and (2) because only a small fraction of that 7077 sq. feet was used for that purpose and therefore qualifies for the high generation rate, and (3) that figure would require an average of 2 cars per minute at the drive through bank for every hour it was open, something clearly unreasonable. The city was in error in assigning these trips to the parcel but this error should not be perpetuated now. It is much more reasonable to assign the 14 trips/1000 sq.ft. office rate to the entire building (resulting in 871.444 trips; which Westfield has taken because of demolition of the building). The extra “replacement” trips are double counting at best and distortion of the pre-construction trip generation of the parcel. If these trips are not valid then the impact of the proposed project is understated and the analysis must be revised.
RESPONSE NO. 35-23 Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential, and Response to Comment No. 11-13 for a full discussion of the Replacement CATGP Trips generated from conversion of the drive-through bank previously located at 1930 Century Park West to offices uses.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-376 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-24 The project consistency statements regarding the West LA Plan are misleading and impacts are understated. Objective 1-4: (page 418) says “To promote adequate and affordable housing and increase its accessibility to more segments of the population, especially students and senior citizens.” and is rated Partially Consistent. However the explanation says “The project would increase the available housing supply and would provide a range of housing types. However, the project would not provide affordable residential units. Thus, the project would not be consistent with this policy”. [emphasis added]. To the casual reader, this project would appear to be generally consistent when it clearly is not consistent with this Objective.
RESPONSE NO. 35-24 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-9 regarding the New Century Plan’s consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan.
COMMENT NO. 35-25 Policy 3.1.3 of the General Plan (Table 23) is to “identify areas for…new open space…” This envisions parklands and trails, neighborhood parks, etc. The analysis identifies the project as Consistent, although the proposed open spaces are private balconies, shopping corridors, and condo recreation facilities. The project is not consistent with this policy and to say so is inaccurate and understating the land use impacts of the project.
RESPONSE NO. 35-25 As stated in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project would include approximately 46,000 square feet of common open space and a private balcony within individual units for the proposed residential uses. The project would also create new open spaces on the first level of the Shopping Center, as well as walkways and terraces above the first-level promenade. In addition, the project would provide a pedestrian network that would be consistent with that specified in the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP). As the project would provide urban open spaces, it would be generally consistent with Policy 3.1.3 of the General Plan. It should also be noted that Policy 3.1.3 of the General Plan does not require a new open space development by the project.
COMMENT NO. 35-26 Similarly understated is the impact on Objective 3.7 (and also Policy 1-2.3 in the West LA Plan) which states “…allow for growth in areas where there is sufficient public infrastructure…”. The analysis for consistency states that existing infrastructure, including roadways, is adequate. How can this be given (1) there is no current City infrastructure report, and (2) over one half of the study area intersections are operating at unacceptable levels of service?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-377 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 35-26 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-4 for a discussion of the City’s review of the West Los Angeles Community Plan area infrastructure. Additionally, the Draft EIR’s traffic analysis fully evaluates the New Century Plan’s impact to intersections and concludes that the project would not cause a significant impact to study area intersections until the fifth and final phase of the project. Please refer to Section IV.J of the Draft EIR for a description of the project’s impacts to study intersections.
COMMENT NO. 35-27 Table 24, Goal 1 says that an objective of the West LA Plan is that “housing is available to all segments of the population” (referring to economic, age, and ethnic segments). This project is not contributing to that objective; luxury condos are not in short supply or accessible to all segments of the population. Policy 4.1-1 of the General Plan addresses supplying housing as well, with similar inconsistency.
RESPONSE NO. 35-27 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-9 regarding the New Century Plan’s consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. In addition, as Century City has a large concentration of high-wage employment, luxury housing is not an incompatible part of the mix of housing for the area.
COMMENT NO. 35-28 Policy 2-2.4 of the West LA Plan encourages incorporation of facilities beneficial to the community. The project claims consistency because it provides recreational amenities to its residents. (See also Goal 4). These are not beneficial to the community and again the land use impacts are understated.
RESPONSE NO. 35-28 As discussed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, recently completed improvements to the Shopping Center included a Family Lounge, which provides play facilities, nursing stations, and baby changing stations. Renovation and/or redevelopment within the Shopping Center would provide new outdoor promenades, plazas, and open spaces for use by the public. In addition, the residential component of the project would include recreational facilities and open space for building tenants, including a fitness room, and a rooftop terrace with lawn and planted garden areas, as well as an outdoor lap pool. Additional amenities such as common activity/multi-purpose rooms would also be provided to serve project residents. As these improvements and amenities provide both residents, patrons, and guests with beneficial human service facilities, the project is consistent with Policy 2-2.4 of the West Los Angeles Community Plan, and no further response is necessary.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-378 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-29 In the case of transportation, the impacts are not stated at all. The Traffic and Circulation section notes West LA Plan policies relating to transportation (page 569) but finds the project completely consistent (page 622) with little explanation. The proposed project, however, does not specify incentives for alternative transportation (Goal 11), provide bicycle facilities (Goal 12), or improve levels of service to acceptable levels (Goal 16). Specifically, Objective 16.2 is “to ensure that … timing of development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure”. This project is proposing development in advance of a subway, a functioning transit plaza, bike lanes, or even a TDM program that was supposed to be in place years ago.
RESPONSE NO. 35-29 Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a detailed discussion of cumulative impact analysis as contained in the Draft EIR. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for a detailed discussion of the project’s mitigation measures. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-19 for a discussion of the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria for significance.
COMMENT NO. 35-30 The analysis of significance of traffic and cumulative impacts is inadequate. The project would add 5922 weekday trips and 7466 weekend trips, if we believe the trip generation rates. The effect on Pico and Olympic, as well as Beverly Glen and other nearby streets has not be mitigated… these are already at extremely poor levels of service.
RESPONSE NO. 35-30 Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a detailed discussion of the cumulative impact analysis based on the Draft EIR Traffic analysis. Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the project trip generation forecast as contained in the Draft EIR Traffic analysis. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for a detailed discussion of the project’s mitigation measures. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 35-31 The 553 new residents (not to mention 200+ employees) will add 41 emergency incidents per year and contribute to a cumulative 7.5 percent increase. How is this not significant to the LAFD load? Station 92 has not had new trucks or resources in years.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-379 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 35-31 Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-45 for a discussion of how the conclusion of less than significant impacts to fire protection services was made based on the analysis prepared in consultation with the Fire Department.
COMMENT NO. 35-32 The parallel 10.5 percent cumulative increase in LAPD work is also labeled not significant. Why is there no recognition of the cumulative nature of these increases?
RESPONSE NO. 35-32 As stated in Section IV.I.2, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, all related projects would be reviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to ensure that sufficient security measures are implemented for each related project to reduce potential impacts to police protection services. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the existing police protection services would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 35-33 The traffic study (Appendix F) is inadequate as there are no current counts (counts from the FBI project in Westwood are the most recent) and the study intersections go no further east than Beverwil. The trip distribution percentages do not seem to account for all traffic and traffic onto Pico and Overland seems underrepresented.
RESPONSE NO. 35-33 Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. Refer to all Response to Comments contained in Comment Letter No. 7 for a summary of the additional analysis that was performed as part of the Final EIR for locations south and east of Century City. Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area for a discussion of the City’s approval of the Draft EIR traffic analysis parameters. The executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) contained detailed project trip distribution figures which were reviewed and approved by the City’s Department of Transportation and is included as Appendix A7 of this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 35-34
Preferred Alternative
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-380 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
The No-Build is acceptable. If the project is constructed, I prefer the Reduced Density alternative D1, with additional parking. It is environmentally superior and reduces traffic impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 35-34 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 35-35 However, nothing should be constructed until the city and previous developments uphold their agreements and mitigations. The existing conditions and mitigations of past projects must actually exist. All of these must be accomplished prior to development:
1. TDM and TMO and the associated monitoring. 2. Transit Center with amenities. 3. Pedestrian amenities and walkways per the CCNSP. 4. An audit of the dollars put into Quimby funds from projects in West LA and the amount spent in West LA. 5. Signage enforcement 6. Current and annually updated annual infrastructure report 7. Audit of past Century City projects and trips generated vs. predicted. 8. An audit of how much was paid in school fees from projects in West LA as well as how much was spent on schools in West LA. 9. Enforcement of existing codes and statutes. 10. An updated TIMP. 11. Enforcement of the West LA Plan and its goals and objectives.
RESPONSE NO. 35-35 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers prior to making any determination regarding the project. An evaluation of prior projects’ mitigation measures goes beyond the scope of this EIR.
COMMENT NO. 35-36
Mitigation measures All mitigation measures should be clearly labeled as those that are (1) following the existing laws (and hence really part of the project description) and (2) those that go beyond this to lessen the impacts of the project, especially where existing codes do not address cumulative impacts. A
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-381 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
strong and clear Mitigation Monitoring Plan must be included in the FEIR and available for public comment and review.
RESPONSE NO. 35-36 The mitigation measures have been clearly identified within the Draft EIR. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Section IV of this Final EIR. Furthermore, those project design features that remain part of the project when it is approved by the City Council will be included as conditions of the City Council’s approval. Therefore, they will be required to be implemented as part of the New Century Plan.
COMMENT NO. 35-37 In addition to those proposed by Westfield and discussed above, the following mitigations are requested:
1. The reservation of space and a knock out panel for a future subway stop is an excellent feature and Westfield should be commended. To truly contribute to the infrastructure needed, however, Westfield should provide construction access and a passageway as well as contribution to funding for the subway. All of its formidable resources should go to expediting the subway extension.
RESPONSE NO. 35-37 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 35-38 2. Trip monitoring on an ongoing basis, and penalties if numbers are exceeded (like FOX).
RESPONSE NO. 35-38 Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 35-39 3. For the city to meaningfully gain park space, land must be purchased and dedicated in West LA. Failing that, substantial improvements to Rancho Park and the Cheviot Rec Center/Pool should be provided by the developer.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-382 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 35-39 As discussed in Section IV.I.5, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, Section 17.12 of the LAMC allows an Applicant to pay fees in-lieu of the dedication requirement. Although the project proposes to include 1.05 acres of common open space on its exterior terrace, this area would not be dedicated to the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, Mitigation Measure I.5-1 (e.g., payment of in-lieu fees by the Applicant) is required. This money is paid to the City’s Department of Recreation and Parks and utilized for the acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners. Compliance with Mitigation Measure I.5-1 would reduce potential impacts to park and recreational facilities associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
COMMENT NO. 35-40 4. The tree replacement ratio should be 2:1 with a 5 year monitoring and survival guarantee.
RESPONSE NO. 35-40 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-40 regarding tree removal and replacement.
COMMENT NO. 35-41 5. No offsite signage, no supergraphic signs visible outside the property, no signs on light poles, no electronic signage.
RESPONSE NO. 35-41 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 35-15 for a discussion regarding the types of signage proposed under the project.
COMMENT NO. 35-42 6. Provide a bike station including lockers, showers, a bike shop, and other amenities.
RESPONSE NO. 35-42 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, such TDM measures may include providing employees with bike storage lockers and showers to encourage them to bike to work.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-383 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-43 7. Construct and fund a new fire station in Century City or rebuild Station 92 to add capacity and bring up to date.
RESPONSE NO. 35-43 Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-45 for a discussion of how the conclusion of less than significant impacts to fire protection services was made based on the analysis prepared in consultation with the Fire Department. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 35-44 8. Provide or contribute to a DASH or shuttle service within Century City and surrounding areas.
RESPONSE NO. 35-44 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-3 for a discussion of the TDM Plan associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 35-45 9. Provide a community meeting room in the shopping center available to neighborhood and civic groups.
RESPONSE NO. 35-45 The Shopping Center will provide a community meeting room available to neighborhood and civic groups.
COMMENT NO. 35-46 10. Provide additional parking on site or an off site employee parking lot with shuttle service.
RESPONSE NO. 35-46 Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis for a discussion of the project’s parking analysis. During the Holiday seasons, up to 600 parking spaces would be secured at one or both of the facilities at the Century Park West parking structure or the MGM Tower parking structure for employees. Another facility with a determined parking availability may also be secured for the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-384 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 35-47 I look forward to a revised analysis of the project. I request to be notified of all future actions, meetings and hearings pertaining to The New Century Plan. It is important that adequate time be given for a full review of the FEIR. While we appreciate the two-week extension of time for the DEIR review, the time allotted was not adequate given the scope of the project and related documents, and the task at hand.
RESPONSE NO. 35-47 The commentor will be placed on the list to receive all notices regarding the EIR and future hearings. Review of the Final EIR will be completed in accordance with CEQA requirements.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-385 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 36
Mary Lou Rane, Ph.D. 10332 Eastborne Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 36-1 I am writing to express my deep concern about the plans to increase commercial buildings, business activities, etc. in the Century City area.
My home on 10332 Eastborne Avenue and the wonderful neighborhood of Comstock Hills has already been negatively impacted by the development of Century City over the past few decades. The current demolition and construction plans will have a cumulative negative impact on our neighborhood because of our close proximity to the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 36-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Cumulative construction impacts are also addressed in these sections of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 17-3.
COMMENT NO. 36-2 The EIR lists significant and unavoidable impacts such as shading, air quality, construction noise and traffic. Our neighborhoods needs [sic] protection from this.
RESPONSE NO. 36-2 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for discussion of the project’s significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures. Also refer to Topical Response Nos. 8 and 11 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts and shading impacts, respectively. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-386 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Circulation). In addition to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, in order to further reduce construction emissions impacts, additional mitigation measures have been included in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. However, construction- related impacts would remain significant. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 17-3 for a discussion of the reasons why the project is proposed not withstanding significant and unavoidable impacts.
COMMENT NO. 36-3 I support a scaled down version of the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 36-3 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-387 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 37
Linda Rosenthal [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 37-1 The Westfield and "Beverly Hilton" expansion building plans are appalling. It is unconscionable that you would support the devastation to quality-of-life that these plans will bring to our Westside community -- not only during construction but forever after! A radical revision of plans is necessary and the only honest and responsible thing to do. We are being trashed for cash.
RESPONSE NO. 37-1 Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. However, this comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-388 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 38
Vicki Schiller 10841 Wellworth Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 38-1 I am a resident of Westwood, and oppose the construction of a 48 story condominium. It will have a deleterious effect on the lifestyle of neighbors in Westwood and Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 38-1 Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. However, this comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 38-2 The building should be smaller, in keeping with the Wilshire corridor, and Santa Monica Boulevard should not have to be closed due to construction.
RESPONSE NO. 38-2 As described throughout the analysis in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid-and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Furthermore, please refer to Response to Comment No. 10-6 for a discussion of the reduced size project that was considered within the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR.
Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR regarding traffic and roadway impacts related to project construction. Santa Monica Boulevard will remain open during construction, although one lane may be temporarily closed during certain phases of construction. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-389 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 39
Judy & Fred Schwartz [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 39-1 Dear Jimmy, I personally have had enough of the development in Century City. I was born here, my mother was born here, my grandfather was born here and my greatfather came here in the 1850's. The city has really screwed up west l.a at the benefit of big business. We were robbed 2 weeks ago. The first time in my life. According to the WLA police officer Ragsdale, they have only 8 vehicles to patrol 64 square miles! and usually 2 are on investigations. The crooks are all over our area breaking into homes. What is the benefit to me or the quality of my neighborhood is the expansion of anything in this area. The Westfield Center is BIG ENOUGH. Santa Monica Blvd, which took 4 years to build has traffic worse than ever!
You do not live here but I do. There is a large quantity of (riff-raff) robbing people, throwing trash everywhere, and the city has not provided the protection for the citizens. Build the Condos someplace else!
RESPONSE NO. 39-1 As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, the proposed residential and Shopping Center uses combined could potentially generate 24 crimes/calls per year, which is less than a 0.01 percent increase in potential crimes/calls. Furthermore, the estimated additional calls per year calculation does not reflect removal of office uses; therefore, the estimate is considered to be an overestimate. In addition, the increase in population from 221,876 residents to 222,429 residents in the West Los Angeles Area would only alter the officer to resident ratio from one officer per 948 residents to one officer per 951 residents, which is nominal. The project would also provide adequate security features on the project site related to additional levels of security around the commercial facilities including foot patrol, bike patrol, and golf cart patrol; on-site residential security; implementation of additional computer-assisted security programs; and security lighting in areas including but not limited to parking structures, pathways, and curbside queuing areas. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) would also be installed in locations including but not limited to all exit points, play areas, family rest areas, food courts, loading docks, and parking areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a demand for additional police protection services that would exceed the capability of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to serve the project site. Potential impacts to the capability of existing police protection services would be less than significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-390 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 39-2 This area as too dense already. A usual 15 minute drive usually takes 45 minutes to complete. As a City Planner you should take a look at the intolerable traffic situation, the inbearable [sic] long traffic lights, the trash thrown everywhere, harmful materials flushed down the drain, the huge amount of water accumlated [sic] on Comstock and Wilshire since your dept allowed that condo to go up when we warned of underground water problems. Why don't you come over here and meet with me and I will show you how our area has turned to SHIT
RESPONSE NO. 39-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for discussion of the project’s significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures. Please Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-3 regarding the demonstration in the Draft EIR that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to accommodate the demand generated by the project and related projects. As summarized in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, through the preparation of an Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles determined that the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to wastewater or solid waste. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration prior to making any determination regarding the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-391 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 40
Dianne Siegel Kinnard Avenue [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 40-1 I am writing because I am so very concerned about the Westfield Century City expansion, which comes on top of the Santa Monica Blvd. renovation and multi-year chaos, numerous other condo constructions in Century City, on Santa Monica Blvd and nearby Beverly Hills, also on Santa Monica Blvd.
The reason everyone wants to build here is because of the lovely "affluent" residential areas--but these developments are destroying these neighborhoods! There is absolutely no need for 49-story retail-condo towers that throws shadows almost to my home!
RESPONSE NO. 40-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Project and cumulative construction impacts have been evaluated in the Draft EIR and will result in significant impacts during certain phases of construction. Refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a summary of construction-related impacts associated with the project. Also refer to Topical Response No. 11 for a summary of the shading analysis within the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, the project will not result in significant shading impacts to residential uses, including the residential uses to the north.
COMMENT NO. 40-2 And what about the traffic? I commute from my home to an area west of Beverly Hills between 8:30-9:30 am, and the traffic coming down Beverly Glen to go to Century City is overwhelming. Sometimes it backs up two blocks to turn left onto Santa Monica Blvd. We have finally turned Santa Monica into a nicely moving and attractive street until it hits Beverly Hills--how much traffic can you pile onto these city streets without totally destroying the quality of life.
RESPONSE NO. 40-2 Refer to Comment No. 10-7 for a detailed discussion of the project trip generation forecast. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for discussion of the project’s significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-392 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 40-3 And to build these towers now, thinking people will get here on the Metro is irresponsible and lacks real understanding of Los Angeles. In addition, no funds are allocated to a rail system here, so it's in the "dream" stage.
RESPONSE NO. 40-3 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of the acknowledgement of the potential construction of the Metro Westside Extension Transit Corridor. While the project design will allow for a future connection to subway via a planned knock-out panel within the tower’s parking garage foundation, completion of the subway has not been assumed in the Draft EIR traffic analysis.
COMMENT NO. 40-4 I urge you and those in city planning with you to PLEASE re-think this plan. The developer had young kids visiting our neighborhood to collect pro-development signatures who really did not explain the New Century Plan accurately---they left out so much that you really needed to understand the enormity of this plan to understand what a signature could mean.
RESPONSE NO. 40-4 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration prior to making any determination regarding the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 40-5 The signage problems, the construction chaos, increased traffic and shadow-producing towers do NOT add to the appeal of our neighborhoods, but destroy the quality of life we residents try so hard to sustain, which is why our taxes are what they are.
RESPONSE NO. 40-5 Please refer to Topical Response Nos. 1, 8, and 11 of this Final EIR regarding traffic, construction, and shading impacts, respectively. Also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11- 22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage.
Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. Nonetheless, the beneficial effects of the project upon the livability of the project area are summarized in Response to Comment No. 28-51. This
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-393 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Refer to Response to Comment No. 10-7 for a detailed discussion of the project trip generation forecast. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan for discussions of the project’s significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP).
COMMENT NO. 40-6 PLEASE re-think this---do a real master plan with EIRs for the area. Don't destroy our neighborhoods!
RESPONSE NO. 40-6 The Draft EIR is comprehensive and provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-394 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 41
Shannon Westmore 1505 S. Bentley Avenue Apartment 302 Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 41-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 41-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 41-2 If. as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 41-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-395 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 42
Laura Winikow [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 42-1 Our neighborhood, Comstock Hills, is just north of the proposed Westfield project. Last year we celebrated the completion of the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway, a Scenic Highway after four long, dirty, noisy and disruptive years.
Westfield has now proposed to construct a 49-story mixed use tower, the tallest building on the entire Westside. According to the Draft EIR, the 13 story 1801 Avenue of the Stars (at SM Blvd.) will be demolished and replaced by a tower consisting of 3-4 floors of retail, a floor of recreational amenities, and 44 additional stories of 262 condominiums.
RESPONSE NO. 42-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion of the construction-related impacts of the proposed project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 42-2 These units represent the fifth tower of residences in excess of 40 stories to be built simultaneously in Century City. This does not include 362 units to be built in adjacent Beverly Hills. The cumulative affect of all this construction results in significant impacts to our neighborhood regarding noise, poor air quality, unmitigated traffic, toxic hazards, and eventual shading of our residences from this tall, massive structure.
RESPONSE NO. 42-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 31-4 for a discussion regarding cumulative impacts.
COMMENT NO. 42-3 Construction vehicles will need haul routes and staging areas.
RESPONSE NO. 42-3 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-396 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 42-4 Demolition will disrupt air quality and create unacceptable levels of noise.
RESPONSE NO. 42-4 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 of this Final EIR for a discussion of construction impacts. As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality and noise (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality and Section IV.H, Noise). However, such impacts would be significant and unavoidable during certain construction activities.
COMMENT NO. 42-5 Lit signage on SM Blvd. will increase to over 4000 sq. ft.
RESPONSE NO. 42-5 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage along Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 42-6 Once construction is complete, our already crazy congested westside neighborhood will be dealing with yet more strains on our deteriorating infrastructure, including traffic and overcrowded public elementary schools.
RESPONSE NO. 42-6 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 34-2 for a discussion regarding infrastructure (e.g., storm drains, water, and sewer).
Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction activities associated with the proposed project and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for discussion of the project’s significant traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
As analyzed in Section IV.I.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, with the addition of the project-generated students, all school facilities serving the project site would be able to accommodate the new students with the exception of Westwood Charter Elementary School, which would experience a shortage of 166 seats. However, this impact would be reduced to a
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-397 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
less than significant level with the payment of developer impact fees in accordance with SB 50 and pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. As such, project-related impacts on schools would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 42-7 Quite frankly, Westfield is being horribly greedy and a lousy neighbor by even proposing a project on this scale. I don't begrudge new projects, but even you have to see that the scale of this thing does not belong adjacent to single family neighborhoods. This is not what the Westside Community Plan envisioned to protect our quality of life.
RESPONSE NO. 42-7 The West Los Angeles Community Plan, along with the CCNSP, envisioned Century City to be a unique, mixed-use area comprised of high-density commercial and low-density residential uses. Goal III-6 of the Community Plan is to develop "a strong and competitive commercial sector which promotes economic vitality [and] serves the needs of the community through well designed, safe and accessible areas." The New Century Plan furthers the goals of the Community Plan by updating its existing commercial uses and incorporating mixed-use elements, thereby revitalizing and promoting the economic vitality of the Shopping Center and Century City.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-398 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 43
Bill Papoutsis [email protected]
COMMENT NO. 43-1 I am among many residents in the Comstock Hills area who are very concerned about the proposed development that Westfield is proposing especially since a new development was just approved down the street where the Beverly Hilton is located.
RESPONSE NO. 43-1 The Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project for each issue area (e.g., air quality, noise, traffic, etc) covered in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts analysis takes into consideration the development of 108 related projects anticipated to be constructed in the project vicinity (63 in the City of Los Angeles and 45 in the City of Beverly Hills). The Beverly Hilton project was included in this list of related projects used to evaluate cumulative impacts.
COMMENT NO. 43-2 I assume a massive traffic in our streets, great increase in pollution and noice. [sic]
RESPONSE NO. 43-2 Potential impacts associated with traffic, air quality and noise are comprehensively evaluated in the Draft EIR. Refer to Section IV.J, Transportation and Circulation, Section IV.H, Noise and Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 43-3 My recommedation [sic] will be for a big reduction in the proposed development so we will continue to live in a relatively quite area.
I shall wait for your reply. Thank you.
RESPONSE NO. 43-3 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. It should be noted that Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR analyzes several alternatives to the proposed project, including two reduced density alternatives (Alternatives D1 and D2). Please refer to Section V, Alternatives, for a discussion of these alternatives and how they relate to the objectives of the project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-399 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 44
Caroline M. Spencer 10316 Wilkins Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 44-1 My home is located in the neighborhood immediately across Santa Monica Blvd, to the north from the Westfield Century City Shopping Center. I have lived here for over 43 years and can speak with authority to problems that will be forced upon our neighborhood by The New Century Plan if the plan is allowed to be completed as proposed. Therefore, I question the following:
1-HEIGHT: The need for a 49-story mixed-use tower, the tallest building on the Westside when there are 4 other residence buildings in excess of 40 stories already approved for construction in Century City and an additional 362 units to be built in Beverly Hills. These buildings were/are simultaneously planned to be built during the time that the USA is currently close to a depression greatly affecting the housing market.
Note 1: During a special meeting of our Comstock Hills Home Owners Association with Westfield the question was asked why the building would be so tall – the response, "because we are allowed that size building'. Not because there is a need or because it will be of benefit to the neighborhood. (Please review benefits in the EIR)
RESPONSE NO. 44-1 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 24-1 and 28-107 regarding the building height of the residential tower and compatibility of the proposed building with surrounding uses. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 3-6, these residential uses will accommodate existing demand for housing that is present within the City of Los Angeles.
COMMENT NO. 44-2 Granted the city of Los Angeles is projected to have a substantial increase in population in the foreseeable future however, I feel that Westfield should only build a building that includes housing for all incomes of persons working in Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 44-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-400 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 44-3 They should also research the number of children that will live in their building. (Please research expected children - the school situation as well as the green playground type area in the EIR)
RESPONSE NO. 44-3 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-5 for a discussion regarding the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-141 for a discussion regarding the analysis of parks and recreation in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 44-4 Note 2: Westfield only shows portions of the proposed hi-rise mixed use residential building to be built at 1801 Avenue of the Stars replacing the original historical 12 story building that is one of the original anchors of Century City. I had the impression following the meeting that they themselves do not know the final height of the building therefore I feel that my comments in shade shadow, traffic, signage and noise pollution need to be taken into consideration and researched to achieve a reasonable lower height for the proposed building.
RESPONSE NO. 44-4 The proposed height of the building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars is 579 feet above the plaza level or 587 feet above grade. This maximum height has been used to evaluate potential impacts throughout the Draft EIR, including potential shading impacts. This proposed height would be similar to existing heights within the project vicinity. Refer to Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of why a substantial reduction in the height of the proposed building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars is not feasible.
COMMENT NO. 44-5 2-SHADING - SHADE SHADOW: Per the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the neighborhood to the north of the Project, my neighborhood -shading will occur on many of our homes from the massive tower if it remains a 49-story building. Therefore I feel that studies should be conducted, then researched in the EIR to reduce the height of the building to the point where it will not shadow any existing home to the north. For the most part our homes built by the Janis Investment Corporation in the 1920's and 30;s offer a diversity of architecture and many Spanish and Monterey Style Spanish homes that are a historical treasure to view.
RESPONSE NO. 44-5 As discussed in the Draft EIR and in Topical Response No. 11, Shading Impacts, of this Final EIR, the project will not result in significant shading impacts to any residential uses, including the residential uses to the north of the project site. Please also refer to Response to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-401 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Comment No. 28-180 regarding analysis of a reduced height alternative that was considered and rejected.
COMMENT NO. 44-6 3-TRAFFIC, NOISE & AIR POLUTION; Per the Draft Environmental Impact Report, construction will continue for four years causing significant and unavoidable impacts.
RESPONSE NO. 44-6 Construction impacts associated with the project are thoroughly discussed in the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, while mitigation measures have been proposed, significant and unavoidable air quality and noise impacts would result during certain phases of construction of the project. However, these impacts would not occur for the entire duration of construction. In addition, the project would not result in significant construction-related traffic impacts. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for an overview of the construction related impacts associated with the proposed project and the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP).
COMMENT NO.44-7 Cut through traffic into residential neighborhoods is a serious concern that will survive the completion of the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 44-7 Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-4 for a full discussion of the neighborhood street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR, as well as for additional field reviews and traffic counts that were conducted as part of the Final EIR within the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association area.
COMMENT NO. 44-8 Although the net square footage of commercial use for the Westfield project is 104,440 square feet, it will require massive demolition that in turn creates serious negative impacts on air quality, noise, and traffic.
Note 1: Construction vehicle staging and hauling as 1801 Avenue of the Stars is demolished along with 1930 Century Park West, Bloomingdales and various other retail establishments will have an impact on the entire community especially the homes north of Santa Monica Blvd. The DEIR states that trucks will line up along Santa Monica Blvd. while waiting to enter the tunnel to load. Normally, haul trucks prefer to leave their engines running while waiting in line.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-402 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 44-8 Refer to Response to Comment No. 44-6. Also refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, regarding proposed construction truck staging. Potential noise impacts associated with construction truck staging would be less than significant as discussed therein and in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR. In addition, a mitigation measure has been included in the EIR that prohibits idling in excess of five minutes.
COMMENT NO. 44-9 Those engines are extremely noisy. In this area noise rises and homes to the north are on a hillside that is higher than the site. Please research the following points thoroughly in the EIR:
Note 2: The DEIR states that the sound will be stopped by the low commercial along the north frontage road of Santa Monica Blvd. Please note that I have found that sound rises in this area and will deeply affect many homes in Comstock Hills including my home. Therefore I request that another means of staging haul trucks be investigated.
RESPONSE NO. 44-9 Please refer to Topical Response No. 8 regarding construction staging and related noise impacts. As indicated therein short-term impacts associated with construction truck staging along Santa Monica Boulevard would be less than significant. However, other construction activities would result in significant noise impacts even with implementation of mitigation measures.
Based on a site visit, the residential homes north of the project site are on a slightly higher elevation than that of the Santa Monica Boulevard. However, they are partially shielded from the Santa Monica Boulevard street level by the existing commercial structures along the northern edge of the north frontage road of Santa Monica Boulevard across from the Shopping Center. These commercial structures are mostly 2-story high. The existing commercial buildings along the north frontage road of Santa Monica Boulevard, however, would not act as an full noise barrier (i.e., interrupting the direct line of sight between the homes and the Shopping Center). Therefore, the noise analysis takes into account that some locations (i.e., residential properties along the North of the Santa Monica Blvd) would not benefit from the noise barrier effect of the existing commercial structures. As discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, Page 469 (1st paragraph) of the Draft EIR, the existing building structures along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard would only provide partial noise shielding for the construction trucks queuing along the Santa Monica Boulevard. As shown in the worksheets provided in Appendix F of the Draft EIR, the noise study assumed limited noise attenuation from existing commercial buildings (i.e., from 0 to a maximum 5 dBA sound attenuation).
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-403 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 44-10 In addition if one entire lane of Santa Monica Blvd is used for staging haul trucks, other trucks and/or building materials it will create massive traffic jams. Therefore, I request staging be offsite with trucks arriving on an as needed basis and that Westfield CC property be used to store building materials for construction use and not one lane of Santa Monica Blvd.
RESPONSE NO. 44-10 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for clarification of the anticipated construction staging areas. As stated in the topical response, an additional on-site staging area is planned along Santa Monica Boulevard between the main Shopping Center access driveway and the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site and does not require any closure of adjacent traffic lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard as this area is within the project site boundaries. In addition, the City of Los Angeles will require the Applicant to devise and implement a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan in compliance with LAMC requirements. A detailed listing of the plan components and requirements is contained in Topical Response No. 8.
COMMENT NO. 44-11 Note 3: Construction noise and air quality must be protected. There should be screening during both demolition and construction. This is a common practice in other countries and should be investigated in the EIR process with recommendations stated.
RESPONSE NO. 44-11 Sections IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure that requires that a temporary, continuous and impermeable 10 feet high sound barrier wall be erected at the project construction site along Century Park West. In addition, construction activities would generally be screened from view along the perimeter of the site by temporary construction barriers that would be maintained throughout construction.
COMMENT NO. 44-12 Note 4: Cut thru and other traffic: The DEIR does not per Westfield personnel use current traffic counts. They stated at our meeting that they were given figures obtained during or before the construction of the new Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway. Traffic has changed since the completion, therefore I request new data be compiled that reflects current and projected future traffic. Also, there is a need to consider effects on cut through streets to the north as well as new traffic patterns on Beverly Glen Blvd to the north of the shopping center.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-404 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 44-12 Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway construction. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 6-6 for additional discussion of the supplemental analysis. Based on the results of the supplemental analysis, it was concluded that the Draft EIR's traffic impact conclusion may overstate the New Century Plan project's anticipated traffic impacts. Refer to Response to Comment No. 13-4 for a full discussion of the neighborhood street segment analysis contained in the Draft EIR, as well as for additional field reviews and traffic counts that were conducted as part of the Final EIR within the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association area.
COMMENT NO. 44-13 4-SIGNAGE, LIGHT OR GLARE- We recently celebrated the completion of the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway, a Scenic Highway. It took four years to complete. During that process billboards down the railway right of way were removed to fulfill the Scenic Highway rules and regulations. Santa Monica Blvd is designated a Scenic Highway in the West Los Angeles Community Plan. Note, "The land contiguous to a scenic highway is known as a Scenic Corridor. It is appropriate that protective land use controls be established for these corridors, particularly with respect to signage and billboards."
The DEIR states that a major addition to the current signage facing Santa Monica Blvd. is planned. It will increase the signage from "the current 900 square feet to over 4000 square feet of lit signage". Proposed signage, per the DEIR, includes "new monument signs, building signs, way finding signs, parking entrance signs and wall signs. Proposed signage along 5MB, Ave of the Stars and Constellation Blvd. would be illuminated to establish the continued presence of the retail, restaurant and residential building in the context of Century City during the nighttime hours." Note:" No new illuminated signage would be visible from and adjacent R1 properly to the west of Century Park West."
Note 1: R1 properties to the north are not being considered in the DEIR. My home lies north of the site and I can see the current Westfield Century City signage both daytime and especially at night when it is lit from my residence while standing on the ground in my yard. Many other homes to the north of Westfield Century City can also see these signs. Westfield has no control over the hours that the red AMC signs are lit. Currently I must view these ugly red signs at all hours of the evening and nighttime. I have complained about these signs to Westfield personnel, they state that the signs should be turned off when the shopping center closes however this does not happen. Please investigate proposed signage - size, type, lighting and all other aspects in the EIR in order to reduce the amount and impact.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-405 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 44-13 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-2 and 28-73 regarding the consistency of the project's signage along Santa Monica Boulevard with the Scenic Highway designation for that roadway and the less than significant impacts that would result from proposed signage. R1 properties to the north are considered a sensitive receptor throughout the EIR. The text regarding visible lighting from R1 properties to the west of the project site continues a Condition of Approval previously established for the project site. Furthermore, the residential area to the west of the site is located approximately 100 feet from the project site, while the residential area to the north is located a minimum of 342 feet from the project site and is separated from the project site by Santa Monica Boulevard, a major highway, and commercial uses to the north of Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 44-14 The DEIR also states that there is a potentially significant impact of the new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. It also recommended that potential impacts associated with light and glare by analyzed further in an EIR.
Note 1: Westfield Century City is upgrading each of their retail shops. They are competing with Beverly Hills and also other shopping centers. It is customary in Beverly Hills to have signage meet tasteful standards and not become a 'Las Vegas' or Great White Way of the West.
RESPONSE NO. 44-14 A comprehensive analysis of light and glare is provided in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, and it is determined therein that the project would have less than significant light and glare impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage.
COMMENT NO.44-15 5-LIGHT OR GLARE, in respect to conservation. Since the project is billed as The Greening of Century City, there seems to be no regard for the tremendous waste in electrical energy needed to illuminate and generate power to run these structures and all night signage. Renewable energy sources lost forever are mentioned as significant but unavoidable impacts.
Note 1: They mention installing Solar Panels in an area above a new garage however they will not guarantee that these Solar Panels will not add to glare in the area. The type of Solar Panel required for the Westfield Century City Shopping center and adjoining buildings should be fully studied in the EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-406 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 44-15 The proposed project will include additional signage, however as noted in Response to Comment No. 28-56, Westfield agrees to extinguish all existing internally lit signs under the control of Westfield that are visible from any residential area by 10 P.M. Additionally, as described in the Draft EIR, the proposed would be designed and built in accordance with the criteria of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program and thus, would include numerous energy-saving features. Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-15 for a summary of these features. As the locations thought to be viable for solar harvesting are on the roof of proposed structures, glare impacts on surrounding residential uses would be minimal.
COMMENT NO.44-16 6-DEWATERING OF THE SITE AREA: When I moved into my home in 1965 during the summertime hot weather the temperature often lowered by 5 degrees as I drove westward along Santa Monica Blvd. as I passed Avenue of the Stars. This was due to the underground water and the fact that the location is at the very edge of the Coastal weather. Evenings I would walk my dog through my neighborhood and find significant cool areas where ground water was present. This has changed in the subsequent years as the temperatures have slowly risen. Hi-rise building along Wilshire Blvd and low-rise apartments and condos along Beverly Glen Blvd dewater dumping this high quality ground water into discharge channels that eventually end up in the storm drains and run off into the ocean.
"Dewatering would be required during construction and operation to lower the groundwater and similar to the project, installation and operation of a permanent dewatering system would require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit from the RWQCB to discharge water into the storm drain. With compliance to NPDES requirements, potential impacts from contaminated groundwater would be less than significant. However, because the Alternative requires excavation at deeper levels than the project, potential impacts to groundwater would be greater than the project."
With the prospect of insufficient rainfall to replenish the water supply I suggest using this project to start a recycling plan putting the water into usages. After all Beverly Hills adjacent to Century City uses ground water wells for all purposes. I request that the recycling of ground water be thoroughly investigated, reported and recommended in the final EIR. Thank you, I look forward to reading the final EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 44-16 As discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in impermeable surfaces due to the introduction of new landscaped areas. Specifically, following development of the proposed project, impervious surfaces would constitute approximately 85 percent of the site. This would
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-407 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
represent an approximate decrease of 5 percent in impervious areas when compared with existing conditions. In addition, as discussed in Topical Response No. 12, Water Supply, the project would include numerous features to conserve water including use of landscape contouring to minimize precipitation runoff. The project will also incorporate a water recycling system to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety to the extent feasible.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-408 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 45
Al Anton 2116 Veteran Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 45-1 I think it is evident that the plans for expanded parking at Westfield Century City, as described in the draft EIR, will improve the parking situation in the surrounding area. The conservative approach taken in the traffic study allows for worst cases and mitigates accordingly.
Of course, eliminating two office buildings will, by itself, reduce the pressure by workers and shoppers to look for parking on adjacent residential streets. However, the addition of nearly 2,000 parking spots, almost doubling the amount of parking currently available, is expected to provide not simply adequate, but surplus, parking nearly year-round. And, during peak holiday season, Westfield plans to continue to provide off-site parking for employees, implement a new electronic parking system further improving the parking situation.
This is a big improvement for those working at the center, for those coming for shopping, dining or entertainment, and for those who live in surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, the addition of another valet parking location, and improved access and entries to on-site parking, mark significant enhancements to this facility.
These parking improvements will be most welcome.
RESPONSE NO. 45-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-409 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 46
Barbara Bray 2302 Camden Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 46-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR's executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacityis available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for an in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 46-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-410 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 47
Elia Chamat 1300 Midvale Avenue #501 Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 47-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR's executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacityis available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for an in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 47-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-411 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 48
Fiel Dignadice 6643 Cleon Avenue Los Angeles, California 91606
COMMENT NO. 48-1 Those of us in the Century City community have reason to be concerned about the potential inconvenience and disruption that construction of The New Century Plan project would involve. With a projected four-year time frame, and work that includes the demolition of multiple existing office buildings, potential issues from noise to traffic abound.
However, the range of the construction impact mitigations contained in the draft EIR is both extensive and reassuring. The limitations on construction hours, on dieselpowered construction equipment and on the idling of heavy equipment are important steps toward reducing construction-related air pollution and equipment noise. Also useful will be the requirement for a construction worker parking plan and the utilization of temporary sound barriers.
Westfield appears to be serious about being a good neighbor throughout the construction period by its agreement to comply with these measures. I believe these construction-related mitigation measures thoroughly address concerns.
RESPONSE NO. 48-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As stated in the comment above, the project will include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Additional discussion of construction impacts and mitigation proposed to address such impacts is provided in Topical Response No. 8.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-412 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 49
Lois Fields 10580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 49-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 49-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 49-2 If, as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 49-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-413 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 50
Miriam Gutter 2327 Greenfield Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 50-1 Those of us in the Century City community have reason to be concerned about the potential inconvenience and disruption that construction of The New Century Plan project would involve. With a projected four-year time frame, and work that includes the demolition of multiple existing office buildings, potential issues from noise to traffic abound.
However, the range of the construction impact mitigations contained in the draft EIR is both extensive and reassuring. The limitations on construction hours, on dieselpowered construction equipment and on the idling of heavy equipment are important steps toward reducing construction-related air pollution and equipment noise. Also useful will be the requirement for a construction worker parking plan and the utilization of temporary sound barriers.
Westfield appears to be serious about being a good neighbor throughout the construction period by its agreement to comply with these measures. I believe these construction-related mitigation measures thoroughly address concerns.
RESPONSE NO. 50-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As stated in the comment above, the project will include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Additional discussion of construction impacts and mitigation proposed to address such impacts is provided in Topical Response No. 8.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-414 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 51
Gedda Ilves 1906 Parnell Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 51-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR's executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacityis available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for an in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 51-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-415 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 52
Frank Lane 1745 Selby Avenue #3 Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 52-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR's executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walkable community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacityis available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for an in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 52-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-416 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 53
Elliot Lewis 10829 Wellworth Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 53-1 I am writing in regard to the traffic issues associated with the revitalization efforts for the Westfield Century City Shopping Center.
It seems apparent from the Draft EIR that the changed mix of uses may well result in better traffic flow and reduced congestion than we now have at this location. In fact, the environmental document shows that with the elimination of two office buildings, the project will result in a decrease of morning peak hour commute trips from current levels.
Replacing residential units where office space had been, along with the enhanced retail shopping and entertainment uses, will actually serve to counterbalance commuter travel since residents and shoppers will use the roadways at different times, and in reverse direction, compared to office workers.
RESPONSE NO. 53-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the weekday and weekend project trip generation forecasts. The residential land use component trip generation forecast is conservative in that it does not assume reductions due to the expected synergy between project land use components and possible employment of future residents within Century City. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 53-2 If, as the Draft EIR proposes, shopping center developers are required to implement a transportation demand management program that provides incentives for car-pooling and making use of bus transit, this new Westfield Century City revitalization plan should actually reduce congestion for all of us, and that's a big plus.
RESPONSE NO. 53-2 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 6-7 for further discussion of the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-417 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 54
Jill Lewis 2112 Century Park Lane Apt. 207 Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 54-1 Those of us in the Century City community have reason to be concerned about the potential inconvenience and disruption that construction of The New Century Plan project would involve. With a projected four-year time frame, and work that includes the demolition of multiple existing office buildings, potential issues from noise to traffic abound.
However, the range of the construction impact mitigations contained in the draft EIR is both extensive and reassuring. The limitations on construction hours, on dieselpowered construction equipment and on the idling of heavy equipment are important steps toward reducing construction-related air pollution and equipment noise. Also useful will be the requirement for a construction worker parking plan and the utilization of temporary sound barriers.
Westfield appears to be serious about being a good neighbor throughout the construction period by its agreement to comply with these measures. I believe these construction-related mitigation measures thoroughly address concerns.
RESPONSE NO. 54-1 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As stated in the comment above, the project will include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of construction with respect to air quality, noise, and traffic (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality; Section IV.H, Noise; and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation). Additional discussion of construction impacts and mitigation proposed to address such impacts is provided in Topical Response No. 8.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-418 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 55
Helen Lutey 1964 Thayer Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 55-1 I think it is evident that the plans for expanded parking at Westfield Century City, as described in the draft EIR, will improve the parking situation in thesurrounding area. The conservative approach taken in the traffic study allows for worst cases and mitigates accordingly.
Of course, eliminating two office buildings will, by itself, reduce the pressure by workers and shoppers to look for parking on adjacent residential streets. However, the addition of nearly 2,000 parking spots, almost doubling the amount of parking currently available, is expected to provide not simply adequate, but surplus, parking nearly year-round. And, during peak holiday season, Westfield plans to continue to provide off-site parking for employees, implement a new electronic parking system further improving the parking situation.
This is a big improvement for those working at the center, for those coming for shopping, dining or entertainment, and for those who live in surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, the addition of another valet parking location, and improved access and entries to on-site parking, mark significant enhancements to this facility.
These parking improvements will be most welcome.
RESPONSE NO. 55-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-419 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 56
Alvin Markus 2077 Kerwood Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025
COMMENT NO. 56-1 I think it is evident that the plans for expanded parking at Westfield Century City, as described in the draft EIR, will improve the parking situation in thesurrounding area. The conservative approach taken in the traffic study allows for worst cases and mitigates accordingly.
Of course, eliminating two office buildings will, by itself, reduce the pressure by workers and shoppers to look for parking on adjacent residential streets. However, the addition of nearly 2,000 parking spots, almost doubling the amount of parking currently available, is expected to provide not simply adequate, but surplus, parking nearly year-round. And, during peak holiday season, Westfield plans to continue to provide off-site parking for employees, implement a new electronic parking system further improving the parking situation.
This is a big improvement for those working at the center, for those coming for shopping, dining or entertainment, and for those who live in surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, the addition of another valet parking location, and improved access and entries to on-site parking, mark significant enhancements to this facility.
These parking improvements will be most welcome.
RESPONSE NO. 56-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-420 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 57
Tom Nguyen 7626 Willow Glen Road Los Angeles, California 90046
COMMENT NO. 57-1 I think it is evident that the plans for expanded parking at Westfield Century City, as described in the draft EIR, will improve the parking situation in thesurrounding area. The conservative approach taken in the traffic study allows for worst cases and mitigates accordingly.
Of course, eliminating two office buildings will, by itself, reduce the pressure by workers and shoppers to look for parking on adjacent residential streets. However, the addition of nearly 2,000 parking spots, almost doubling the amount of parking currently available, is expected to provide not simply adequate, but surplus, parking nearly year-round. And, during peak holiday season, Westfield plans to continue to provide off-site parking for employees, implement a new electronic parking system further improving the parking situation.
This is a big improvement for those working at the center, for those coming for shopping, dining or entertainment, and for those who live in surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, the addition of another valet parking location, and improved access and entries to on-site parking, mark significant enhancements to this facility.
These parking improvements will be most welcome.
RESPONSE NO. 57-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-421 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 58
Patricia Rogers 2317 Midvale Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 58-1 In reviewing the Draft EIR for this project, I was pleased to see that this kind of mixed-use revitalization could provide real benefits, with no significant negative impacts, in terms of public services.
Replacing part of the office building space with multi-family residential housing is a good example of the kind of Smart Growth, in-fill housing that we need in Los Angeles. In fact, the DEIR's executive summary puts it well: “The proposed improvements would promote the future vitality of the shopping center and enhance Century City as a walk able community by providing options to live, play, work and shop in an area that is already an established employment hub.”
And, while the project will result in new residents, the analysis concludes that adequate police, fire, library and school capacity is available. In fact, the project is expected to generate $8.1 million in sales tax and other tax revenues annually in contributions towards paying for these services for all residents. As an added benefit, as part of the project the water line along Constellation Boulevard will be upgraded, thereby improving water flow for an in the area, including residential.
In summary, this is welcome, reasoned development that will benefit the community.
RESPONSE NO. 58-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-422 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 59
Barbara Broide Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association Post Office Box 64213 Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 59-1 Westwood South of Santa Monica Boulevard Homeowners Association, a non-profit organization representing 3,800 households, is located due west of the above-proposed Westfield New Century Plan project. Our homeowners live between Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards on the north and south, and between Beverly Glen and Sepulveda Boulevards on the east and west. As such, our residents are directly impacted by development that occurs in Century City. While the proposed project includes the removal of two office buildings (1930 Century Park West and 1801 Avenue of the Stars) resulting in a reduction of 154,441 square feet of office space after new office space is added, significant additions to the shopping center (358,881 square feet of net new retail shopping center space) and the inclusion of a 262 multi-family residential apartment or condominium unit building, will result in numerous negative impacts, many of which have not been adequately addressed in the DEIR nor mitigated to acceptable levels.
RESPONSE NO. 59-1 The Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Los Angeles. The Draft EIR is thorough and properly discloses the potential impacts of the project. Where feasible, mitigation measures have been proposed to address the significant impacts of the project. A list of these mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provided in Section IV of this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 59-2 Given the state of the city’s infrastructure, we question whether additional development in the Century City area of the nature proposed can be supported with the existing infrastructure—even taking into account the suggested mitigation measures proposed.
RESPONSE NO. 59-2 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-4 and 11-49 above regarding the ability of existing infrastructure to support the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-3 Any development on this property can and should be compatible with its neighbors and neighboring communities (and businesses) around the Westside. The economic benefits of this project (and/or any other proposal) cannot sacrifice the quality of life in the area.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-423 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-3 Refer to Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality and Views, and Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR for a detailed analysis that demonstrates that the project would be consistent with the density of the surrounding Century City area and that the project would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. In addition, the project would result in an economic benefit to the City of Los Angeles. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 59-4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources-Visual Quality/Views and Light, Glare, and Shading: Since there are neighbors to the project both residential and commercial who are more directly impacted by the physical configuration of the proposed project, we would yield to their comments pertaining to environmental impacts related to aesthetics (visual qualities, lighting, shading). We share the concerns of the Comstock Hills Association over potential lighting overflow from signage at the mall. We also share their concern over the shade and shadow impacts that the taller primarily residential building will throw onto locations north of the project. The DEIR seems to attempt to understate the impacts on nearby multi and single family residences by saying that “the project would not shade single-family residential properties outside the CCNSP for more than two continuous hours, and no new shading would occur over multi-family residential properties for more than three hours.” This is hardly an insignificant impact to those living in the homes, condos and apartments affected. For the golf course, there is even greater impact during the winter solstice and spring equinox of “more than three hours.”
RESPONSE NO. 59-4 Potential impacts associated with signage, lighting and shading have been thoroughly evaluated in the EIR. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22, 13-10, and 28-56 regarding signage and lighting. Also, refer to Topical Response No. 11 regarding shading.
COMMENT NO. 59-5 Could that impact on the golf course have negative impacts on plant life, birds, insects and other animals living in the vicinity of the golf course?
RESPONSE NO. 59-5 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-66 for a discussion of how project- generated shade would not have an effect on turf. As discussed in Topical Response No. 11, the majority of the areas of the golf course that would be shaded by the project are already shaded by existing buildings within Century City during various timeframes throughout the day.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-424 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Additionally, the proposed residential tower has been oriented such that the shadows cast on the golf course would be narrow and thus move quickly across the southern areas of the golf course. Therefore, the project would cast new shadows on any given area within the golf course for substantially less time than three hours. Nonetheless, the total amount of time that new shading would occur over the entire expanse of the golf course would add up to more than three hours. Thus, it was conservatively assumed that such shading impacts to the golf course during the winter solstice and spring equinox would be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in the Initial Study provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the project, which is located in a highly urbanized area, would not result in significant impacts associated with biological resources.
COMMENT NO. 59-6 A smaller project with reduced density would have less negative impact and is preferred by our community and our neighbors.
RESPONSE NO. 59-6 Two Reduced Density Alternatives have been addressed in Section V, Alternatives of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 59-7 The taller a building gets, the more magnified the opportunities for glare and heat. Building accents will need to be chosen (particularly on the west side of the taller residential structure) to diminish the potential dangers to drivers. One issue that we have not read anything about relates to the added density in the area as brought about by this project and as a result of the cumulative impacts of the large number of expected new projects. Forty years ago, the Century City area was largely a movie studio back-lot. Today it contains numerous mid to high rise structures. In the coming decade the number of buildings over 40 stories will number over half a dozen. What is the impact of such structures on the area’s environment in terms of temperature? During each day, the buildings will absorb the heat from the sun and continue to radiate that heat as night falls. What kind of density is required before the collection of buildings contributes to a rise in temperature in the local area? (The term “heat island” has been used to describe urban heating.) Will this building and its peers make a difference?
RESPONSE NO. 59-7 A comprehensive analysis of light and glare is provided in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, and it is determined therein that the project would have less than significant light and glare impacts with implementation of mitigation measures.
Please refer to Response to Comment No. 17-2 for a discussion regarding cumulative impacts. As described throughout the analysis in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views, of the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-425 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Draft EIR, Century City is a highly urbanized area characterized by mid-and high-rise buildings. Notable buildings in the area include the twin 44-story Century Plaza towers, the 36-story MGM Tower, the 39-story AIG SunAmerica Building, the two 23-story Watt Plaza towers, the 39-story Fox Plaza building, and the 19-story Century Plaza Hotel. Within this urban context, the distinctive and dramatic skyline of Century City is considered an aesthetic resource. As such, the development of additional high-rise development in the area would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, as addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Furthermore, please refer to Response to Comment No. 10-6 for a discussion of the reduced size project that was considered within the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR.
There is not a direct, linear, or inherent correlation between building size, area, and density, and incremental increases in urban heat island effects. Heat islands (generally) are found in urbanized areas and caused by several factors including:
• Large areas of low-albedo surfaces which absorb solar energy and radiate it back into the environment as heat. Such surfaces are most often dark-colored and include asphalt parking lots, dark-colored flat and sloped-roofs, and large monolithic brick or masonry walls.
• Little or no natural ground-cover or shading which would convert solar energy into biotic growth instead of radiating it back as heat. Plants’ natural transpiration also serves to help cool the immediate environment by using up ambient heat to evaporate water and raise the local humidity.
• Large amounts of waste heat radiated back into the atmosphere as a byproduct of air- conditioning, refrigeration, vehicular emissions, and industrial processes.
While some of these processes do incrementally increase with building area and density (air-conditioning, for example), the specifics of site configuration and orientation have a much more significant impact on urban heat islands since the amount of heat passively absorbed and radiated back into the atmosphere is directly related to material properties and the aspect of the surfaces relative to the sun at its most intense altitudes and azimuths. This is in turn directly related to the amount of process heat placed into the atmosphere as a function of the buildings’ cooling load. In the specific case of the project, four specific aspects of the proposed plan diminish any incremental increase in the urban heat island effect:
• Replacement of older, inefficient cooling and insulation systems with higher-efficiency, LEED-certifiable ones which minimize both the amount of solar energy absorbed and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-426 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
re-radiated on site, as well as reducing the project’s cooling loads (and thus, the amount of waste heat expelled into the atmosphere).
• Use of centralized heating and cooling plants for the project instead of small, dispersed package-units. In general, unit-for-unit, it is vastly more efficient to heat and cool a compact tower using a central plant rather than 262 separate package units for 262 separate dwellings; in this specific case, the central plant also provides an enhanced opportunity for heat-exchange between the residential and commercial uses. Century City also has an existing central chilled water plant; if the project connects to this instead of constructing its own project-wide plant, further gains in efficiency will be made.
• The majority of parking is below-grade or structured and the roof-top parking will be shaded. Not only does this avoid the deleterious effects of surface asphalt parking lots, it also reduces the internal heat gain of both the buildings and the automobiles which results in less excess heat needing to be removed and placed into the atmosphere.
• All unshaded roofs of new buildings and parking decks will be covered with either high- albedo materials, photovoltaic cells, or planting which will significantly reduce the cooling-loads on the building
Based on the above, the project would not result in an incremental increase in a “heat island” effect.
COMMENT NO. 59-8 Visual Resources: There is a certain aesthetic to having the pair of “gateway” buildings at the corner of Santa Monica Blvd. and Avenue of the Stars, with their complementary landscaping, fountains and connecting pedestrian bridge. Singularly, either one of the buildings would not necessarily be considered to be “a visually prominent feature”; however paired together with the landscaping and fountains, beside the bridge, they must be recognized as being a prominent feature within Century City. Those who are aware of the history of Century City will remember Alcoa’s original ownership and the related use of aluminum in the early structures. Mention is made of the aluminum mural that is to be removed from the 1801 building if the building is to be demolished. Every effort should be made to incorporate the mural into the property’s future development/design. At the very least it should remain in Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 59-8 This comment restates the background information regarding the building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars that is provided in the Historic Resources Report included as Appendix C of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section IV.A.1, Visual Quality/Views of the Draft EIR, the project would result in the removal of the 13-story 1801 Avenue of the Stars building, which was originally intended as one of a pair of “gateway” buildings to Avenue of the Stars and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-427 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Century City. This building was originally one of the tallest buildings in the area. However, intervening growth in Century City has resulted in some of Los Angeles’s tallest and most distinguished buildings, most of which are more than twice the height of the Avenue of the Stars building. Due to its relatively modest height and un-distinguished architecture, the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building is not the notable gateway it was originally intended to be. Therefore, it is not an important scenic feature and the removal of the building would not be considered a significant aesthetic impact.
Mitigation Measure C-2 of the EIR provides for the relocation of the mural within the lobby of the 1801 Avenue of the Stars building through a conservation plan. The commentor's suggestion that the mural should be incorporated into the new project or, if that is not feasible, should remain in Century City, will be forwarded to the decision-makers. This suggestion could be an appropriate component of the conservation plan.
COMMENT NO. 59-9 While much has been said about efforts to “green” Century City and to make its public spaces more inviting for pedestrian uses, it is difficult to determine whether the design and facade of the new retail/residential structure accomplishes this goal with its dark and boxy appearance. Additional details are necessary to assess this. What specifically will make this new area attractive to pedestrians? What will contribute to a friendly pedestrian environment and how can neighbors north of Santa Monica Blvd. easily access the south side of the Boulevard and the mall?
RESPONSE NO. 59-9 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-106, 35-4, and 35-13 for discussions regarding pedestrian and site access improvements included as part of the proposed project. Please also refer to Figures II-9 through II-13 in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR, which depict in greater detail the conceptual landscape and streetscape plan for the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-10 Signage is a concern for the community. The nearby residents need to be assured that lighting from neither the project’s structures nor signs will intrude on their neighborhood. It is stated that “no new illuminated signage would be visible from any adjacent R1 property to the west of Century Park West.” The assurance that no new signage will be visible from any adjacent R1 property to the north of Santa Monica Blvd. is also desired. We request that no off-site signage of any kind be allowed on the mall walls, on billboard structures, on light posts, etc. We request that there be no digital or electronic signage, and no building supergraphic signs allowed on the property. It is of concern to us that there are currently off-site advertising billboard-type signs
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-428 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
mounted on the shopping center that, according to our understanding of the City’s billboard and signage ordinances, are not allowed.
RESPONSE NO. 59-10 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22, 13-10, 28-56, and 28-73 regarding illuminated signage impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 35-15 for a discussion regarding the types of signage proposed under the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-11 Air Quality: We are concerned about local air quality in terms of pollution generated during construction, and long term pollution generated as a result of increased traffic. While the reduction in existing office space may reduce peak hour traffic, an increase in mid-day and weekend trips is to be expected and will generate traffic throughout the day and in the evenings. Particulate pollution, while not as significant a health factor for the average healthy citizen, can be of extreme concern for those who are at risk for respiratory illness, and for high risk individuals (the very young and the very old). Impacts on these segments of the population are not taken into account. The cumulative impact of air pollutants during construction of multiple large projects simultaneously adds to our concerns about air quality and potential impacts on health, which in this case are noted to be significant.
RESPONSE NO. 59-11 The traffic assessment analyzed the shifts in daily and hourly traffic patterns due to the changes in land use. This data was used to perform the air quality analyses.
With regard to the analysis of air quality impacts during construction, the Draft EIR relies on methodologies and significance criteria established by the City, the SCAQMD, and other relevant agencies. Ambient air quality standards are established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board to be health protective of sensitive populations, including children and the elderly. Thus, the impacts on these segments of the population were properly assessed in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-5 for more information regarding health risks from air pollutants.
The Draft EIR specifically addresses cumulative impacts associated with construction of the project and other related projects. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts for an overview of these analyses as well as an overview of the numerous mitigation measures proposed to address construction impacts.
COMMENT NO. 59-12 While we tend to agree with the project applicant that there is no architectural or historical significance that would suggest that the 1930 Century Park West office structure be protected
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-429 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
from demolition, the replacement of that structure with a parking structure, does raise cause for concern as it relates to air particulate pollution.
RESPONSE NO. 59-12 The proposed parking structure would have no openings (other than the garage entry) on its western elevation facing Century Park West. Additionally, all openings along the structure's south-facing Constellation Boulevard frontage would be a minimum of 40 feet from Century Park West. Given that the parking structure would be enclosed on its Century Park West façade, most of the particulate emissions generated within the structure are not likely to become airborne and be transported to the residences to the west of the project site. Additionally, the proposed parking structure would include screening of the rooftop parking areas (such as architectural canopies, trees, and other plantings and/or photovoltaic arrays) and all rooftop parking areas would also include a parapet wall (minimum 36 inches above the parking level roof elevation). All of these design features would minimize the likelihood of particulate matter significantly impacting residential uses to the west of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 59-13 Replacing a five story office building with a parking structure planned to be 45 feet above plaza level -- and 60 feet above grade – may very well have a negative impact on those living in the residential homes whose backyards abut Century Park West (immediately to the west of Century City Shopping Center). There is no mention of the possible impacts from increased particulate densities floating their way due to suddenly having hundreds of cars at and ABOVE their rooftops, “driven” by the wind out of the proposed parking structure, and down. This needs to be assessed and addressed in addition to impacts from noise and other sources not generated from an enclosed office building.
The current office building acts as a buffer for the adjacent residential homes precisely because it is located between the Century City Shopping Center and the entrance to its current underground parking area. Removing the existing five story office building and replacing it with a large parking structure may erode the quality of life in the neighborhood and jeopardize nearby residents' health and quiet enjoyment of their property and should be evaluated.
RESPONSE NO. 59-13 As discussed in the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment Nos. 11-12, 11-17 and 11- 38, above, the proposed parking structure would be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses and would not generate any significant aesthetics or noise impacts. Refer to Response to Comment No. 59-12 regarding particulate emissions associated with the parking structure.
COMMENT NO. 59-14 Operation/Air quality: We ask that testing of standby generators be done only on days of no- to-low levels of air pollution. What can be done to minimize the cumulative impact of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-430 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
construction and operational emissions of CO, NOx and VOC that are deemed to be significant? What can be done to relieve impacts of truck diesel fuel particulate emissions? Can the sides of parking structures be enclosed and air circulating within the structures (and where there is underground parking) be charcoal filtered to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals and irritants?
RESPONSE NO. 59-14 The comment regarding testing standby generators only on days of no-to-low level air pollution is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Mitigation measures have been proposed to address the significant air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for a list of these mitigation measures. Also refer to Section II, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for additional air quality mitigation measures that have been included to address air quality impacts.
State law requires a five minute time limit on idling of diesel-powered vehicles. Because this is an Airborne Toxic Control Measure with state-wide applicability, operators and drivers of vehicles to which this law applies are required to comply with the law and the Applicant expects compliance with this mitigation measure to be easily achieved. In addition, the Applicant will communicate this requirement to employees, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and visitors as warranted, using appropriate means such as signage, verbal instruction, or contract documentation.
As noted above in Response to Comment No. 59-12, the parking structure at 1930 Century Park West would be enclosed on its Century Park West façade and rooftop parking areas would include a parapet wall. These design features would mitigate the likelihood that vehicle emissions generated in the parking structure would become airborne and reach the residences to the west of the project site.
COMMENT NO. 59-15 While the DEIR makes reference to the SCAQMD CEQA AIR Quality Handbook Policy and LA City Policies analysis, one must question the conclusions reached in the following: “Development of the proposed project at the proposed site location offers the opportunity to provide residential uses in the middle of a highly urbanized regional employment center and does so via the use of existing infrastructure....” The sad fact is that the infrastructure is already severely over-taxed, there is no space in nearby schools, the roads are at gridlock, there is no fixed rail transit option available, and the housing that is being offered is only for the very wealthy. The overwhelming majority of employees who work in Century City in the offices, in the mall, in the hotel, etc. likely cannot afford to buy a condo in any of the buildings now
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-431 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
proposed or under construction. We are told that many of those who will live in the residential portion of the project will be retired residents of nearby Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Westwood, etc. which means that their occupancy in Century City will do nothing to reduce existing home to work commuting during peak hours.
RESPONSE NO. 59-15 The commenter correctly notes that the analysis in the Draft EIR was conducted in accordance with SCAQMD and local guidance. Localized CO analyses, as described beginning on page 278 of the Draft EIR, take into account the current roadway infrastructure, as measured by levels of service (LOS). The air quality analysis states that the SCAQMD recommends an evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when vehicle to capacity ratios are increased by two percent or more at intersections with an LOS of C or worse (LOS data is provided in Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation, of the Draft EIR). Accordingly, the two intersections that meet these criteria were analyzed in the Draft EIR and were found to have less than significant impacts to localized mobile-source CO emissions. Thus, the Draft EIR did take existing conditions and the current use of infrastructure into consideration in the analysis of air quality.
Potential impacts associated with transportation and schools are addressed in Sections IV.J, Traffic and Circulation and IV.I.3, Schools of the Draft EIR. In addition, refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6 regarding the range of housing types that will be provided by the project as well as SCAG’s concurrence that the project will be served by existing infrastructure.
COMMENT NO. 59-16 Historic Resources: Please see comments regarding visual resources and landscape/open space.
RESPONSE NO. 59-16 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-4 through 59-9 and 59-22 regarding visual resources and landscape/open space.
COMMENT NO. 59-17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: We wish to make certain that air monitoring for asbestos during demolition be done by an environmental consultant who is independent of the builder. Due to the dangers associated with the inhalation of friable ACMs, the community needs assurances that those doing the monitoring are able to stop work whenever necessary without risk of loosing his/her/their job(s).
RESPONSE NO. 59-17 As discussed in Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, prior to demolition of the office building at 1930 Century Park all asbestos containing materials (ACM) will be removed by a certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with applicable
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-432 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
regulations, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. While no ACM have been found at the office building at 1801 Avenue of the Stars, a comprehensive asbestos survey will be conducted prior to the demolition of this building, and any ACM found will also be removed by a certified asbestos containment contractor. Mitigation Measure E-2 of the Draft EIR requires that an asbestos survey be conducted of all existing buildings prior to their demolition or modification, and that any asbestos found be removed in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. In accordance with existing regulations designed to protect workers from potential or actual health threats posed by the removal of asbestos, the asbestos containment contractor will have the right to stop work if the health of workers is threatened.
COMMENT NO. 59-18 Those working in proximity to Santa Monica Blvd. must be aware of the dangers associated with the chemical plume from a former dry cleaning establishment on the north side of Santa Monica Blvd. The DEIR makes mention of the plume; all construction workers involved in the project who may be working in an area of possible contamination must be trained to call in the appropriate personnel to assess and remedy the situation.
RESPONSE NO. 59-18 As discussed in Section IV.E of the Draft EIR, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Response to Comment No. 11-25, contaminants have previously been detected in the soil, soil vapor and groundwater around the Beverly Crest Cleaners. However, according to the December 2006 report submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as well as monthly 2007 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports, it does not appear that the Beverly Crest Cleaners has adversely impacted the groundwater beneath 1801 Avenue of the Stars building. Additionally, none of these contaminants have the potential to harm construction workers on the project site. Nonetheless, to avoid the potential for the 1801 Avenue of the Stars dewatering system to discharge any contaminated water into the storm drain, the groundwater beneath 1801 Avenue of the Stars will continue to be tested in accordance with the NPDES Discharge Permit or Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, required by Mitigation Measures E-5 and E-6 of the Draft EIR. If any chemicals or pollutants within the groundwater is determined to exceed allowable limits of the NPDES or Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, a water treatment system will be implemented. Therefore, the potential impacts from groundwater contaminated by the Beverly Crest Cleaners will be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 59-19 Public Services-- Fire, Police: We would like to request information from the LAPD as to what expected impact on daytime response time there might be from the addition of 358,881 square feet of new retail space. In addition to added demand related to retail uses, there will be a new concentration of residents in the location in the proposed condo (or apartment)
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-433 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
structure. How will the added retail and residential density affect response time in the balance of the community served from the West Los Angeles Community Police Station? What was the LAPD’s past experience when new retail space was opened? Given West Los Angeles’ relatively low crime figures when compared to other areas of the City, we cannot expect to receive additional LAPD staff at our local station. Yet, with all the new projects there will be increased demands upon the existing police personnel, both from the added retail space and from the new concentration of residents. The expected 553 new residents will generate a cumulative 10.5 percent increase in WLAPD annual crime calls/incidents, with additional incidents above that potentially generated from amongst the residential building’s employees. How is this to be addressed? We ask this question because we have been told in the past by LAPD staff that they spend more and more time in Century City responding to calls. This means that they are not available for local patrol and traffic work in the remainder of their service area, (the largest service area in the LAPD), which includes the WSSM community. Westfield may wish to consider financially assisting the West LA station to obtain security cameras for key Century City locations where regular LAPD surveillance is desired. The LAPD has recently approved a vendor for such equipment.
RESPONSE NO. 59-19 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 39-1 for a discussion regarding police protection. As discussed in the Draft EIR, with the implementation of project safety design features and the recommended mitigation measures, impacts on police protection would be less than significant. In addition, as related projects would be reviewed by the LAPD to ensure that sufficient security measures are implemented to reduce potential impacts to police protection services, cumulative impacts to the existing police protection services in the West Los Angeles Community Police Station service area would also be less than significant. It should also be noted that the 10.5 increase in annual crimes/calls cited by the Commenter would be generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects, not by project residents alone.
COMMENT NO. 59-20 The same concerns can be raised vis a vis the provision of fire services. The projected 553 new residents will add 41 emergency incidents, contributing to a 7.5% cumulative increase. With the addition of yet another high-rise structure, what impact will this have on the Fire Department’s responsibilities for rescue in the event of a natural disaster? The added density of full time 24-hour/day residents in the community would seem to suggest the need for additional fire fighting resources. Although Station 92 is only 1.4 street miles away from the project site, at peak rush hour times, it may be very difficult for the fire trucks and/or ambulance rescue vehicles to reach Century City in a timely manner. It is relevant to determine the actual travel time to reach the Mall during peak hour travel when all traffic lanes are occupied and traffic is at a standstill.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-434 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-20 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 11-45 regarding fire protection and emergency medical services. As discussed in the Draft EIR, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and project features, project impacts on fire protection would be less than significant. In addition, as all related projects would comply with the LAMC Fire Code and Building Code regulations related to fire safety, access, and fire flow and “second call” stations would help support Fire Station No. 92 in the event of an emergency at these sites, cumulative impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services would also be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 59-21 Public Services—Schools: As noted in the DEIR, the project site would be served by Westwood Charter Elementary School. However, both of the nearby LAUSD elementary schools, Westwood Charter and Fairburn are now over-enrolled and cannot absorb any new concentration of students. As a result of condominium construction in the area, Westwood Charter is full and has already had to send its special education students to Overland Avenue School. Earlier this year there were discussions in the community about a proposal to re-draw district boundary lines that would result in some of the children in the community being sent to Nora Sterry Elementary School on Sawtelle Blvd. This is not viewed as an acceptable response to the overcrowding by those living in the school’s current service area. Fairburn Elementary is sending its overflow students to Warner Avenue School north of Wilshire Blvd. Residents in Century City will need to be directed to another school.
The assessment of students predicted (89 students distributed through the various levels of schooling), is a very serious problem. The predicted 44 students of elementary school age cannot be accommodated. The figures provided are difficult to understand and the impacts are not at all clear. Westwood Charter has already utilized much of its playground for bungalow structures and there is no room for any additional buildings of this kind. Teachers have no space to park their cars and they are now using local residential streets for parking. The school continues to be a draw because of its high quality. Any influx of students from Century City that would result in the revisiting of school boundary lines would not be acceptable to the residents of this area, many of whom who bought homes and condominiums here specifically because of the school.
RESPONSE NO. 59-21 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-5, 11-9, and 35-22 for a discussion of how the project’s impact on Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level with the payment of developer impact fees in accordance with SB 50 and pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-435 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 59-22 Public Services: Libraries, Parks and Recreation (Open Space): The New Century Plan is not the first Century City project to create private open space on its property. In this case, Westfield is proposing a 1.05 acre patch of open space raised above the public’s view and access for recreational opportunities. While accessible to building residents, this new open space will provide no relief to local residents or commuters seeking to access parkland or open space. In fact, with the proposed construction on the Santa Monica side of the property, a significant and large strip of grassy open space is being lost to the public and is not being replaced. While the Mall has long been an attractive open air shopping venue, the additions of numerous floors above the initial ground floor of retailing significantly changes the look and feel of the mall and reduces the feeling of open-ness and open space. That, coupled with the continued addition of merchandise carts on almost every walkway throughout the mall has resulted in a loss of open space. (Is the square footage of the carts included in the Mall’s calculation of retail space? Are parking spaces allocated for the square footage that they represent? It should be.) The need for park space in WLA and other areas of the City is well known. As Westfield residents will derive benefit from the local Rancho Park facility, it would be appropriate that funding for the park be provided by the developer. The purchase of land for a new park in the area is greatly needed.
RESPONSE NO. 59-22 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-141 for a discussion regarding the project's impact on parks and recreational services. It is important to note that the “large strip of grassy open space” referred to by the commentor is less than 0.35 acre in size, is heavily bermed, is planted almost entirely with non-native and water-intensive species, and provides no recreational opportunities. By removing this lawn-covered berm, a greater opportunity for usable open-space within the mall concourse itself would be provided in the form of both hardscape pedestrian areas as well as planters which would include native and drought-tolerant plants. In addition, renovation and/or redevelopment within the Shopping Center would provide new outdoor promenades, plazas, and open spaces for use by the public. Carts are an ancillary use within the center and, as such, have not included been included in the square footage totals.
COMMENT NO. 59-23 Biological Resources- Trees: Numerous street trees are to be removed and yet there is no comment as to the size of replacement trees to be provided. Further, as the lost trees are mature specimens, the minimum size of the replacements should be as large as possible (48-inch box trees?). Additionally, for each tree removed, an additional speciman should be donated for placement within the community. For those trees in the public right-of-way, it is unacceptable to the community to remove a mature tree and replace it on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box tree. It takes many, many years for a 24 or 36-inch box tree to reach maturity. We therefore request a replacement of 2 – 3 new trees for each mature tree destroyed. (The exact number of replacement trees will relate to size of the lost trees). The replacement trees may be placed on the public areas adjacent to the project site, in other public areas of Century City or in the neighboring
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-436 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
community to be impacted by the project. Decisions as to placement and selection of trees should be done in consultation with, and under the direction of the LA City Bureau of Public Works Street Tree Division.
Those of us involved in the Santa Monica Blvd. Parkway Project have noticed that the original landscape plan that provided for street trees that tied in with other street plantings and the theme of the boulevard have not been carried through adjacent to the Westfield project. While palm trees are an attractive design element, they do not provide the benefits of a branching street tree. We do not know what happened to the boulevard landscape plan presented to the public and approved by the project. Is it now “time” to finish the landscaping that was to have been provided?
There is one large tree at the corner of Santa Monica Blvd. and Avenue of the Stars that is one of a pair of “gateway” trees –placed in front of the two Century City gateway buildings. That tree is a lovely and commanding tree and has historical value to Century City, as is the nearby landscaping and fountains that span both sides of Avenue of the Stars near the pedestrian bridge. The mature Moreton Bay fig trees and African coral tree referred to in the DEIR should be saved if at all possible. What can be done to retain this balanced streetscape of plantings and fountains that was part of the original design of the Century City community?
We are gratified to read that efforts will be made to preserve the African coral tree.
RESPONSE NO. 59-23 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-21, 13-9, and 28-40 regarding tree removal and replacement. As discussed in the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment No. 28- 40, the project will include a landscape plan that will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines included in the Draft Greening of Century City Pedestrian Connectivity Plan.
COMMENT NO. 59-24 Traffic and Circulation- Transportation: With every new development in Century City, we observe added traffic, new delays and the resultant impacts. Our local streets and major thoroughfares serve as direct (and indirect) routes to the major freeways serving the area—the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10). We are painfully aware of current traffic problems and of the impact any new development will generate. We have reviewed portions of the Traffic Study prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan and believe that the Draft EIR Traffic Study contains some serious deficiencies.
The study does not contain any current traffic counts (the counts taken from the FBI project at Westwood and Wilshire appear to be the most recent figures included). Weekday traffic count data obtained from traffic impact studies prepared prior to the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway Project (SMBTPP) cannot be assumed to be either accurate or current. Not only have the traffic counts been taken before completion of the Santa Monica Blvd. Parkway Project, but
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-437 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
likely were recorded before the “makeover of the Century” remodeling of Westfield Century City Mall. Studies of weekend peak hours should be taken post SMBTPP. Furthermore, the area studied does not accurately represent the full area impacted by Century City traffic.
RESPONSE NO. 59-24 Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis which was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway (SMBTP) construction. The weekend mid-day peak hour traffic counts contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis were conducted after completion of the SMBTP project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 6-6 for further discussion of the supplemental traffic analysis. The general comments with respect to overall traffic conditions in the area are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-25 In the discussion about LOS at intersections in the project area, (referring to table 55), it states that “28 study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the weekday am and pm peak hours, while 27 study intersections are currently operating at LOS E or F during the am and pm peak hours.” This appears to create the impression that “only” half of the intersections are at a failing level. However, this is not a correct interpretation of the data. If one were to analyze the data for those intersections rated D or better, one would find that many intersections that appear to be performing at acceptable levels are, in actuality, not fully functioning four-way intersections capable of moving traffic through the area. Many are “T” intersections—their streets dead-ending at the location rated A, B, C., etc. And, since when is Level D service an acceptable level of service to be aggregated with levels A, B and/or C? Perhaps the LA City intersections should be reviewed using the City of Beverly Hills’ methodology for assessing LOS.
RESPONSE NO. 59-25 The Draft EIR traffic analysis follows the analysis methodology pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) requirements. The traffic impact study, including the analysis methodology, was reviewed and accepted by LADOT as evidenced in their November 20, 2007 departmental clearance letter to the Department of City Planning. A copy of this clearance letter is contained in Appendix J within Volume V of the Draft EIR. With respect to the overall Draft EIR Levels of Service (LOS), typically “T” (three-leg) intersections perform at better LOS than a four-leg intersection in that fewer conflicting vehicle trips occur and fewer phase intervals are required. Many of the “T” intersections located in the project vicinity consist of a major arterial (e.g., east-west roadway) intersecting with a minor roadway. This type of configuration allows for high traffic flow patterns on the major arterial,
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-438 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
particularly given that most traffic signals in the study area are fully actuated (i.e., synchronized to facilitate and accommodate traffic flows). As such, the reported LOS for “T” intersections reflect these characteristics as well as the traffic volumes, traffic signal phasing and lane configurations and report the intersection operations as a whole (and not for any one particular traffic movement or approach).
It should be noted that nearly all traffic signal controlled intersections within the project study area are included in LADOT’s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC)/Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS). ATSAC provides computer control of traffic signals allowing automatic adjustment of signal timing plans to reflect changing traffic conditions, identification of unusual traffic conditions caused by accidents, the ability to centrally implement special purpose short-term traffic timing changes in response to incidents, and the ability to quickly identify signal equipment malfunctions. ATCS provides real time control of traffic signals and includes additional loop detectors, closed-circuit television, an upgrade in the communications links, and a new generation of traffic control software. LADOT estimates that the ATSAC system reduces critical v/c ratios by seven percent (0.07). The ATCS upgrade further reduces the critical v/c ratios by three percent (0.03). Therefore, a reduction of 0.10 was assumed in the calculation of the v/c ratios for the signalized study intersections in the future baseline analysis conditions.
Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-4 for a summary of the comparison between the City of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles intersection impact threshold criteria. As noted, the City of Los Angeles’ impact criteria is significantly more strict with the significance thresholds being twice as stringent as the City of Beverly Hills’ thresholds. Thus, had the City of Beverly Hills methodology been utilized for all City of Los Angeles locations, the reported significant impacts due to the proposed project would have been less than what was reported in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 59-26 Those familiar with Century City know that the communities to the southeast receive significant cut-through traffic. The Century City Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan funded and implemented in conjunction with the approval of the Trammell Crow 2000 Avenue of the Stars project, specifically sought to detour traffic previously on Motor Avenue to Overland Avenue to the west and to Robertson Blvd. and the Robertson Blvd. entry to the Santa Monica Fwy. (10) eastbound to the south/southeast. Yet Figures 64-67 do not include Robertson Blvd. Study of this street from Olympic and Pico on the north through to Venice Blvd. on the south is warranted as is an examination of streets used by commuters through the local neighborhood.
RESPONSE NO. 59-26 Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area. While specific intersections mentioned in the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-439 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
comment were not formally studied in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, it was concluded by LADOT that further analysis of additional study intersections would not be necessary as the intersections closest to the referenced area were not deemed to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. In order to provide further information, however, research was conducted of recent LADOT manual traffic count files so that a supplemental analysis of several intersections near the noted area could be included as part of the Final EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-1 for a discussion of the analysis of the Robertson Boulevard/Pico Boulevard and Robertson Boulevard/Hillsboro Avenue/Cadillac Avenue intersections. As indicated in Appendix A4 (refer to Appendix Table A4) of the Final EIR, no significant impacts are expected at any of these added study locations employing the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria. Thus, further analysis to the south and east is not required. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-2 for a discussion of the Century City Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for a summary of the measures implemented so as to minimize the potential for cut-through traffic.
COMMENT NO. 59-27 Section 5.4 Roadway Descriptions in Appendix G provides brief descriptions of the important roadways in the project site vicinity. Of the 15 streets listed, 4 are entirely in Century City (Century Park West, Century Park East, Constellation and Avenue of the Stars). Of the remaining 11, 6 either border or are contained in the area represented by the Westwood South of Santa Monica Boulevard Homeowners Association. Some specific comments on a number of these streets in our area follows:
RESPONSE NO. 59-27 This comment contains introductory statements regarding comments that follow on several roadway descriptions contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis. As such, the comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. The descriptions of roadways contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis were illustrative and not intended to be inclusive of all roadways within the project study area.
COMMENT NO. 59-28 Sepulveda: This street is often used as an alternate to the 405 Freeway (along with Sawtelle Blvd which is not included in this list). It is also one of the few north-south streets that crosses the Santa Monica Mountains and also continues south past LAX and into the South Bay. It currently lacks left-turn arrow signals to direct southbound traffic east onto Pico and/or Olympic Blvds. thus promoting cut-through traffic on local east –west streets such as Mississippi, LaGrange, and Tennessee.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-440 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-28 While Sawtelle Boulevard is not specifically listed in the description of roadways as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis, it has been included for analysis purposes. Specifically, the following locations have been included for analysis purposes:
• Intersection No. 1: Sawtelle Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard; and
• Intersection No. 2: Sawtelle Boulevard/I-405 Freeway Southbound Off-Ramp- Tennessee Avenue.
The comments regarding the extents of Sepulveda Boulevard are noted. The following Sepulveda Boulevard locations have been included for analysis purposes:
• Intersection No. 6: Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard; and
• Intersection No. 7: Sepulveda Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard.
As a point of clarification, no significant weekday A.M. or P.M. peak hour or weekend peak hour project-related traffic impacts were reported in the Draft EIR for Study Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 6 or 7.
COMMENT NO. 59-29 Westwood Blvd., another north-south artery dead ends at the UCLA campus. It does not continue north. It also terminates on its southern end in the vicinity of National Blvd. It carries large volumes of traffic to and from UCLA and Westwood, but that traffic must find alternate routes when faced with the need to continue north or south.
RESPONSE NO. 59-29 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. As noted in the Draft EIR, Westwood Boulevard is a north-south arterial that is located west of the project site. Within the project study area, Westwood Boulevard is designated as a Major Class II Highway between Le Conte Avenue (i.e., near the UCLA campus) and Santa Monica Boulevard and as a Secondary Highway between Santa Monica Boulevard and National Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan.
COMMENT NO. 59-30 Overland Avenue is incorrectly described in the text as a Secondary Highway between Santa Monica and Pico Blvds. That designation has been changed with approval by the City’s Transportation Committee and City Council to that of a collector street. The final recording of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-441 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
that change is planned to be entered into the new WLA Community Plan. We have received assurances from the city that any actions involving Overland will be made as though the change to collector street has been recorded.
RESPONSE NO. 59-30 Refer to Response to Comment No. 20-1 for a discussion of the Overland Avenue roadway description contained in the Draft EIR and the current status of the planned downgrading of Overland Avenue between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard from a Secondary Highway to a Collector roadway as part of the West Los Angeles Community Plan Update.
COMMENT NO. 59-31 Beverly Glen Blvd. carries significant traffic to and from the Century City area and is particularly heavily traveled as it traverses the Santa Monica Mountains into the San Fernando Valley. However, the description of Beverly Glen neglects to note that it dead ends at Pico Blvd. and goes no further south. On the northern side, it narrows substantially as it crosses Wilshire Blvd. Though posted at 35 miles per hour, off-hour speeding is a continuing hazard on the street, particularly between Wilshire and Pico Blvds.
RESPONSE NO. 59-31 The comments regarding the extents of Beverly Glen Boulevard are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. The following Beverly Glen Boulevard locations have been analyzed in the traffic analysis:
• Intersection No. 25: Beverly Glen Boulevard (E)/Sunset Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 26: Beverly Glen Boulevard (W)/Sunset Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 27: Beverly Glen Boulevard/Wilshire Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 28: Beverly Glen Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 29: Beverly Glen Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard; and
• Intersection No. 30: Beverly Glen Boulevard/Pico Boulevard.
As a point of clarification, no significant weekday A.M. or P.M. peak hour or weekend peak hour project-related traffic impacts were reported in the Draft EIR for any of the six study intersections along Beverly Glen Boulevard.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-442 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 59-32 The descriptions of all the Century City streets neglect to note that they stop and start within Century City and do not continue beyond CC to provide travel routes in or out of the local area. This is a key characteristic of the Century City street design. There are no north-south streets that continue north or south from Century City. All three of the main north-south streets in CC terminate at Santa Monica on the north and at Olympic (CPW) or Pico (Avenue of the Stars, Century Park East). The east-west streets also terminate: Galaxy, Constellation, and Empyrean at Century Park East and Century Park West.
RESPONSE NO. 59-32 The comments regarding the extents of roadways within Century City are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-33 Sawtelle Blvd., one of the access streets for the 405 mentioned above, terminates on its northern end at the VA property and at Overland in Culver City. It is a designated alternate route for the 405 Freeway.
RESPONSE NO. 59-33 The comments regarding the extents of Sawtelle Boulevard are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. While Sawtelle Boulevard is not specifically listed in the description of roadways as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis, it has been included for analysis purposes. Specifically, the following locations have been included for analysis purposes:
• Intersection No. 1: Sawtelle Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard; and
• Intersection No. 2: Sawtelle Boulevard/I-405 Freeway Southbound Off-Ramp- Tennessee Avenue.
As a point of clarification, no significant weekday A.M. or P.M. peak hour or weekend peak hour project-related traffic impacts were reported in the Draft EIR for Study Intersection Nos. 1 or 2. In addition, Sawtelle Boulevard is designated as a Secondary Highway between Olympic Boulevard and Venice Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan. No references or designations to Sawtelle Boulevard as an “alternate route for the 405 Freeway” are contained in the Transportation Element of the General Plan.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-443 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 59-34 The discussion of freeway traffic does not attempt to address the relationship of freeway traffic conditions to the volume on nearby arterials. When it is bad on the freeway, it is very bad on adjacent streets. No public transportation improvements have been planned for the 405 Freeway leaving commuters from the valleys and South Bay little option but to drive. Worsening traffic conditions suggest that a pilot project be started to identify peripheral parking in satellite locations (such as the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Santa Clarita, etc.) coupled with the operation of commuter vans to Century City. The operation of a local “off-site” parking facility for employees adjacent to the 405 or 10 Freeways, with van transportation provided into Century City might be another alternative to remove cars from WLA’s overburdened streets.
RESPONSE NO. 59-34 The comment, “No public transportation improvements have been planned for the 405 Freeway…” can not be substantiated. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 7) has been implementing an extensive High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane program throughout the Los Angeles area. Once completed, the HOV system will become the foundation of a multi-modal transportation system. The I-405 Freeway in the project vicinity currently has been improved with HOV lanes in the southbound direction. Based on information provided on the Caltrans District 7 website, two projects are currently either underway or planned in the future to enhance the existing HOV network.
Construction of 3.6 miles of northbound and southbound HOV lanes along the I-405 (San Diego) Freeway is underway between I-10 (Santa Monica) Freeway and the Route 90 (Marina) Freeway. The project costs total $167 million dollars and the project is anticipated to be completed in Summer 2009. The addition of a northbound HOV lane throughout the Sepulveda Pass (along the I-405 [San Diego] Freeway from the I-10 [Santa Monica] Freeway to the US 101 [Ventura] Freeway) is projected to cost $950 million dollars and the anticipated construction start date is Spring 2009. Funding for this future project will be provided by voter approved Proposition 1B funds as well as Federal and State government funds. The project is a joint effort between the Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration.
Refer to Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for discussion of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the project which includes measures to encourage the use of public transportation. For Century City-wide measures, the project Applicant is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization for all of Century City, which could develop and deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist with physical improvements to waiting areas at transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-444 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
vehicle trips. In addition, it should be noted that the traffic analysis was approved by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and employs industry standard trip distribution/assignment methods that account for the interrelation between arterial and highway traffic volumes, current areas of congestion and associated motorist travel patterns.
COMMENT NO. 59-35 There are a number of streets and intersections that carry significant traffic to and from Century City and should be included as part of any traffic study and planning for the area. Those not referenced in the DEIR and that were specifically listed in our joined Response to the Notice of Preparation are:
8. Sawtelle Blvd. between Santa Monica and National 11. Olympic Blvd. in its entirety from Robertson to Bundy -- The intersections of: Sawtelle and Pico, Sawtelle and National, Westwood and National, Comstock and Wilshire, Robertson and Olympic.
In addition, these intersections should be added to the study list for this project: Robertson/Pico, Robertson/Cattaraugus, Beverwil/Pico, Castle Heights/National, Beverwil/Monte Mar, Robertson/Monte Mar, Castle Heights/Beverwil, Beverwil/Monte Mar and any other streets that can be identified by the Beverlywood Homeowners Association.
RESPONSE NO. 59-35 Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area. After issuance of the June 19, 2006 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and after the June 29, 2006 NOP public scoping meeting was held, the traffic analysis study area was expanded from 47 study locations (i.e., 44 study intersections and three study street segments) to 63 study locations (i.e., 55 study intersections and eight study street segments). Refer to Response to Comment No. 59-33 for a discussion of the Draft EIR traffic analysis as it relates to Sawtelle Boulevard locations. A total of 13 locations along the Olympic Boulevard corridor have been analyzed as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. Specifically, after the issuance of the Draft EIR NOP, the following four Olympic Boulevard locations were added to the traffic analysis:
• Intersection No. 1: Sawtelle Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 7: Sepulveda Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard;
• Intersection No. 9: Veteran Avenue/Olympic Boulevard; and
• Intersection No. 22: Prosser Avenue/Olympic Boulevard.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-445 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
As noted in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, contained as Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, no significant transportation impacts are expected at any of these four study intersections.
The following responses address the reasons why the study area was not expanded further to include the locations referenced in the comment (requested as part of the response to the Draft EIR NOP):
• Sawtelle Boulevard/Pico Boulevard: As both traffic analysis locations along Sawtelle Boulevard (i.e., Olympic Boulevard and Tennessee Avenue/I-405 SB Freeway Off- Ramp intersections) were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project, no further analysis was required by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.
• Sawtelle Boulevard/National Avenue: As both traffic analysis locations along Sawtelle Boulevard (i.e., Olympic Boulevard and Tennessee Avenue/I-405 SB Freeway Off- Ramp intersections) were not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project, no further analysis was required by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. In addition, traffic volumes dissipate along major travel corridors the greater the distance from the project site, therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
• Westwood Boulevard/National Avenue: A total of three locations were analyzed for potential project impacts along the Westwood Boulevard corridor. The location nearest the requested location (i.e., Intersection No. 13: Westwood Avenue/Pico Boulevard) was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project, thus no further analysis was required by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. In addition, traffic volumes dissipate along major travel corridors the greater the distance from the project site therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
• Comstock Avenue/Wilshire Boulevard: A total of six locations in the immediate Comstock Hills Homeowner Association area were included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis. As part of the Final EIR and based on several public comments regarding existing traffic volumes along roadways to the north of Santa Monica Boulevard, recent 24-hour traffic counts were conducted of all roadways leading into or out of the Comstock Hills HOA area. As such, refer to Response to Comment Nos. 13-4 and 13-5 for a detailed discussion of the additional analysis completed as part of the Final EIR. No additional significant impacts were forecast to occur as a result of the proposed project.
• Robertson Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard: A total of three locations east of Century City were analyzed for potential project impacts along the Olympic Boulevard corridor. The location nearest the requested location (i.e., Intersection No. 55: Beverly
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-446 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Drive/Olympic Boulevard) was not determined to be significantly impacted by the proposed project, thus no further analysis was required by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. In addition, traffic volumes dissipate along major travel corridors the greater the distance from the project site therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
With respect to the newly requested locations for analysis, refer to Response to Comment Nos. 7-1 through 7-7 for a discussion of the additional analysis provided as part of the Final EIR based on the Beverlywood Homes Association comment letter submitted on the Draft EIR. As indicated in Appendix A4 (refer to Appendix Table A4) of the Final EIR, no significant impacts are expected at any of the added locations employing the City of Los Angeles threshold criteria. Thus, further analysis to the south and east is not required.
COMMENT NO. 59-36 The Century City North Specific Plan governs development by measuring trips associated with various land use definitions. We dare say that when the CCNSP was written, there was no way to know that the residential units to be built in Century City would be “luxury” condominium units of the size or with the levels of amenities now being provided in the current projects. Appendix Table I-1C notes that the condominium component daily trips are based on trip rates provided in the LA City CCNSP. “The AM and PM peak hour trips are based on ITE Land Use Code 232 (High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse) trip generation average rates.” Many of us in the community question whether the same trip rates assigned to an average condo/townhouse can still hold true for a super-sized luxury condo unit that has full-time and part-time visiting staff.
RESPONSE NO. 59-36 Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-11 for a detailed discussion regarding the trip generation rates incorporated in the Draft EIR traffic analysis for the condominium component of the proposed project. Research was conducted for site specific trip generation studies of comparable residential high-rise developments in the Century City area. These studies showed that the published Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for high-rise condominiums are conservative when compared to Century City area site specific surveys (i.e., the ITE trip generation rates result in more vehicular trips than are actually being measured in the field). The Draft EIR traffic analysis incorporates the higher ITE weekday and weekend peak hour high-rise condominium trip rates and were reviewed and approved by LADOT.
COMMENT NO. 59-37 We have similar concerns about the use of trip rates assigned to the commercial and office building segments of this project. Whether or not the actual trip rates are used in project calculations, we request that actual counts be taken so that an assessment/comparison of ITE and CCNSP rates can be compared to reality for both the 1930 and 1801 office buildings. This is of
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-447 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
the utmost importance. Why weren’t traffic counts for the 1930 Century Park West building and 1801 Avenue of the Stars building taken so that a baseline for evaluation might be established?
RESPONSE NO. 59-37 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion on the project trip generation forecasts. At the time of the NOP, the 1930 Century Park West office building was 100 percent leased and the 1801 Avenue of the Stars office building was approximately 68 percent leased. At the direction of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), full existing use credits associated with both existing office buildings were incorporated into the traffic analysis, as both buildings are planned for demolition by the New Century Plan project. The determination of the weekday and weekend peak hour significant project-related traffic impacts at the 55 study locations were based on application of the appropriate trip generation rates (i.e., the A.M. peak hour and weekend peak hour trip rates were based on ITE Land Use Code 710 [General Office Building] trip generation equation rates and the weekday P.M. peak hour trip rates were consistent with those contained in the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (West LA TIMP)). The Draft EIR traffic analysis was not based on actual driveway traffic counts as the regulatory documents for the Specific Plan area were based on application of the ITE rates. In addition, the analysis parameters for the New Century Plan Draft EIR traffic analysis were based on the approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with LADOT dated February 9, 2007. A copy of the approved MOU is contained in the Final EIR Appendix A7.
COMMENT NO. 59-38 The entire discussion about trips is unclear. The DEIR states (pages 393 and further) that 1259.706 Replacement Trips are available for 1930 Century Park West (in addition to other trips). But these “replacement trips” stem from the assumption that the drive-through bank consisted of 7077 square feet and generated 1358.784 trips (of which 99.078 trips were utilized when the space was later used for offices). This assumption is false because the drive-through bank is long gone, and because it is unlikely that all 7077 square feet were used for that purpose and therefore qualify for the high-generation rate. Based upon actual counts commissioned by WSSM to assess the trips generated from the City National Bank on Avenue of the Stars at Constellation (trip counts taken in conjunction with the review of the JMB condo project), it is much more reasonable to assign the 14 trips per 1000 square feet office rate to the entire building which results in 871.444 trips, which Westfield has taken in conjunction with demolition of the building. The extra “replacement trips” are a result of double counting at best and are a distortion of the pre-construction trip generation of the parcel.
RESPONSE NO. 59-38 Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential, and Response to Comment No. 11-13. As documented in a Planning Department memorandum dated March 21, 2001, the Planning Department staff at
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-448 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
that time confirmed the use of the 1930 Century Park West building’s ground floor as a drive- through bank and therefore correctly applied the CATGP Trip rate of 192 Trips/1,000 square feet to the entire ground floor of the building. This memorandum is included in Appendix D of this Final EIR. The Replacement CATGP Trips generated from conversion of the drive-through bank to office uses was reflected in the Department of City Planning’s CATGP Trip Allocation Chart beginning on October 2, 2001, almost seven years ago and before the Applicant acquired 1930 Century Park West. Since these Replacement CATGP Trips have not been utilized during development of the site, they remain available for use on the property.
The traffic counts referenced by the commenter’s letter are not relevant for the purpose of determining the Replacement CATGP Trips generated by the conversion of the drive-through bank to office uses. CATGP Trips and vehicular trips are two different concepts used for two different purposes; the former is used to evaluate a project’s consistency with the CCNSP and thus land use impacts, and the latter is used to determine a project’s traffic impacts. According to the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP), the number of Replacement CATGP Trips generated by a change in land use must be determined by the CATGP Trip rate provided in the CCNSP; thus, the Department of City Planning correctly utilized the CATGP Trip rate for drive-through banks to determine the Replacement CATGP Trips generated by converting this use to office. Additionally, the traffic counts referenced in the commenter’s letter were not taken of the drive-through bank previously located at 1930 Century Park West, and therefore are not relevant to this project.
COMMENT NO. 59-39 We have additional concerns/questions about the additional transfer trips which have not been adequately explained as it is our understanding that trips may be transferred to the mall only under very specific conditions. A clear accounting of trip allocations including recent trip transfers, sales, etc. should be prepared by the city for public review. Are the trip count records now current?
RESPONSE NO. 59-39 Please refer to Topical Response No. 10, Century City North Specific Plan Cumulative Automotive Trip Generation Potential, for a full discussion of all of the CATGP Trips allocated to the project site. According to the CATGP Trip allocation table maintained by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning (Planning Department) dated May 1, 2008 (Trip Chart), a total of 1,538 CATGP Trips are currently available to the project: 278.605 CATGP Trips are allocated to the Westfield Century City Shopping Center (28.757 CATGP Trips were allocated to the Shopping Center during Phase I of the CCNSP, and 249.848 are Replacement CATGP Trips) and 1,259.706 Replacement CATGP Trips are allocated to the 1930 Century Park West property.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-449 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Furthermore, a covenant was recorded on June 24, 2008, transferring 1,644 unused Replacement CATGP Trips from 2000 Avenue of the Stars to the 1801 Avenue of the Stars site and transferring 4,272.432 unused Replacement CATGP Trips from 2000 Avenue of the Stars to the Westfield Century City Shopping Center. Together, these transfers add a total of 5,916.432 Replacement CATGP Trips which can be used for the New Century Plan. These CATGP Trips will be shown on the next issuance of the Planning Department’s Trip Chart.
Additionally, covenants have been recorded which reflect the number of Replacement CATGP Trips to be generated upon the demolition of 1801 Avenue of the Stars and 1930 Century Park West. According to a covenant approved by the City and recorded on March 22, 2007, demolition of the building at 1930 Century Park West would result in the creation of 871 Replacement CATGP Trips, in addition to those which are currently shown on the Trip Chart. The City also approved a separate covenant, recorded on March 22, 2007, providing that demolition of 1801 Avenue of the Stars would generate 4,182.052 Replacement CATGP Trips.
COMMENT NO. 59-40 The DEIR’s analysis of the significance of traffic and the cumulative impacts of that traffic is not adequate. The project is said to add 5922 weekday trips and 7466 weekend trips, according to the trip generation rates used (which may not be accurate). The effects on nearby arterials have not been mitigated. Pico, Olympic, Beverly Glen and other nearby streets have already been operating at extremely poor levels of service. How can our streets absorb thousands of new trips each week when we are already at gridlock levels? Even the DEIR makes reference to two key intersections in our area (Olympic/Westwood and Santa Monica/Overland) that will be further negatively impacted by this project leaving westbound afternoon peak hour commuters seeking alternative neighborhood cut-through routes as they flee dysfunctional intersections.
RESPONSE NO. 59-40 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for detailed discussions of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, it is not until the final phase of the project (i.e., Phase E) that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 178 vehicles. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels.
COMMENT NO. 59-41 Project Traffic Mitigation: Residents of our area are well aware of the shortcomings of recent mitigation efforts undertaken in conjunction with local building projects. While it may be
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-450 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
possible to mitigate certain impacts, we cannot mitigate for transportation beyond what traffic corridors can absorb. Just because we have no higher (or perhaps lower is a better choice of words) congestion designation beyond an F, it does not mean that we can continue to overburden these intersections to FFFFF capacity. In order to have meaningful mitigation, there must be:
- Ongoing independent traffic monitoring - Support of alternative transportation modes (Public Transportation (new and existing modes and routes), TDM program, bike lanes, internal CC circulator, DASH-like shuttles connecting to nearby communities and businesses such as Beverly Hills, Westside Pavilion, UCLA, etc.) - A comprehensive Neighborhood Protection Plan - Speed feedback signs outside of local elementary schools (on streets with significant cut- through traffic) - Adequate funding over years to implement above issues
RESPONSE NO. 59-41 Refer to Response to Comment No. 59-40 for a detailed discussion of the proposed project’s mitigation measures and Transportation Demand Management Plan. As outlined in Topical Response No. 5, the Applicant will provide a detailed TDM Plan, including a monitoring program, for approval by the City prior to the issuance of initial building permits for the project. The TDM Plan will specify requirements for each phase of the project. The Applicant’s commitment to support the TDM Plan could include support for the formation of a Transportation Management Organization and support for a Century City shuttle circulator. At each phase of the project, the Applicant would be required to show that the implementation of the TDM is proceeding, and that the Applicant is continuing to fulfill its TDM commitments. The Applicant supports alternative transportation modes as evidenced by their funding of a free pilot shuttle program during the 2007 Holiday Season (from December 11, 2007 through January 13, 2008).
COMMENT NO. 59-42 Funding to implement the specified mitigation efforts must be adequate to address all the potential impacts noted as well as unintended impacts that may be discovered following completion of the project. Our area has had experiences where mitigation dollars associated with projects were so inadequate that homeowner associations found themselves vying against one another in an attempt to access funds for much needed (and fairly inexpensive) mitigations. The funds were not adequate.
RESPONSE NO. 59-42 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40 and 59-41 and Response to Comment No. 18-17 for discussion of the Applicant’s funding commitments as well as the West LA TIMP Fee. LADOT has issued its departmental clearance letter (dated November 20, 2007) and it
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-451 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
outlined the required payment of the West LA TIMP Fee. The current total associated with the TIA Fee is $1,222,549.57.
COMMENT NO. 59-43 Little has been said about the installation of a “real” bike lane in Century City. The existing bike route signs on Avenue of the Stars could just as well say, “Look out bike riders; this street belongs to your 4-wheeled distant relations, the SUV’s.” Investment in a safe bike lane, for example, on Century Park West where few driveways exist, is a far better location. Work to advance the Santa Monica Blvd. bike route into Beverly Hills is also important. Westfield could provide shower and changing areas, bike lockers and other amenities for bike riders working in Century City. These amenities could be located in the proposed new building at 1930 Century Park West and could be operated like the Bike Station in downtown Long Beach.
RESPONSE NO. 59-43 Refer to Response to Comment No. 59-40 for an overview of the project’s traffic impacts, mitigation measures and TDM Plan. The TDM Plan components will encourage the use of alternative transportation modes including bicycles. The proposed Greening of Century City Plan includes a jogging/bike path within an all off-street landscaped area all along the west side of Century Park West. This would join Olympic and Santa Monica Boulevards for bikes in a more appropriate manner that exists today. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-44 Public Transit: Westfield is to be commended for including the allocation of space for a future subway stop. This stop will benefit both the project and the surrounding area. It is hoped that this commitment will be broadened with a promise to fund or to build a passageway from the outside stop location to the station below. Discussion of the “transit plaza” in the DEIR acknowledges that it is now little more than a bus layover location. Without improvements to the site (or a subsequent Century City location), no project should be allowed to take credit for something that does not function as intended. The 15 % credit claimed by Westfield which reduces its impacts to less than significant, should not be granted (and besides, other projects have already taken credit for this). Westfield would be doing the broader community a great service by working with MTA to establish a bona fide transit plaza in Century City that would educate potential riders about routes and schedules, would provide information about connecting transit resources, etc. Should/can the transit plaza be included in the LA County Congestion Management Plan (CMP)? When the EXPO light rail line is located and built, identifying or creating connections between the line and Century City should be done.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-452 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-44 The comments noting the support for the Applicant’s commitment to incorporate a future subway portal as a project design feature are noted and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-3 for a detailed discussion on the appropriateness of the 15 percent transit adjustment incorporated as part of the project’s trip generation forecasts. As a point of clarification, the commentor’s statement, “The 15% credit claimed by Westfield which reduces its impacts to less than significant, should not be granted…” can not be substantiated. As noted in Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, a total of four of the 55 study locations were expected to be significantly impacted by the project during the weekday P.M. peak hour and two of the 55 study locations were expected to be significantly impacted during the weekend (i.e., Saturday) mid-day peak hour. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40 and 59-41 for additional discussion of the TDM Plan. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 4-1 for a discussion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study and Response to Comment Nos. 10-11 and 10-12 for further discussion pertaining to the extension of the Exposition Corridor Transit project and associated timeframe.
COMMENT NO. 59-45 In the discussion of local public transit services, it would be useful to note any ridership figures that the named service providers could provide. It is our understanding that the MTA has made significant cuts in hours of bus service in their service area. Has this affected any of the lines serving Century City or its patrons and if so, how?
RESPONSE NO. 59-45 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-12 for a detailed discussion of Metro ridership data which shows the boardings and alightings by line. The ridership data indicates average loads lower than bus capacities. In addition, transit bus capacities were visually observed along Santa Monica Boulevard on Friday, May 16 and Saturday, May 17, 2008 (i.e., both in the eastbound and westbound directions) and only one bus (of the 121 buses observed during the two one-hour observation periods) had any standing patrons. Therefore, based on the combination of the obtained Metro ridership data and the visual observations conducted as part of the Final EIR, it was concluded that no impacts on existing or future transit services in the project area are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-46 Much could be written about the need for an internal circulator (perhaps by schedule for commuters and by appointment for residents?) in Century City for both business people, retail staff and customers and residents. Westfield should join the with the Chamber and other employers to make this a reality all year round. Likewise, a DASH-like shuttle to provide access
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-453 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
to downtown Beverly Hills, UCLA, Westwood, Westside Pavilion, etc. should be implemented to provide an alternative to the automobile.
RESPONSE NO. 59-46 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40, 59-41 and Response to Comment No. 18-17 for discussion of the Applicant’s funding commitments including the funding of the required West LA TIMP Fee. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-47 Monitoring Program: Monitoring and mitigation monitoring must be done during all phases of development and until the project is fully occupied (office, retail, restaurant and residential space). Without accurate and ongoing monitoring we cannot be assured of the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. Monitoring should be performed by an independent source or by the City and paid for by the developer. Traffic counts must be done without prior notice to building management and/or tenants. Without regular monitoring we will never know the true impact of the project. (Without regular trip monitoring, continued attention to the operation of a TDM program is also likely.) It is of particular interest to the community to know what kind of traffic is to be generated from the residential piece of the project as we have long suspected that the condos may be generating more trips than ITE rates suggest. Access to monthly parking permit sales, usage and billing records might also accomplish some data gathering requirements and should be explored. The LA DOT should have the option of auditing any traffic data at the expense of the project operators/ owner.
RESPONSE NO. 59-47 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40 and 59-41 for a discussion of the monitoring associated with the project’s TDM Plan. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7-11 and Response to Comment No. 59-36 for a detailed discussion regarding the trip generation rates incorporated in the Draft EIR traffic analysis for the condominium component of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-48 Transportation Demand Management Program: We are pleased to learn of the continuing progress of the Century City Chamber in gathering survey data about commute patterns from employees throughout the Century City business community. We believe that a transportation program across the many projects/properties in the community as well as between commercial and residential projects, will eventually result in a broad array of options for both employees and residents. However, in the short term specific goals and commitments must be set for the employees of the entire Mall –not just for those that will work in the additional space now under consideration. We are disappointed that little progress can be shared on the operation of existing
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-454 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
TDM programs – most of which were required of previously approved and/or constructed projects as project conditions. Although the DEIR makes reference to the requirement that the project must execute a “Covenant with the City to implement a transportation demand management program satisfactory to the Dept. of Transportation which is substantially in conformance with the requirements outlined in the WLA TIMP,” it is a meaningless requirement unless there is a bona fide measurement and monitoring system in place to determine whether goals have been met. Specific goals must be set and ongoing monitoring must be in place. We recommend that Westfield incorporate creative incentive programs to encourage employees to try other forms of transportation to their place of work. Free bus passes, subsidized bus passes, the construction of bike rider facilities (showers, bike storage units, minor service station for bikes, etc.) Participation in a Century City-wide transportation group is supported for the long term.
RESPONSE NO. 59-48 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40, 59-41 and Response to Comment No. 18-17 for discussion of the Applicant’s funding commitments including the funding of the required West LA TIMP Fee. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-173 for a discussion of the TDM reporting associated with the MGM Tower. Based on the results of the required annual TDM report associated with the MGM Tower office building, it has been determined that the building has more than achieved the trip reduction performance standard established in the TDM Plan (i.e., a P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 10 percent). In fact, the MGM Tower office building is generating approximately 50 percent of the P.M. peak hour traffic volumes established for the building in the TDM Plan (i.e., approximatealy 400 P.M. peak hour trips currently [year 2007] compared to the TDM Plan target of 805 P.M. peak hour trips). The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-49 Neighborhood Protection Plan: We look forward to working with Westfield, the City and our neighboring associations and businesses in the development of a comprehensive Neighborhood Protection Plan that addresses community traffic concerns west of the project in the WSSM area and in areas of other HOA’s. (Earlier CCNTMP programs focused primarily on the areas south of Pico Blvd. and east of Manning Avenue.) It is critical that the entire community around Century City be included in any Neighborhood Protection Plans addressing Century City.
RESPONSE NO. 59-49 Section 14.0, beginning on page 128 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR, contains a summary of the neighborhood street segment analysis prepared as part of the Draft EIR. A total of eight street segments were analyzed for potential impacts. None of the studied street segments in proximity to the proposed project were determined to be significantly
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-455 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
impacted by the project. The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-50 As the status of the City’s proposed Pico/Olympic plan is currently unknown (having only very recently been halted for required compliance with CEQA), it may be necessary for this project to respond to issues related to that project or subsequent DOT or Mayoral proposals to manage traffic on the westside.
RESPONSE NO. 59-50 The City’s Olympic Boulevard (West) and Pico Boulevard (East) project proposal was announced after completion of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. LADOT’s approval of the traffic analysis Memorandum of Understanding and the subsequent departmental clearance letter on the Draft EIR traffic analysis were issued prior to the announcement of this City proposal. The Draft EIR traffic analysis can be considered conservative in that the City has determined on a preliminary basis that the proposal will improve directional traffic flow along Olympic and Pico Boulevards. Therefore, the conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the expected number of significant project-related traffic impacts are conservative and may be overstated should the City’s proposal proceed through the environmental review process.
COMMENT NO. 59-51 Parking and Access: It was not so long ago that the Trammell Crow 2000 Avenue of the Stars project EIR made reference to 451 off-site parking spaces at 2030 Century Park West as part of their parking inventory. The St. Regis-Related luxury condominium project also referred to that structure as being the location for overflow parking needs for their new project. Remembering that the Century Plaza Hotel also relies on this lot for their self-parking, we must question whether Westfield, too, should be able to cite this lot as the location that they will use in the future for employee parking to meet their peak seasonal parking needs. Although they may have used this lot in the past, that was before 2000 Avenue of the Stars was built and fully occupied and it has been prior to the completion of the Related project. We must remind those involved in project review that WSSM specifically requested a complete inventory of spaces and covenants governing said parking structure as part of the review of the Avenue of the Stars and Related projects and were promised access to such records. They were never received. The City should be requesting the records and any documents related to spaces in the lot to determine whether or not (and/or at what levels) overflow parking from the Mall can be realistically accommodated. It is our understanding that CEQA requires an EIR to include a good faith effort at full disclosure. How are we to reconcile the inclusion of parking spaces that may no longer be available?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-456 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-51 Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis, for a detailed discussion of project parking. As stated on page 25, Appendix G contained within Volume III of the Draft EIR, both parking inventory and parking utilization counts were conducted during the holiday seasons (i.e., during year 2005 and 2006) in order to document the availability of surplus parking within the Century Park West parking structure (referred to by the commentor as 2030 Century Park West parking structure). In addition, the Draft EIR specifically addresses parking availability during the non-holiday time periods (refer to Appendix Tables A21 through A24 within Appendix A of the Draft EIR traffic study document [contained within Appendix G, Volume III of the Draft EIR]). As shown in these tables, a total parking supply of 3,084 parking spaces are provided at the Century Park West parking structure and nearly 1,700 of these spaces were documented to be available. It was concluded in the Draft EIR that given the proposed on-site parking supply, as well as the provision for off site parking spaces, the supply would be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-52 We cannot agree to the Shared Parking Use agreement and need to see further data about parking resources. The ratio of spaces needed for the condominiums would suggest that there are not adequate spaces to “share” with office and retailing uses.
RESPONSE NO. 59-52 Refer to Response to Comment No. 59-51 for additional information with respect to the availability of parking spaces at the existing Century Park West parking structure. As a point of clarification, the parking spaces allocated to the residential component of the proposed project are not planned to be shared by commercial components of the proposed project (i.e., retail, restaurant, cinema, or office components). Tables 4-1 through 4-4 on pages 21 through 24 of Appendix G contained within Volume III of the Draft EIR, illustrate the shared parking analysis results for the retail, restaurant/dining, cinema and office (i.e., commercial) project components only.
COMMENT NO. 59-53 Please note an error on page 8 of the Executive Summary that makes reference to “proposed amendments to the Warner Center Specific Plan.” In its discussion of parking and access, we would like to see the possibility of the construction of an employee parking lot (for the Mall with the possible participation of other Century City employers) peripheral to the Center. There is one other place in the DEIR that appears to have been cut and pasted from another environmental document.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-457 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-53 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-51 and 59-52 for a detailed discussion of the project’s planned parking supply and parking demand. In addition, the reference to the Warner Center Specific Plan has been corrected to the Century City North Specific Plan in Section I, Executive Summary, of this Final EIR.
COMMENT NO. 59-54 We wish to know what kinds of measures can be taken “after the fact” if, in fact demand for parking outstrips supply based upon faulty or overly optimistic (or pessimistic) projections on the part of the planners. When visitors to a building are met with “parking lot full” signs, they are then forced to circle in the area thus contributing to traffic congestion, air pollution, etc. The concept of shared parking has been raised in the DEIR. This is not a concept that we are comfortable with at this time knowing that the proposed residential development, if assigned a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit, just meets that requirement with the parking at that part of the project. Additional spaces for building employees related to the condo’s operation are not included nor are spaces for the staff working in the gym/recreation facility mentioned.
RESPONSE NO. 59-54 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-51 and 59-52 for a detailed discussion of the project’s planned parking supply and parking demand. As a point of clarification, the parking spaces allocated to the residential component of the proposed project are not planned to be shared by the commercial components of the proposed project (i.e., retail, dining, cinema or office components).
COMMENT NO. 59-55 Haul routes for dirt and construction materials are also a matter of concern. As mentioned in a recent community meeting, we would like to suggest that all project construction vehicles, especially those hauling dirt and construction equipment, be required to have an identifying tag in their front window designating the Westfield project as their job site. Hauling should be done at specified times, not during peak hour commutes and should not entail having trucks idle offsite (or on) for any length of time. These trucks must not use any of the residential streets at any time. For construction-phase mitigation, we would request that the project establish a single telephone contact to whom problems could be reported by neighbors. A protocol for addressing problems and reporting back to the neighbors and the City should also be in place. Repeated problems should be met with financial repercussions and construction delays until new plans can be put in place.
RESPONSE NO. 59-55 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a detailed discussion of construction activities, haul routes, construction hours, etc. The construction haul routes will
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-458 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
not include roadways designated as Local or Collector roadways. The roadways noted in Topical Response No. 8 are all either designated Major or Secondary Highways pursuant to the City’s Transportation Element of the General Plan. In addition, a construction liaison team shall be available and a construction hotline number shall be established. The comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 59-56 A possible haul route that includes Pico Blvd. and Overland Avenue would have very negative impacts on numerous schools in the area including, Le Lycee, St. Timothy’s and Temple Isaiah on Pico Blvd., and Notre Dame Elementary and Notre Dame Academy as well as the Palms- Rancho Park Library and Park on Overland Avenue.
RESPONSE NO. 59-56 Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-21 for additional discussion of the proposed haul route in relation to existing schools as well as for discussion relating to the construction traffic impact analysis contained as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis.
COMMENT NO. 59-57 Utilities and Service Systems-- Solid Waste Mitigation Measures: We request that the project applicant be required to document their onsite recycling / conservation program to reduce solid waste. Just as documentation is to be provided to the City’s Dept. of Public Works regarding recycling during demolition and construction, we would like to see a similar reporting mechanism (and review) for ongoing recycling, 365 days each year for merchants, restaurants, customers and residents.
RESPONSE NO. 59-57 As stated in Section VI, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, through the preparation of an Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles determined that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to solid waste. Thus, mitigation measures that require reporting and monitoring of recycling efforts are not required. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 11- 15, the project will include re-use and recycling of demolition materials, and implementation of recycling and waste reduction programs and strategies for tenants, shoppers, and residents. Specific to operation of the project, the project would comply with applicable regulations regarding waste reduction and recycling, including Ordinance No. 171687.
COMMENT NO. 59-58 Water Supply: While the DWP will be installing new water conveyance equipment to address exisitng [sic] problems with and improve water pressure in Century City, such equipment will be
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-459 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
of reduced value if drought conditions continue and demands for water outstrip supplies available. The construction of new housing when it may not be possible to provide needed utilities/water to existing residents, raises serious questions about the City’s current series of initiatives designed to provide incentives for new growth. Any new growth should be required to seek higher level LEED certification standards, and even that growth should be limited to levels that can be sustained by the available water.
RESPONSE NO. 59-58 The Department of Water and Power has conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the New Century Plan and determined that there is sufficient water supply to meet the demand generated by the project. Additionally, the New Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects. Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 and Response to Comment No. 7-15 for a list of these measures. Further, the New Century Plan is the type of development encouraged by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles to reduce water demand. Chapter 20 of the California Water Plan Update states that “[c]ompact, mixed-use developments can reduce water demand, even with moderate increases in density” since “it may reduce the total development footprint in the state and reduce urbanization impacts to habitat, watershed functions, and groundwater recharge areas.” The California Water Plan recommends that the state and local governments provide incentives to developers to build infill and compact development forms. The New Century Plan is this type of development.
Further, at a minimum, the project will be designed and constructed to achieve the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability.
COMMENT NO. 59-59 In order to minimize the eventual project’s impact on the environment and scarce resources, it is suggested that the project seek a higher level of LEED certification above the “Certified” level. The benefits to the city and to the environment can be greatly enhanced through a higher level of LEED compliance.
RESPONSE NO. 59-59 The New Century Plan will be designed and constructed to achieve, at a minimum, the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-460 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 59-60 Infrastructure (in general): While we have made an effort to raise issues associated with the developer’s need to address impacts on the infrastructure, such an assessment is difficult because the City itself has failed to perform annual infrastructure assessments as is required. Before any new projects are reviewed and approved, the City should be required to complete an up-to-date assessment of infrastructure conditions.
The WLA Community Plan contains numerous transportation—related goals, policies and objectives that are applicable to the project. On page 572 of the DEIR, Policy 16-2.1 is referenced and it states:
“No increase in density shall be effected by zone change, plan amendment, subdivision or other discretionary action, unless it is determined that the transportation infrastructure serving the property can accommodate the traffic generated.”
We seriously question whether the existing infrastructure can accommodate any additionally generated traffic. If is our belief that it cannot do so. Many of our neighbors and neighboring organizations would concur.
RESPONSE NO. 59-60 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 11-4, the City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of updating the West Los Angeles Community Plan. As part of that update, the City has compiled a list of all the new community facilities, transportation improvements, transit studies, and infrastructure improvements completed in the West Los Angeles Community Plan area since 1999, the date of the last Community Plan update, which is illustrated in Figure III-5 on page III-160 below. Thus, the City has reviewed and evaluated the existing City infrastructure in the area of the New Century Plan.
Additionally, Section IV.J of the Draft EIR describes the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and evaluates whether the project will have a significant impact with respect to the City’s transportation services. Please see Section IV.J of the Draft EIR, Traffic and Circulation, for a full analysis of the New Century Plan’s transportation impacts.
COMMENT NO. 59-61 Alternatives: Alternatives providing reduced density are desired and favored. While it is true that the replacement of office space with residential units may decrease some of the peak hour travel, there are still many unresolved issues and problems that have not been mitigated. Why was there not an alternative that provided for reduced retail and reduced residential?
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-461 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 59-61 In accordance with CEQA requirements, a reasonable range of alternatives have been provided to address the significant impacts of the project. While a reduced density alternative that reduces both the amount of retail spaces and the number of residential units has not been included, two other reduced density alternatives have been included in the Draft EIR as Alternatives D1 and D2. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
COMMENT NO. 59-62 While Alternative D1 is the best alternative from amongst those presented, it still will not eliminate the significant, unavoidable operational traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project.
RESPONSE NO. 59-62 As discussed in Section V, Alternatives of the Draft EIR, Alternative D1, which eliminates the office space and some retail space proposed as part of the project, will reduce the significant operational traffic impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
COMMENT NO. 59-63 There still remain issues that have not been addressed through the traffic study that must be answered. For example, we do not know the true traffic generating characteristics of the current mall operation following modernization. Have, for example, surveys been done to estimate the number of trips and numbers of remaining parking spaces on a weekend day that coincides with the opening of a popular movie? (And what happens when a movie opening coincides with an advertised special sale at Bloomingdale’s and/or Macy’s... coupled with the addition of the many thousands of square feet of new retail space?)
RESPONSE NO. 59-63 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion of the project’s trip generation forecast as contained and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The topical response also contains a comparison of the existing shopping center trip generation through the use of the ITE/WLA TIMP trip generation rates versus actual driveway traffic counts. It was concluded based on the comparison of the weekday and weekend peak hour traffic volumes that the Draft EIR project trip generation forecast produced a very conservative forecast of the project’s actual trip generation.
Refer to Topical Response No. 6, Shared Parking Demand Analysis, for a detailed discussion of project parking. As stated on page 25, Appendix G contained within Volume III of the Draft EIR, parking demand for the project was evaluated both for a typical non-holiday period as well as during the holiday period. As a point of clarification, the parking spaces
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-462 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
allocated to the residential component of the proposed project are not planned to be shared by commercial components of the proposed project (i.e., retail, restaurant, cinema, or office components). Tables 4-1 through 4-4, on pages 21 through 24 of Appendix G contained within Volume III of the Draft EIR, illustrate the shared parking analysis results for the retail, restaurant/dining, cinema and office (i.e., commercial) project components only. The holiday shared parking demand profiles were obtained from the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI’s) Shared Parking manual, 2nd Edition. The analysis incorporates the higher of either the December (i.e., December 1 through December 24) demand profiles or the late December (i.e., December 25 through December 31) demand profiles so as to reflect 100 percent parking demand for each commercial component at full buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, the analysis does reflect an opening of a movie concurrent with peak shopping time periods. It was concluded in the Draft EIR that given the proposed on-site parking supply, as well as the provision for off site parking spaces, the supply would be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand of the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 59-64 We cannot agree with the request to amend the CCNSP in order to allow the entire site (the three different properties) to be treated as a unified site. To do so is to create permission for an additional story of construction in the newly proposed buildings. It may also have some impact on the manner in which trips are credited and/or traded, the impact of which may be significant.
RESPONSE NO. 59-64 An amendment to the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) is requested in order to recognize that two existing office buildings are being demolished and their locations are being incorporated into the Shopping Center. The amendment will also assure consistency in the way building heights are measured throughout the project site. Currently, the CCNSP requires that the heights of buildings within the Shopping Center’s Very Limited Height (1VL) zone be limited to 45 feet as measured from the Shopping Center’s plaza level. The requested CCNSP amendment would require that the building constructed at 1930 Century Park West, also within the 1VL height zone, also be limited to 45 feet in height as measured from the plaza level, and that the buildings constructed within the Shopping Center’s Limited Height (1L) Zone be limited to 75 feet in height as measured from the plaza level. The amendment would not impose a limitation on building stories as long as these height limitations were met. Furthermore, the parking garage proposed to be constructed at 1930 Century Park West would actually be shorter than the existing building.
Since the New Century Plan proposes to develop 1801 Avenue of the Stars, 1930 Century Park West, and the Shopping Center parcels as an integrated, mixed use project, the proposed amendment would allow CATGP Trips to be shared within the project site.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-463 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 59-65 Finally, We have not seen projections done by the City to estimate the water needed to support all the growth that is being encouraged through mixed use zoning, the implementation of SB 1818, etc. What has been done to demonstrate that there are adequate resources to service this/these projects? We should not assume that the wealthy will be able to buy their way around rationing and price incentives for conservation. Connecting to the water system of the City should carry with it an understanding of limits and requirements for conservation... no matter how many residential units and retail shops are added.
RESPONSE NO. 59-65 The Department of Water and Power has conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the New Century Plan and determined that there is sufficient water supply to meet the demand generated by the project. This Water Supply Assessment is included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the New Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects. Please refer to Topical Response No. 12 and Response to Comment No. 7-15 for a list of these measures. At a minimum, the project would be designed and constructed to achieve the Silver level of the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability.
The New Century Plan does not propose to circumvent any conservation measures that may be implemented by the City. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-179, the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to provide for a sufficient and continuous supply of water in the event of a water supply shortage. This plan includes restrictions on various types of water use during a water shortage, actions that could be taken by the Metropolitan Water District to augment its water supplies, and consumption reduction methods to be implemented by the Department of Water and Power. The New Century Plan will comply with all of the measures included in the UWMP Water Shortage Contingency Plan that apply to DWP customers. Furthermore, as the UWMP is based upon the General Plan growth potential, the water supply needed for the proposed project, which is consistent with the General Plan, is already factored into the UWMP.
COMMENT NO. 59-66 We request to be notified of all future actions, meetings and hearings pertaining to The New Century Plan. We also request that we be given a full printed copy of the FEIR for this project when completed. Our members, all of whom are volunteers, have found it very difficult to work with the on-line version of the document (many are still unable to access portions of it) and others have found it equally difficult to work from the disk version. We therefore request a printed copy of the document for our review. It is important that adequate time be given for a
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-464 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
full review of the FEIR. While we appreciate the two-week extension of time for the DEIR review, the time allotted was not adequate given the scope of the project and related documents, and the task at hand.
We are grateful to have the opportunity to submit our comments for consideration and look forward to obtaining responses to the issues raised as part of the review of this proposed project.
RESPONSE NO. 59-66 The commenter will be placed on the list to receive all notices regarding the EIR and future hearings. Review of the Final EIR will be completed in accordance with CEQA requirements. Both the online and CD versions of the Draft EIR are fully functional. Furthermore, hard copies of the Draft and Final EIR are available for review at the Department of City Planning, the Central Library, and the Westwood Branch Library.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-465 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 60
Charles Edelsohn P.E. California Board of Registration for Professional Engineers 10334 Wilkins Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 60-1 I will comment on this DEIR primarily in the context of the many neighboring projects which have come into existence on the Westside in the past few years and those projects yet to come. At a recent event, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky explained that he had spent much of his 20 years in the Los Angeles City Council forging a series of laws and ordinances aimed at controlling development to achieve a good quality of life for the residents. He complained that this carefully crafted set of plans and ordinances were now being overridden and emasculated by administrative decisions without the consent or vote of the populace. The New Century Plan certainly has reached the outer envelope of current planning restrictions and likely exceeds them.
In this light I object to the New Century Plan because, at its heart, the project density will have an overwhelming effect on the surrounding neighborhood. The two associations to which I belong, Comstock Hills Homeowners Association and Westwood Homeowners Association, have prepared detailed lists of specific objections. I incorporate all of their objections into my letter by reference. In this letter, I will restrict the scope of my remarks to the fact that much, if not all, of the New Century Plan DEIR ignores the cumulative effects of continued development in the West Los Angeles area.
RESPONSE NO. 60-1 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-8 and 13-7 for a discussion of how the project would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. Responses to the Comstock Hills Homeowners Association and Westwood Homeowners Association are provided in the Response to Comments from Letter No. 11 and 13, above. Pursuant to CEQA, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts, which are the impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth in the vicinity of the project area. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-10 for discussion of the cumulative conditions analysis methodology. Also refer to Table 2 beginning on page 163 of the Draft EIR for the list of related projects that was considered in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-466 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 60-2 For example, on page 770, Section 5. Population and Housing, the DEIR states:
“5. Population and Housing
“The 2000 U.S. Census estimates the current residential population of the West Los Angeles Community Plan area at 71,185 people, with a total dwelling unit count of 36,687 units. The West Los Angeles Community Plan estimates that the residential population of the area will grow to 83,331 by 2010, resulting in a net population increase of approximately 17.1 percent. Additionally, the number of dwelling units within the West Los Angeles area is expected to increase to 42,877 units by 2010, reflecting growth of 16.9 percent. The project involves the development of 262 dwelling units, or approximately 4.2 percent of the housing growth projected for the community plan area by 2010. Based on an average household size of 2.11 persons for all residential uses in the West Los Angeles Community Plan area, the project would generate approximately 553 new residents. The project’s residential population would represent approximately 4.0 percent of the population growth projected for the area by 2010. Thus, the proposed residential units and the residential population generated by the project would be well within the established forecasts for the Community Plan area. Additionally, as stated in many adopted regional and local planning documents, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, the City is in need of new dwelling units to serve both the current population and the projected population. While the project would not eliminate the housing shortage in the City, it would promote the goal of generating more housing.”
While it is true that this project alone uses only about 4.2 percent of the housing growth projected for the community plan area by 2010. However, this DEIR does not take into account the six other major developments within less than an mile of this project. These added projects are included in the table below which takes its data directly from the DEIR:
Increase in Dwellings Per Cent Population Per Cent WLA Projection 2010 6010 16.90% 12146 17.10%
The Century 147 2.45% 310.17 2.55% JMB Constellation 483 8.04% 1019.13 8.39% Westfield 262 4.36% 552.82 4.55% Blade 10000 SMB 350 5.82% 738.5 6.08% Robinsons May 252 4.19% 531.72 4.38% Beverly Hilton 120 2.00% 253.2 2.08% The Club View [sic] 35 0.58% 73.85 0.61% People per unit 2.11 1649 27.44% 3479.39 28.65%
As the DEIR correctly states, this project uses only a little over 4 percent of the 16.9 percent projected growth in residential units. However, when only these six additional projects within a mile are included, using the figures from the DEIR, the total is a 27.44 percent increase compared to the 16.9 percent projected growth. If we compare to the population growth
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-467 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
projected to be 17.1 percent for the entire West Los Angeles area, these seven projects alone use up almost twice the projected growth, at 28.65 percent.
However, here we are considering an area of less than one square mile. Following the logic of the DEIR, approval of these seven projects in Century City would call for a moratorium on all other residential housing in the West Los Angeles area until the year 2010. What would be the response of other equally qualified developers in this area?
RESPONSE NO. 60-2 As discussed in Comment Letter No. 3, SCAG supports the conclusions of the Initial Study that the proposed residential units and residential population would be well within the established forecasts of the Community Plan area. The project’s proposed housing is also consistent with needs identified by the City of Los Angeles for additional housing. The City has published its draft Housing Element (revised May 29, 2008), which identifies the City’s Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation as 112,876 housing units for 2006-2014. The proposed Housing Element Update targets 85,629 of these units for above moderate income levels, which is 76 percent of the City's total new construction goal.15 This project supplies 262 of those 85,629 units, which is certainly not in excess of the City’s potential needs. In prior years, the City only met 84 percent of its estimated new housing construction need (as determined by the City's RHNA allocation) from 1998-2005; during this time, building permits were issued for 50,548 housing units.16
COMMENT NO. 60-3 This massive increase in density might be acceptable if it were to be done in a development vacuum. Unfortunately the entire West Los Angeles area is a hotbed of development, cumulatively far exceeding the local infrastructure for traffic, schools, water, police, parks, fire protection and every other resource needed for a reasonable quality of life. An analysis of the remaining infrastructure elements reveals similar results. So does an analysis of the impact of this development on noise, night lighting, especially that created by signage, pollution of the atmosphere, etc..
RESPONSE NO. 60-3 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 60-1, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts, which are the impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth in the vicinity of the project area. The Draft EIR includes cumulative analyses for all of the issue areas cited in this comment. As indicated in the Draft EIR, cumulative impacts associated with air quality, construction noise, traffic and shading will be significant and
15 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, p. 13 and 6-2. 16 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, p. 5-1.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-468 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
unavoidable. However, cumulative impacts associated with the remaining issue areas will be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 60-4 An analysis of the traffic reveals the same disregard for cumulative effects. The entirety of Century City was permitted at its planned density based on the promise and expectation that the Beverly Hills Freeway was in the final stage of approval. Without that vital circulation infrastructure our neighborhoods have suffered increasing gridlock through the years.
RESPONSE NO. 60-4 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 10-9 and 18-17 for a discussion of the cumulative traffic analysis. Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. While the Beverly Hills Freeway was not constructed, other area transportation improvements have been recently constructed. The recently completed Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway (SMBTP) Project was discussed in the Draft EIR (refer to page 28 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR and Figure 5-2 on page 32 of Appendix G within Volume III of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the SMBTP Project). In addition, other regional improvement options are currently being considered by Metro and their Planning and Programming Committee. Refer also to Response to Comment Nos. 4-1, 10-11 and 10-12 for a discussion of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study currently underway by Metro which includes planning efforts associated with alternative alignments for Phase 2 of the Exposition Corridor Transit Project. Many community workshops have occurred throughout the past two years to solicit community input to the planning process. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 60-5 I live in a community of about 250 single family homes just to the north of this development. Some of my neighbors live in the first block, just across Santa Monica Boulevard. I live less than half a mile away. There are several thousand other single family homes in several other neighborhood communities within a few miles of this development. Century City may be described as urban in the DEIR but West Los Angeles is distinctly sub-urban in nature. Our quiet neighborhood needs protection from onslaughts such as ever increasing cut through traffic and multiple forms of pollution.
RESPONSE NO. 60-5 With regard to air quality, impacts have been assessed in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR and mitigation measures have been provided as feasible. Refer to Response to
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-469 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
Comment Nos. 13-3 through 13-5 for a detailed discussion of both the Draft EIR and Final EIR traffic analyses as they relate to the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association area. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 60-4 for a discussion of the project’s traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 60-6 There are no mitigations possible to overcome the impact this development will have on our quality of life. In light of our losses if this project is approved, I ask for the following:
1. I ask that the total density of this project be reduced to take into account the cumulative effects of rampant development on our lives.
RESPONSE NO. 60-6 Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Section V, Alternatives for a discussion of the alternatives that have been included to address the significant impacts of the project.
COMMENT NO. 60-7 2. I ask that the infrastructure of our neighborhoods be improved to the level necessary to support this and the other developments before approvals are granted.
RESPONSE NO. 60-7 The project site is located in an urbanized area where infrastructure is already in place. With implementation of the mitigation measures and project features, adequate infrastructure will be available to accommodate the project. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-8 regarding the infrastructure improvements that have been evaluated in the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 60-8 3. I ask that the developers be required to provide the maximum degree of mitigation possible to alleviate our loss before this project is approved. I ask that the developer be required to use his considerable planning resources to analyze and evaluate our losses and recommend optimum solutions. I ask that these solutions be presented to our communities for review and mandatory community approval as part of the planning process.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-470 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 60-8 The commenter’s characterization of the proposed project as causing a “loss” is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-maker. The Draft EIR provides feasible mitigation measures for all significant impacts identified for the project, and the Final EIR supplements these mitigation measures even further. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is requested for those impacts which cannot be fully mitigated, based on the benefits which the project will create. For a full list of the mitigation measures proposed for the New Century Plan, please see the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan provided in Section IV of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-471 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 61
Alfred Ruess 1733 Ensley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 61-1 Has anybody involved with the planning or permitting process regarding Century City examined the original plans which were the basis for the original permits? It is an outrage that the expansion in height and sq. footage should happen at the very edge of Century City, across from a single residence community- Comstock Hills.
RESPONSE NO. 61-1 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 24-1 and 28-107 for a discussion regarding the project’s consistency with the character, scale, and type of development typical of Century City. The New Century Plan project site is designated for Regional Commercial uses within the General Plan Framework and the West Los Angeles Community Plan, and has been occupied by a Shopping Center since the mid-1960s. As discussed in Section II, Project Description, the Westfield Century City Shopping Center lies within a highly urbanized area generally characterized by mid- to high-rise office buildings, hotels, entertainment and residential uses. Commercial uses are located directly north, east, and south of the site, with single-family and multi-family residential uses to the west separated from the Shopping Center by Century Park West. The New Century Plan is consistent with the West Los Angeles Community Plan’s land use designation for the site and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
COMMENT NO. 61-2 Our neighborhood, Comstock Hills, is just north of the proposed Westfield Project. Last year we celebrated the completion of the Santa Monica Blvd. Transit Parkway, a Scenic Highway. It took four years to complete.
We are now faced with a Westfield's proposal to construct a 49-story mixed use tower, the tallest building on the entire Westside.
RESPONSE NO. 61-2 Following project completion, the proposed residential tower would be the tallest building in Century City, but would not be substantially taller than the existing high-rise buildings in the vicinity. As addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 for further discussion of building heights.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-472 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 61-3 According to the Draft EIR, the 13 story 1801 Avenue of the Stars (at SM Blvd.) will be demolished and replaced by a tower consisting of 3-4 floors of retail, a floor of recreational amenities, and 44 additional stories of 262 condominiums.
In addition Westfield proposes to build 465,404 sq. ft. of new commercial, restaurant and office space. Unmitigated traffic chaos will result, not only during construction, but after completion of the Project.
RESPONSE NO. 61-3 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, it is not until the final phase of the project (i.e., Phase E) that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 178 vehicles. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a summary of the project’s construction activities and measures to reduce construction impacts. Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-14 for a detailed discussion of the Draft EIR construction traffic impact analysis.
COMMENT NO. 61-4 This is not what the Westside Community Plan envisioned to protect our quality of life, and it is certainly not the original vision and permit for Century City. It is unconscionable to allow such excessive development at the expense of an established residential community.
RESPONSE NO. 61-4 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-8 and 13-7 for a discussion of how the project would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, refer to Section IV.G, Land Use of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the consistency of the project with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. However, this comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-473 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 62
Erin Ganahl Angel Law 2601 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 205 Santa Monica, California 90405
COMMENT NO. 62-1 This letter is submitted on behalf of our clients Comstock Hills Homeowners Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the proposed New Century Plan development project (“the Project”), referenced above. The Comstock Hills Homeowners Association hereby requests that these and any other comments submitted on their behalf be included in the administrative record for the Project. We also incorporate and concur with all comments submitted by Sandra Genis of Planning Resources. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
RESPONSE NO. 62-1 The comments contained in this letter are a part of the administrative record for the proposed project. Please refer to the Responses to Comment Letter No. 28 above for responses to the comments submitted by Sandra Genis.
COMMENT NO. 62-2 The DEIR for the Project has numerous, serious deficiencies that must be remedied before the project may be approved and the EIR certified as in compliance with all applicable laws. In particular, the Project has the potential to cause serious, detrimental impact to the residential neighborhood just north of the project site, in which members of the Comstock Hills Homeowners Association reside.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) (“Guidelines”) must be interpreted “in such a way as to ‘afford the fullest possible protection of the environment.’” (See Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868.
RESPONSE NO. 62-2 The EIR is comprehensive and potential impacts are based on the significance thresholds and methodologies set forth within the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006). In accordance with CEQA, the EIR provides full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project such that the decision-makers can thoughtfully take account of the environmental consequences of the project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-474 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 62-3
The DEIR Must Contain a Complete and Accurate Project Description and Analysis of All Potential Impacts
The accurate and complete definition of all reasonably foreseeable elements of a proposed project is an extremely important element of the CEQA compliance process. For purposes of CEQA, the term “project” refers to the whole of an action that has the potential, directly or ultimately, to result in a physical change to the environment. (Guidelines § 15378.) This includes all project phases that are reasonably foreseeable, and all related projects and project components that are directly linked to the project.
RESPONSE NO. 62-3 Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements as implemented by the City of Los Angeles. All of the reasonably foreseeable elements of the project have been discussed as has phasing of the project. Related projects are appropriately listed in Section III, Environmental Setting of the Draft EIR. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-19.
COMMENT NO. 62-4 However, the DEIR fails to accurately describe and portray the project. “An accurate, stable and finite project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) On the other hand, a “curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal … and weigh other alternatives in the balance.” (Id. At 193-193.) The DEIR’s project description is indeed “curtailed and distorted.” For example, photographs and images of the Project do not adequately portray existing conditions or the potential aesthetic impact of the Project when built out. (See May 12, 2008 comment letter from Sandra Genis re the Project (“Genis Letter”) at pp.9-10.) Additionally, data is not provided for certain crucial project elements and surrounding conditions, for example, the above-grade height of surrounding structures. (See id. at 8.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-4 As indicated in Response to Comment Nos. 62-3 and 28-9, the project description fully complies with the requirements under CEQA. The project description is thorough and comprehensive. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-37 regarding the visual simulations appropriately provided in Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. In addition, proposed building heights are accurately provided in Section II, Project Description of the Draft
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-475 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
EIR as well as Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-34 regarding building heights of surrounding buildings.
COMMENT NO. 62-5 Moreover, the DEIR fails entirely to analyze several potentially significant project impacts, in violation of CEQA. An EIR must identify and analyze all potentially significant effects of a proposed project. (Guidelines § 15162.2, subd. (a).) Guidelines Appendix G sets forth the various categories of potentially significant environmental impacts to be evaluated for projects falling under the rubric of CEQA analysis. Two categories of potential significant impacts in Appendix G are Utilities and Service Systems, and Population and Housing. However, with the exception of water supply, the DEIR fails entirely to analyze the Project’s potential impacts in either of these areas, a fact which is particularly troubling given that the Initial Study for the Project identified Utilities and Service Systems as an area in which the Project may have a significant environmental affect. CEQA does not permit selective analysis of only certain potential impacts; the DEIR must analyze, disclose and mitigate all potentially significant project impacts before it may be considered to be in compliance with CEQA.
RESPONSE NO. 62-5 As discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-2, the EIR addresses all of the environmental topics included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Please refer to the Initial Study, which was included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and Section VI of the Draft EIR for a complete analysis regarding both population and housing and utilities (with the exception of water supply) which demonstrates that significant impacts associated with these issue areas would not occur. Furthermore, please refer to Response to Comment No. 3-5 for an analysis of the proposed project's impact on population, employment, and housing based on data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
COMMENT NO. 62-6 The DEIR dismisses other potentially significant impacts as being less than significant without providing substantial evidence to support such a conclusion. For example, the DEIR does not provide evidence to support its conclusions that the Project will not have significant impacts on growth, transit services, or wastewater. (See Genis Letter, p.4.) What thresholds of significance are utilized to make such conclusions? What evidence supports these conclusions? “[T]he EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency’s bare conclusions or opinions.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-6 The EIR evaluates the topics of population, transit and wastewater and demonstrates that significant impacts would not result in these issue areas. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-12 regarding the transit analysis. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 28-2 and 3-5
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-476 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
regarding the population analysis and to Response to Comment No. 28-3 regarding the wastewater analysis.
COMMENT NO. 62-7 Furthermore, because CEQA requires analysis of “the whole of an action” (Guidelines § 15378), agencies must not “piecemeal” a project by splitting it into two or more segments. By requiring an agency to analyze the whole of the project, CEQA ensures “that environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592.) Here, though the EIR describes several sub-parts of the Project which are necessary to the Project’s completion, the EIR doesn’t address the impacts of those sub-parts in relation to the whole of the Project, in violation of CEQA. For example, the EIR does not address the impacts of the new water line in Constellation Boulevard, the improvements at the intersection of Century Park West and Santa Monica Boulevard, or the improvements to the intersection of Westfield Shopping Center Driveway and Santa Monica Boulevard. (See Genis Letter at p.3.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-7 The EIR does not split the project components into segments. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 28-8, DWP has indicated that while the Applicant will pay for the costs of construction of the new water line along Constellation Boulevard, DWP will be responsible for the actual construction of the water line. Construction of the new water line will be short-term, requiring only approximately three to four weeks for completion. In addition, potential air quality and noise impacts associated with construction of the water line will be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 62-8
The DEIR Must Adequately Analyze Cumulative Impacts
CEQA requires that an EIR consider a project’s cumulative impacts, which include “the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (Guidelines §§ 15130(a); 15355(b).) To satisfy the requirements of CEQA, a cumulative impacts analysis must include: (1) a list of past, present and foreseeable future projects producing related impacts, including projects outside the agency’s control, or a summary of a planning document that evaluates regional or area wide conditions; (2) a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects; and (3) a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects, together with an examination of reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects. (Guidelines § 15130(b); Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 428-29.)
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-477 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 62-8 Pursuant to CEQA, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative impacts, which are the impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth in the vicinity of the project area. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-10 for discussion of the cumulative conditions analysis methodology. Also refer to Table 2 beginning on page 163 of the Draft EIR for the list of related projects that was considered in each of the respective environmental issue areas addressed in the Draft EIR. As shown therein, related projects include projects within the City of Los Angeles and the City of Beverly Hills.
COMMENT NO. 62-9 The agency must define the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts area and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. (Guidelines § 15130(b)(3).) The EIR must also make specific reference to related projects in the region for purposes of examining the possible cumulative impact of such projects. (Whitman v. Board of Supervisors of Ventura County (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 397, 407; Guidelines § 15125(a).) The area analyzed within the cumulative impacts analysis “cannot be so narrowly defined that it necessarily eliminates a portion of the affected environmental setting.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1216.) In addition, an EIR for a major commercial/retail center must analyze the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed shopping center in conjunction with all other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects that are or will be located within the proposed project’s market area. (Id. at 1218.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-9 The geographic areas for the cumulative analyses within the Draft EIR are clearly identified for each issue area. The geographic areas for cumulative impacts vary and are based on the service area for the issue area. For example, the geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to school is based on the service area for the schools that serve the project site. Similarly, the geographic area for cumulative impacts associated with police protection is based on the West Los Angeles Community Police Station Service Area. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-20 regarding the geographic area used to evaluate traffic impacts.
COMMENT NO. 62-10 However, the DEIR for the Project has failed to provide a cumulative impacts analysis that adheres to the requirements of CEQA. In particular, the DEIR arbitrarily limits the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis to the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. However, the effects of past, present and future projects in other cities and neighborhoods in close proximity to, and/or sharing a market area with, the Project, in combination with the effects of the Project, may cause cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Why was assessment
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-478 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
of cumulative impacts so limited? What is the justification for such a narrow geographic constraint on the cumulative impacts analysis? (See Genis Letter at 7.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-10 Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that cumulative impacts may be based on either “a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or [a] summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions.” The Draft EIR uses both methods to evaluate cumulative impacts.
To evaluate cumulative impacts based on the first method, the Draft EIR utilized a list of related projects anticipated to be constructed between 2006 and 2012. This list was reviewed and approved by both the Department of City Planning and the Department of Transportation and determined to reflect the reasonable range of related projects which could, along with the New Century Plan, contribute to reasonably foreseeable growth. This list includes 108 related projects (63 in the City of Los Angeles and 45 in the City of Beverly Hills) spanning a radius of approximately two miles from the Shopping Center. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 62-9 above, the geographic areas for the cumulative analyses within the Draft EIR are clearly identified for each issue area. The geographic areas for cumulative impacts vary and are based on the service area for the issue area. For example, the geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to school is based on the service area for the schools that serve the project site. Similarly, the geographic area for cumulative impacts associated with police protection is based on the West Los Angeles Community Police Station Service Area. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-20 regarding the geographic area used to evaluate traffic impacts.
COMMENT NO. 62-11
The DEIR Must Demonstrate that Long-Term Water Supply Will Be Sufficient for the Project
An EIR must show there is a long-term water supply adequate to meet the needs of the project. (See, e.g., Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 416 (EIR failed to clearly and coherently explain how the long-term water demand of project would be met, the environmental impacts of exploiting the planned sources of water, and how those impacts are to be mitigated); California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1239-41 (EIR improperly relied on paper entitlement to purchase State Water Project water without assessing the uncertainty surrounding that entitlement).)
RESPONSE NO. 62-11 As discussed in Topical Response No. 12, Water Supply, the Department of Water and Power has conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the New Century Plan and determined
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-479 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
that there is sufficient water supply to meet the demand generated by the project. Additionally, the New Century Plan will implement a number of water conservation measures to further reduce the New Century Plan’s water demand, all of which are currently being recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for inclusion in new and existing projects.
COMMENT NO. 62-12 Here, the DEIR relies heavily upon water management plans even though significant changes (i.e., reductions) in water supply have occurred since their adoption. As such, the DEIR cannot guarantee long-term water supply, in violation of CEQA. What measures have been taken to account for reductions in water supply from the Owens Valley and the Sacramento Delta? What impacts do these reductions have on the Project? (See Genis Letter at pp. 9,21.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-12 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-178. Section IV.K, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR addresses potential impacts to the conclusions contained in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan based on the most current information available to date. As discussed therein, the current Remedial Order from Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. vs. Kempthorne, et al., limiting pumping in the Sacramento Delta, will sunset in September 2008, when a new Biological Opinion concerning the Delta smelt will be issued. Therefore, the current Remedial Order will have no direct impact on the New Century Plan, and it cannot be determined at this time how the new Biological Opinion will impact the amount of water that Metropolitan Water District (MWD) can pump from the Sacramento Delta. Nonetheless, as the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power receives only approximately one-third of its water from the MWD, and since restoring the Sacramento Delta's water capacity is a high priority for MWD, the Governor, and the California Legislature, MWD’s water supply may be restored to previous levels in the next few years.
Further, the New Century Plan includes a number of water conservation features designed to further reduce the project’s water demand. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 7-15 for a list of these water conservation measures. In addition, please refer to Topical Response No. 12 for further discussion of water supply.
COMMENT NO. 62-13
The DEIR Must Describe Enforceable Mitigation Measures for Any Potentially Significant Impact
CEQA requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to avoid significant adverse project impacts. (CEQA §§ 21002, 21100, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines § 15162, subd. (e).) Specifically, the Guidelines command that the agency must identify all feasible, available
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-480 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
mitigation measures, discuss the basis for selecting a particular measure, and identify any environmental effects of the mitigation measures selected. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B), (D).) In addition, the Guidelines state that “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time” (Guidelines § 15162.4, subd. (a)(1)(B)), and that “[m]itigation measures must be fully enforceable.” (Guidelines § 15162.4, subd. (a)(2); CEQA § 21081.6, subd. (b); Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000), 83 Cal App. 4th 1252, 1260-1261.)
RESPONSE NO. 62-13 This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, both the Draft EIR and Final EIR include feasible mitigation measures for the project’s significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is requested for those impacts which cannot be fully mitigated, based on the benefits which the project will create.
COMMENT NO. 62-14 However, many mitigation measures in the DEIR are either improperly deferred to the future (e.g., reliance on a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to be crafted in the future), some are not enforceable, and some, though relied upon in the DEIR for reduction of environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, are not even described in the mitigation monitoring program. (See Genis Letter, pp.6, 14.) Thus, the DEIR, as it stands currently, does not comply with CEQA’s information and disclosure requirements.
RESPONSE NO. 62-14 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-19. All mitigation measures listed in the Draft EIR will be enforced through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, included in Section IV of the Final EIR. The project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not a mitigation measure that has been improperly deferred to the future. Mitigation Measure F- 1 states that the New Century Plan “shall comply with the requirements of the applicable NPDES permit for stormwater discharge and with all applicable requirements of the RWQCB, EPA and local agencies including the City of Los Angeles regarding water quality.” The NPDES permit requires preparation of a SWPPP prior to construction of the project. Thus, while a SWPPP is not required to be included in the Draft EIR, it is required in order to build the New Century Plan. Additionally, while not required at this stage of the project’s review process, please refer to Response to Comment No. 28-19 for a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented by the project as part of its SWPPP.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-481 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 62-15
The DEIR Must Provide an Analysis of Feasible Project Alternatives
“Like the requirement to describe mitigation measures within an EIR, the requirement to set forth project alternatives within the document is also crucial to CEQA’s substantive mandate that avoidable significant environmental damage be substantially lessened or avoided where feasible.” (Remy et al., Guide to CEQA (11th ed. 2007), p.458.) Specifically, “an EIR for any project subject to CEQA review must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal…; and (2) may be ‘feasibly accomplished in a successful manner’ considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 552, 566.)
However, the DEIR fails to seriously address an alternative project design that would alleviate some of the most objectionable aspects of the proposed project in addition to traffic -- aesthetic impacts, including altered views, light and glare, and shade and shadow, which shall impact, in particular, the residential neighborhood to the north of the project site. (See Genis Letter at p.21.) How can it be said that the DEIR complies with CEQA if it fails to even consider an alternative project design that alleviates some of the Project’s most troublesome impacts?
RESPONSE NO. 62-15 Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-180 regarding the reasonable range of alternatives provided in the Draft EIR, which fully complies with CEQA. The alternatives analysis addresses the significant impacts of the project in accordance with CEQA.
COMMENT NO. 62-16
The DEIR Must Discuss Any Potential Conflicts with Applicable Laws, Ordinances and General Plans
An EIR must discuss “any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and regional plans. (Guidelines § 15125, subd. (d); see also Guidelines, Appendix G (significant impact includes any “[c]onflict 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[.]”).) The Project has the potential to conflict with, among other things, the Century City North Specific Plan and the West Los Angeles Community Plan. (See Genis Letter, pp.14-15.) This issue must be addressed and disclosed in before the DEIR may be in compliance with CEQA.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-482 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 62-16 Please refer to Responses to Comments No. 18-9 and 28-99. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Century City North Specific Plan (CCNSP) and the West Los Angeles Community Plan is provided in Section IV.G. Land Use of the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, and confirmed by a Comment Letter No. 3 from SCAG, the project would be generally consistent with the policies of the CCNSP and Community Plan. While the project is only partially consistent with two goals/objectives of the Community Plan, since the New Century Plan is compatible with the general intent of the Community Plan and does not preclude attainment of the General Plan’s primary goal, the Draft EIR concludes that the project would not result in significant land use impacts.
COMMENT NO. 62-17
CONCLUSION
As such, the DEIR is not in compliance with applicable law. We request that the DEIR address these issues and those raised in other comments submitted on the project, in particular with respect to the negative impacts to noise, shading, air quality, traffic, public services and lighted signage that will impact the residential neighborhood immediately to the north of the project site.
RESPONSE NO. 62-17 The Draft EIR has been prepared in full compliance with CEQA. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 62-1 through 62-16 for responses to each specific issue raised by the Commenter. Please refer to Chapter IV, Environmental Impacts Analysis, of the Draft EIR for analysis regarding noise, shading, air quality, traffic, public services, and signage. In addition, please refer to the additional figures provided in Topical Response No. 11 of this Final EIR, which illustrate that shadowing of the residential area to the north of the project site will occur only in the morning and only for very limited times. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 28-56 for a discussion regarding the minimal impact of illuminated signage within the project site on the single-family residences to the north/northwest of the project site.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-483 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 63
David M. Orbach Orbach, Huff & Suarez LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575 Los Angeles, California 90067
COMMENT NO. 63-1 On behalf of the Beverly Hills Unified School District ("BHUSD"), we hereby submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the New Century Plan located at 10250 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, 1930 Century Park West, Los Angeles, California ("Project").
As you may know, the public has entrusted BHUSD with providing its students with a quality education, which includes ensuring that its students are not significantly or cumulatively impacted by development. The Project is approximately two blocks away from Beverly Hills High School and four blocks away from EI Rodeo School. The Project's proximity to these schools and the relative proximity to the other District schools raises concerns that the construction and operation of the Project will adversely effect our students' education, and the safety, health and welfare of the District's students, teachers, staff, administration, parents and the community in general.
RESPONSE NO. 63-1 The schools within the Beverly Hills Unified School District were included in the analysis of project impacts provided in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analyzed project impacts both on-site and within the vicinity of the project site. Beverly Hills High School, which is located approximately 0.37 miles (1,958 feet) east of the project site, is separated from the project site by intervening mid- and high-rise development. El Rodeo School, which is located approximately 0.45 miles (2,381 feet) north of the project site, is separated from the project site by Santa Monica Boulevard, the Los Angeles Country Club golf course, and Wilshire Boulevard. Thus, due to distance and intervening development, project impacts on both of these schools would be incrementally less than those described in the Draft EIR for the project site and surrounding vicinity. In addition, it is important to note that the haul route that would be used during construction of the proposed project would not pass by either of these schools.
COMMENT NO. 63-2 As the Project is proposed and since the Draft EIR's impact analyses are inadequate, BHUSD must oppose the proposed Project. The impact analyses of air quality, noise, vibration, and traffic are inadequate and must be redone.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-484 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 63-2 The Draft EIR complies with CEQA and all analysis provided therein are complete and adequate. Please refer to Section IV.B, Air Quality, Section IV.H, Noise, and Section IV.J, Traffic and Circulation, of the Draft EIR for detailed analyses regarding air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic, respectively. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 18-14 through 18- 18 for responses to transportation-related comments contained in a previous comment letter regarding the Draft EIR submitted by Stan M. Barankiewicz II, also of Orbach, Huff & Suarez, LLP. The Draft EIR traffic analysis follows the analysis methodology pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) requirements. The traffic impact study, including the analysis methodology, was reviewed and approved by LADOT as evidenced in their November 20, 2007 departmental clearance letter to the Department of City Planning. A copy of this clearance letter is contained in Appendix J within Volume V of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 63-3 Further, the shade and shadow impacts to Beverly Hills High School are unacceptable despite the Draft EIR's conclusion that such impact is less than significant.
RESPONSE NO. 63-3 As discussed in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR, Beverly Hills High School, east of the project site, is considered a shade-sensitive use. Shading thresholds were based on both the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) and the Century City North Specific Plan. Based on the factors contained in the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), a project would have a significant shading impact if the project would shade shadow-sensitive uses more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time (PST), between early November and early March or more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early March and early November. In addition, based on policies of the CCNSP, a project would have a significant shading impact if the project would shade any detached single-family residence located outside the Specific Plan area for more than two hours between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.
Beverly Hills High School already experiences shading from existing high-rise buildings in the area. Furthermore, the existing Watt Plaza Towers and the mid-rise building directly east of Century Park East and the Watt Plaza Towers block a majority of the shade generated from the project and prevent this shade from reaching Beverly Hills High School. The greatest amount of shading of Beverly Hills High School from theh project site would occur during the Spring Equinox. However, shading would be limited to an approximately 40 foot wide strip on part of the tennis courts and lawn area along Moreno Drive and would last for a maximum period of approximately 30 minutes in the late afternoon. This amount of time is well under the threshold criteria for determining significance. In addition, as discussed in greater detail in Topical Response No. 11, less than half of the days surrounding the Spring Equinox (March 21)
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-485 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
are clear days in Los Angeles. Therefore, shading impacts during this time of year would be incrementally less than if shading was to occur during the summer or fall months. Thus, the shading impact of the project on Beverly Hills High School would be less than significant.
COMMENT NO. 63-4 Thus, the BHUSD makes the following comments on the Project's Draft EIR:
1. AIR QUALITY.
The Draft EIR reports that construction of the Project is expected to pollute the air with as high as 656 pounds of carbon monoxide per day, 540 pounds of nitrogen oxides per day, and 879 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day during the four-year construction period. (p. 274.) Although some existing baseline data is provided from distant monitoring sites, the impact analysis does not compare the Project's expected air pollution to existing conditions. Instead, it relies on bare thresholds from the SCAQMD. This is inadequate. As mentioned below, a significant impact analysis is a comparison between Project levels to the existing baseline levels.
RESPONSE NO. 63-4 This comment is identical to Comment No. 18-2. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-2 for a discussion regarding the significance thresholds used in the air quality analysis within the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 63-5 Here, no Project area or school air sampling was done. Rather, the Draft EIR relies solely on distant air monitoring stations (3, 10 and 21 miles away) and rote calculations. (p. 254.) Further, no air dispersion analyses have been conducted to the east of the Project. Where will these pollutants migrate to? Omitted from the impact analysis is any health risk assessment of air pollutants other than diesel fumes on the students, parents, teachers, and staff of Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School.
RESPONSE NO. 63-5 Site specific air sampling is not required by the SCAQMD or the City to characterize existing conditions. Reliance on established monitoring stations is the accepted approach by the SCAQMD.
In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, dispersion modeling was performed using a sufficiently sized receptor grid to characterize maximum concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors for purposes of comparison to SCAQMD significance thresholds. The closest sensitive receptors are located 100 feet to the west and 350 feet to the north. As indicated above, both Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School are greater than 1,500 feet away from the proposed project site. As the purpose of the analysis was to characterize maximum
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-486 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
pollutant concentrations for comparison to SCAQMD significance thresholds, it was not necessary to extend the receptor grid to the two mentioned schools. Detailed dispersion modeling results presented in Appendix B of the Draft EIR show that pollutant concentrations decrease by a factor of two (50 percent) at a distance of 80 meters from the project site. At 120 meters, concentrations decrease by a factor of five. In response to this comment, the construction dispersion modeling was updated to specifically include receptors at these two schools that are located greater than 1,500 feet away from the proposed project site. At Beverly Hills High School, the maximum 24-hour concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 were determined to 3 3 be 1.7 µg/m and 0.9 µg/m , respectively. At El Rodeo School, 24-hour concentrations of PM10 3 3 and PM2.5 were determined to be 1.8 µg/m and 1.0 µg/m , respectively. Because the 3 significance thresholds for both PM10 and PM2.5 are 10.4 µg/m , the impact of construction to both schools would be less than significant. No additional modeling for CO or NO2 is necessary given that Section IV.B., Air Quality, demonstrates that receptors in closer proximity to the project site would be less than significant.
As stated in Response to Comment No. 18-5, the most recent MATES III health risk study performed by the SCAQMD demonstrates that 85 percent of the inhalation cancer risk in the region is attributed to diesel particulate matter. As a result, diesel particulate emissions represent the greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions and cancer risk. Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluated potential health risk impacts which could result from construction activities, the impact to off-site receptors resulting from the increase in project-related on-site TAC emissions, as well as the risk of siting new residential receptors nearby to off-site sources of TACs. In all cases, risks were found to be at acceptable levels and impacts less than significant.
Other TACs, including volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings, would be limited by SCAQMD Rule 1113, which limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions would be controlled by Rule 403, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated from construction activities as mentioned in the Draft EIR. Thus, the health risk from air pollutants other than diesel fumes would be limited to less than significant levels.
COMMENT NO. 63-6 The Draft EIR analyzes the impacts from carbon monoxide hot spots expected from the operational Project, but it omits a carbon monoxide hot spot analysis during construction of the Project. The truck trips expected along with other construction traffic and existing traffic will certainly elevate carbon monoxide levels. The potential impact from carbon monoxide hot spots occurring during construction must be analyzed and reported.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-487 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 63-6 This comment is identical to Comment No. 18-6. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-6.
COMMENT NO. 63-7 The Draft EIR discusses Greenhouse Gas ("GHGs") emissions. However, the Draft EIR does not include a significance threshold for such emissions because it claims no agency has yet developed such. The absence of such a threshold does not excuse the City from coming up with one, as it must to satisfy its duties as a lead agency. Without such a threshold, there is no meaningful impact analysis. The Draft ErR reports that the Project will generate as high as 3,713 metric tons of GHGs yearly over the four years of construction. (p.277.) Yet, the Draft EIR concludes there is no significant impact from GHGs. This is a clear error and is inconsistent with AB32's edict to reduce GHG emissions by 11 percent by 2010 and 25 percent by 2020. (p. 250.) As such, the impact analysis of the Project's GHG emissions, during construction and operations, is infirm. The Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated.
RESPONSE NO. 63-7 This comment is identical to Comment No. 18-7. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 18-7 for a discussion regarding greenhouse gas emissions
COMMENT NO. 63-8 The City should require construction to stop or activities reduced if air contaminants exceed thresholds for children (no thresholds for children provided in the Draft EIR). As such, the air impact analysis and mitigation measures in the Draft EIR are inadequate and must be revised to address these concerns and recirculated in a revised Draft EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 63-8 Pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-3 in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, construction emissions shall be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure B-3 incorporates the City’s requirement that construction be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measures B-10 and B-11, listed in Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR requires construction equipment used on-site for substantial periods of time be late-model (e.g. post-2001 model year), retrofitted or otherwise controlled to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and/or ozone precursors such as oxides of nitrogen. As noted in the Draft EIR, the California Air Resources Board has recently passed regulations requiring construction fleet operators to retire or retrofit older diesel powered equipment, which will greatly increase the availability of lower-emitting construction equipment state-wide. In addition to mitigation strategies to reduce construction emission of particulate matter (dust) mandated by the City and SCAQMD, the Applicant routinely implements enhanced control measures, such as installing shaker plates so as to reduce the
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-488 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
track-out from haul trucks and other vehicles as they exit the site and continuous street sweeping adjacent to active construction.
In addition, no separate thresholds for children have been established by state or local agencies. However, as noted above in Response to Comment No. 63-5, the impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant at Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School. As such, the air impact analysis and mitigation measures in the Draft EIR are adequate and no revisions to the analysis requiring recirculation are necessary.
COMMENT NO. 63-9
2. SHADE & SHADOW. The Draft EIR provides a shade and shadow analysis, which identifies that shadows from the Project will be created on the Beverly Hills High School during the Spring Equinox. Because the shadow would only be on the Beverly Hills High School for a maximum of 30 minutes, the Draft EIR concludes that the impact is less than significant. (p. 235.) BHUSD disagrees. During the spring, the play fields of the Beverly Hills High School are used extensively after classes. The Project would cast shadows upon these play fields disrupting the students' activities. Such would be significant even if it were true that the duration of the shadow was 30 minutes. The Draft EIR does not consider the school's use differently than other uses, which is in error. The threshold of significance to the school should be revised and the Project's height be reduced to remove the predicted shadow impact to Beverly Hills High School.
RESPONSE NO. 63-9 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 63-3 regarding the project’s less than significant shading impact on Beverly Hills High School. The Draft EIR is correct that during the Spring Equinox the project would shade the school campus for a maximum period of approximately 30 minutes. Furthermore, Beverly Hills High School is identified as a sensitive use in Section IV.A.2, Light, Glare, and Shading, of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 63-10
3. NOISE.
The Draft EIR does not identify Beverly Hills High School as a sensitive noise receptor when it should. Nor does the Draft EIR analyze the potential noise impacts to the school from on-site construction or from construction traffic and the resulting traffic congestion. The Draft EIR should be revised to include a noise impact analysis on the Beverly Hills High School and EI Rodeo School.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-489 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 63-10 Noise sensitive receptors were selected based on the relative distance from the receptors to the project site, in accordance with the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) screening criteria. As indicated on Page I.1-3 of the City of L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), a 500 feet distance is specified for identification of noise sensitive receptors. Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School are approximately 1,958 feet and 2,381 feet from the proposed project site, respectively. In addition, there are intervening buildings between the project site and the nearest school facility, which would provide additional noise attenuation of approximately 10 dBA. The estimated maximum construction related noise levels at the outside of and adjacent to Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School campuses would be 51 dBA and 48 dBA, respectively. These estimated construction noise levels at both the Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School would be consistent with the existing daytime ambient noise levels. Construction traffic (i.e. haul and delivery trucks) would not travel near Beverly Hills High School or El Rodeo School. As described on page 467 of the Draft EIR, construction traffic would generally access the project site via Santa Monica, Avenue of the Stars or Constellation Boulevard to I-405 or I-10 Freeways. Therefore, no noise impacts from construction traffic would be expected at Beverly Hills High School or El Rodeo School.
COMMENT NO. 63-11
4. VIBRATION.
The Draft EIR does not sufficiently analyze potential vibration impacts. In Table 35 on page 471, the Draft EIR identifies the types of construction equipment that generate vibration. Conspicuously missing from the list is any type of pile driver (which could be used for the construction of the subterranean parking. The analysis of vibration impacts are based on Table 35. Yet, in the mitigation measures, the Draft EIR identifies the possible use of pile driver in Mitigation Measure H-3 at page 481. Since Beverly Hills High School is a sensitive vibration receptor, an analysis of the potential vibration impacts from pile driving needs to be included in a revised Draft EIR.
RESPONSE NO. 63-11 It has been determined that pile drivers would not be utilized for construction of the project. Thus, no further analysis regarding pile drivers is necessary. As such, Mitigation Measure H-3, which states that “while not anticipated to be required during construction, pile drivers, if utilized, shall be equipped with standard noise control devices having a minimum sound attenuation factor of 10 dBA,” is not necessary and has been deleted from the Final EIR in Section II, Corrections and Additions.
As indicated in Table 35 on page 471 of the Draft EIR, construction equipment would generate vibration levels up to 0.089 inch/second Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-490 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
from the equipment. Beverly Hills High School is located approximately 1,958 feet from the closest edge of the construction site. The ground borne vibration due to construction activities at Beverly Hills High School would be approximately 0.001 inch/second PPV. This level is an order of magnitude below the perceptible (barely) level of 0.01 inch/second PPV (Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction – Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, June 2004). Thus, potential vibration impacts would not be result at Beverly Hills High School.
COMMENT NO. 63-12
5. SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
The analysis of the Project's construction traffic is inadequate. The Draft EIR simply concludes that construction traffic will not affect school traffic. (p. 520.) However, the Draft ErR does not identify Beverly Hills High School or El Rodeo School nor provide any analysis demonstrating that these two schools will not be significantly or cumulatively impacted. For example, the effect of construction traffic along Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards has not been examined or explained. This is cause for concern when the Draft EIR notes that there will be up to 1,220 construction traffic trips per day during school hours over the course of four years.
RESPONSE NO. 63-12 Refer to Response to Comment No. 18-14 for a detailed discussion of construction traffic and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis. Refer to Response to Comment No. 35-21 for additional discussion of the proposed haul route in relation to existing schools. As a point of clarification, no portion of either of the two proposed project haul routes traverse roadways located within the City of Beverly Hills city limits.
The City of Beverly Hills commented on the Draft EIR (refer to Comment Letter No. 6). A total of four additional study locations were requested for analysis by the City. Refer to Response to Comment No. 6-4 for a detailed discussion of the analysis prepared for the four added study intersections. As indicated in Appendix A2 of the Final EIR (see Appendix Tables A2-A and A2B), no significant impacts are expected at any of the four added study locations employing either the more strict City of Los Angeles significant impact threshold criteria or the City of Beverly Hills criteria.
COMMENT NO. 63-13 Further, the Draft EIR simply concludes that with the implementation of only two mitigation measures, construction traffic would be less than significant. Both mitigation measures are veiled impermissible delayed mitigation. One of these mitigation measures (J-1) is the future preparation of a Construction Staging & Traffic Management Plan, long after the EIR is certified. This effectively shields from the public the impact analysis of construction traffic and identification of tangible mitigation measures. The other mitigation measure (1-2) is the future
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-491 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
determination of truck haul route(s). The failure to identify the specific haul route(s) and volume of construction traffic thereon fails to meet the basic tenant of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") that the EIR is a disclosure document. The Draft EIR should be revised to include an adequate construction traffic analysis that utilizes the same, but corrected, approach to determining operational traffic impacts. There is no reason to analyze construction traffic differently than operational traffic.
RESPONSE NO. 63-13 As this comment essentially restates Comment No. 18-15, refer to Response to Comment No. 18-5 for a detailed response as it relates to the construction analysis contained as part of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 63-14 The analysis of the Project's operational traffic is inadequate. The existing traffic (i.e., baseline traffic conditions) is improperly inflated to a future year (2012) that includes all the anticipated projects before the City. Existing street segment conditions (2006) are provided in Table 63 on page 609. However, these segments are predicted to 2012 and the impact of Project generated traffic is measured against 2012 predicted traffic. This 2012 level of traffic without the Project is in reality the no action alternative. Analyzing the impact between the Project and the no action alternative to determine significant impacts is universally condemned by CEQA treatises and case law. The correct analysis is to compare the Project generated traffic to the existing baseline (i.e., 2006 traffic conditions), not to future traffic. A future traffic analysis is only germane to a cumulative impact analysis as discussed below. This analytical error is continued with the intersections. Existing intersection conditions (2006) are provided in Table 69 on pages 630 through 637. As with street segments, the Draft EIR predicts the intersection traffic to 2012 and compares the Project generated traffic to the 2012 traffic levels to determine whether significant traffic impacts will occur. The appropriate significant impact analysis is to compare the Project generated traffic to the existing baseline. The Draft EIR does not do this, and thus, the Draft EIR is inadequate.
RESPONSE NO. 63-14 As this comment essentially restates Comment No. 18-16, refer to Response to Comment No. 18-16 for a detailed response as it relates to the analysis of “Existing” and “Existing with Project” conditions. Based on the supplemental “Existing” and “Existing with Project” conditions analyses, the conclusions reported in the Draft EIR remain valid. As such, no further mitigation is required or recommended.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-492 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 63-15
6. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
Under CEQA, cumulative traffic impacts are separately analyzed by estimating some future year's traffic, taking into account all anticipated projects, and comparing the future traffic to existing traffic. If the impact is significant, the next step is to determine whether the studied project sufficiently contributes to the significant impact. Where the studied project sufficiently contributes to the significant impact, it is said to be (in CEQA's vernacular) cumulatively considerable. Even a minor contribution to cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. Unfortunately, the Draft EIR does not provide such an analysis. The Draft EIR should be revised to provide a compliant cumulative traffic analysis. If the Project is found to create a cumulatively considerable impact, the developer should contribute its fair share to the City's traffic mitigation fee program, if one exists. With the net increase of 5,922 weekday trips, the operational Project will surely cumulatively degrade Santa Monica Boulevard, Constellation Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. This must be adequately addressed in a revised Draft EIR and further mitigation of intersections and roadway segments should be required.
RESPONSE NO. 63-15 As the first paragraph of this comment essentially restates Comment No. 18-17, refer to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a discussion of cumulative traffic impacts. As the second paragraph of this comment essentially restates Comment No. 18-18, refer to Response to Comment No. 18-18 for a discussion of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
COMMENT NO. 63-16
7. CONCLUSION.
The BHUSD is extremely concerned about this Project's potential impacts to the children of the BHUSD and to their parents, teachers and the community as a whole. The potential for construction and cumulative impacts are likely given the fact that the Project is only two blocks from Beverly Hills High School and four from El Rodeo School. As such, BHUSD respectfully requests that the Project Draft EIR be revised to include adequate impact analyses and ensure that potential significant and cumulatively considerable impacts to Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School are mitigated.
We request that all future notices and environmental documents concerning this Project be provided to BHUSD. If you wish to consult with BHUSD further on these matters, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-493 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 63-16 Both construction and cumulative impacts are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, these analyses and are applicable to both Beverly Hills High School and El Rodeo School. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to either of these schools. As such, no revisions to the EIR are necessary. The Beverly Hills Unified School District will be placed on the list to receive all notices regarding the EIR and future hearings.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-494 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 64
Dorothy and Gerald Gartman No address provided
COMMENT NO. 64-1 Our home is just north of the Westfield shopping center. Having recently suffered through four years of the Santa Monica Blvd. makeover, we dread the idea of the proposed forty-nine story building which Westfield proposes on what is now 1801 Avenue of the Stars.
This, along with the other high-rise buildings to be built in Century City can only result in even more congestion, even worse traffic, not to mention the noise and mess during the construction period.
RESPONSE NO. 64-1 Cumulative impacts for each issue area are provided in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 8 for a discussion regarding construction impacts. Please also refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, it is not until the final phase of the project (i.e., Phase E) that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 178 vehicles. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels. Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a discussion of the measures to be included in the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan which are intended to reduce construction impacts to the extent feasible.
COMMENT NO. 64-2 This is a single family residential area and we are being drowned by these large condos going up all around us. Please help us preserve our neighborhood.
RESPONSE NO. 64-2 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 24-1 and 28-107 for a discussion regarding the project’s consistency with the character, scale, and type of development typical of Century City.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-495 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 65
William M. Ryan 1448 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024
COMMENT NO. 65-1 I live in the Comstock Hills neighborhood, just north of the proposed Westfield Expansion Project. As I am sure you are aware, we have just ended the four year construction cycle of the Santa Monica Blvd Transit Project.
There is now another four year project proposed. Westfield's 49-story mixed use tower the tallest building on the Westside.
RESPONSE NO. 65-1 Following project completion, the proposed residential tower would be the tallest building in Century City, but would not be substantially taller than the existing high-rise buildings in the vicinity. As addressed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the height of the proposed residential tower would be consistent with the zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site, which is located in Height District No. 2 and allows for unlimited building height and stories. Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-7 and 8-8 for further discussion of building heights.
COMMENT NO. 65-2 I will spare you the details, you know them of course. What I would like to stress for you however is the impact this will have on not just our neighborhood, but the entire Westside. There is no traffic infrastructure in place to support the amount of new construction planned for the Century City/ Beverly Hills area.
RESPONSE NO. 65-2 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, it is not until the final phase of the project (i.e., Phase E) that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 178 vehicles. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels. In addition to on-site measures (i.e., for Century City-wide measures) the project applicant is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization for all of Century City, which could develop and
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-496 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist with physical improvements to waiting areas at transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver vehicle trips. Refer also to Response to Comment Nos. 13-3 through 13-5 for a detailed discussion of both the Draft EIR and Final EIR traffic analyses as they relate to the Comstock Hills Homeowner Association (HOA) area.
COMMENT NO. 65-3 These units represent the fifth tower of residences In excess of 40 stories to be built simultaneously in Century City. This does not include 362 units to be built in adjacent Beverly Hills. The cumulative affect of all this construction results in significant impacts to our neighborhood regarding noise, poor air quality, unmitigated traffic, toxic hazards, and eventual shading of our residences from this tall, massive structure.
RESPONSE NO. 65-3 Please refer to Response to Comment No. 31-4 for a discussion regarding the analysis of cumulative impacts provided throughout the Draft EIR with respect to noise, air quality, traffic, toxic hazards, and shading. In addition, please refer to Response to Comment No. 65-2 for a discussion of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.
COMMENT NO. 65-4 Construction vehicles will need haul routes and staging areas.
RESPONSE NO. 65-4 Refer to Topical Response No. 8, Construction Impacts, for a discussion of the construction haul routes and staging as well as measures to be included in the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan which are intended to reduce construction impacts to the extent feasible.
COMMENT NO. 65-5 Demolition will disrupt air quality and create unacceptable levels of noise.
RESPONSE NO. 65-5 As demonstrated within the respective analyses in the Draft EIR, the project would include mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project with respect to air quality and noise (see Subsection 5, Mitigation Measures, in Section IV.B, Air Quality and Section IV.H, Noise). However, such impacts would be significant and unavoidable during certain construction activities.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-497 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 65-6 Lit signage on SM Blvd. will increase to over 4000 sq. ft.
RESPONSE NO. 65-6 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 11-22 and 13-10 regarding illuminated signage along Santa Monica Boulevard.
COMMENT NO. 65-7 Westfield proposes to build 465,404 sq. ft. of new commercial, restaurant and office space. Unmitigated traffic chaos will result, not only during construction, but after completion of the Project. Commuters will cut through our neighbood [sic] Parking problems will be exacerbated.
RESPONSE NO. 65-7 Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 65-2 through 65-4 for a discussion of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project, construction haul routes and staging, as well as measures to be included in the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan which are intended to reduce construction impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, as a point of clarification, the New Century Plan only proposes to build 104,440 square feet of net new commercial space, which includes new retail, restaurant and office uses.
COMMENT NO. 65-8 This is not thoughtful, well planned development, but development run amok Decidedly not what the Westside Community Plan envisioned to protect our quality of life.
RESPONSE NO. 65-8 Please refer to Response to Comment Nos. 8-8 and 13-7 for a discussion of how the project would not be considered out of character with the existing aesthetic environment. In addition, refer to Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the consistency of the project with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. Regarding quality of life, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states that social effects shall not be considered as significant impacts on the environment, except as they may cause physical changes to the environment related to the project. As such, quality of life issues are beyond the scope of this EIR. However, this comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-498 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 66
Catherine Ibay 3234 Woodbine Street Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 66-1 I think it is evident that the plans for expanded parking at Westfield Century City, as described in the draft EIR, will improve the parking situation in the surrounding area. The conservative approach taken in the traffic study allows for worst cases and mitigates accordingly.
Of course, eliminating two office buildings will, by itself, reduce the pressure by workers and shoppers to look for parking on adjacent residential streets. However, the addition of nearly 2,000 parking spots, almost doubling the amount of parking currently available, is expected to provide not simply adequate, but surplus, parking nearly year-round. And, during peak holiday season, Westfield plans to continue to provide off-site parking for employees, implement a new electronic parking system further improving the parking situation.
This is a big improvement for those working at the center, for those coming for shopping, dining or entertainment, and for those who live in surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, the addition of another valet parking location, and improved access and entries to on-site parking, mark significant enhancements to this facility.
These parking improvements will be most welcome.
RESPONSE NO. 66-1 This comment providing support for the proposed project is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-499 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
LETTER NO. 67
Marilyn Tusher 2557 Midvale Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064
COMMENT NO. 67-1 As a concerned long time resident of a neighboring community in Rancho Park, I have taken considerable time to review the above referenced document
Despite the efforts that Westfield has made in presenting their proposed project, there are several items of importance related to the potential environmental impacts that have not been adequately studied by the city.
Traffic: The traffic impacts are understated, especially the intersections that already are rated LOS F. And for we who live here and have to use our neighborhood streets and boulevards on a daily basis, they are way beyond Level F. To quote your report, "it has been assumed that the required level of trip reduction will not be attained and that significant and unavoidable traffic impacts may occur". As a resident and homeowner this is totally unacceptable.
RESPONSE NO. 67-1 Refer to Topical Response No. 1, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, for a detailed discussion of the significant impacts forecast as a result of the proposed project and the corresponding mitigation measures. In addition to on-site measures, the project Applicant is supporting the establishment of a Transportation Management Organization for all of Century City, which could develop and deliver transportation initiatives such as ridesharing programs and shuttle services, assist with physical improvements to waiting areas at transit stops, and encourage commuters throughout Century City to find alternatives to driving to work alone and/or during peak hours. Additional Century City-wide TDM measures may also include support for a shuttle circulator system within Century City which would provide better access to regional transit services and the project site, thus reducing the need for single-driver vehicle trips. As stated in Topical Response No. 5, it is not until the final phase of the project (i.e., Phase E) that the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of permits for this phase, the TDM Plan is expected to achieve the minimum goal of a six percent reduction in the site’s total commercial (i.e., non-residential) P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 178 vehicles. This level of trip reduction would reduce all remaining significant impacts to less than significant levels.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-500 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
COMMENT NO. 67-2 These intersections studied are already at capacity, and there is no mitigation provided in this report. Thus this project needs to have this portion revised, and specifically taking into consideration all of the projects in the area and their cumulative impact on the streets and intersections and neighborhoods in a wider area. Actual traffic counts should be used to validate any of your predictions.
RESPONSE NO. 67-2 The Draft EIR traffic analysis follows the analysis methodology pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) requirements. The traffic impact study, including the analysis methodology, was reviewed and approved by LADOT as evidenced in their November 20, 2007 departmental clearance letter to the Department of City Planning. A copy of this clearance letter is contained in Appendix J within Volume V of the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 10-9 for a detailed discussion of the cumulative analysis, which reflects the incorporation of 108 other development projects in the vicinity. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 18-17 for a detailed discussion of the cumulative traffic analysis contained in the Draft EIR and as part of the Final EIR. Refer to Topical Response No. 2, Traffic Analysis Study Area, for a discussion of the formulation of the traffic analysis study area.
Refer to Topical Response No. 3, Baseline Traffic Conditions, for a full discussion of the formulation of the baseline conditions, as well as the supplemental traffic analysis that was prepared based on new weekday peak hour traffic counts that were conducted at all 55 study intersections after completion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway (SMBTP) construction. The weekend mid-day peak hour traffic counts contained in the Draft EIR traffic analysis were conducted after completion of the SMBTP project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 6-6 for further discussion of the supplemental traffic analysis. The general comments with respect to overall traffic conditions in the area are noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the project.
COMMENT NO. 67-3
TDM: This project purports to include a TDM program. However Century City itself has yet to see one that was supposed to have been implemented by prior projects that the City of Los Angeles has already approved, such as the Constellation Place project. Without any idea ofthe effect of these TDM programs, supposedly in place, or success of such, no approval should be given to this particular project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-501 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 67-3 Refer to Response to Comment No. 67-1 for a summary of the TDM Plan proposed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 59-40, 59-41 and Response to Comment No. 18-17 for discussion of the Applicant’s funding commitments including the funding of the required West LA TIMP Fee. Refer to Response to Comment No. 28-173 for a discussion of the TDM reporting associated with the MGM Tower (formerly referred to as Constellation Place). Based on the results of the required annual TDM report associated with the MGM Tower office building, it has been determined that the building has more than achieved the trip reduction performance standard established in the TDM Plan (i.e., a P.M. peak hour trip reduction of 10 percent). In fact, the MGM Tower office building is generating approximately 50 percent of the P.M. peak hour traffic volumes established for the building in the TDM Plan (i.e., approximately 400 P.M. peak hour trips currently [year 2007] compared to the TDM Plan target of 805 P.M. peak hour trips).
COMMENT NO. 67-4
Infrastructure: At the present time the City has not produced its annual infrastructure report. Until this is completed by the City for a thorough study and review, how can you analyze this proposed development and its effect on the City's basic services, such as water, power, sewers and streets? Our City and its services are in dire need of upgrading in entirety, before any further projects can be approved. Why is this issue not included in your analysis? And why is this project seemingly moving forward with such important issues not addressed?
RESPONSE NO. 67-4 Refer to Response to Comment No. 11-4. As indicated therein, the City has reviewed and evaluated the existing City infrastructure in the area of the New Century Plan. In addition, potential impacts of the project on water, power, sewers and streets have been addressed in the EIR and the Initial Study, which was provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
COMMENT NO. 67-5
Cumulative Impacts Understated: With the increase in the number of new residents and employees, how can this project not have a significant cumulative effect on the resources of our local Fire Station 92, or the West LAPD? This analysis has not taken these numbers and percentages into consideration. Your report is in error as stating these to be not significant.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-502 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 67-5 Potential impacts on police and fire services have been addressed in the Draft EIR using thresholds established by the City of Los Angeles and data from the Police and Fire Departments. Refer to Sections IV.I.1, Fire Protection and IV.I.2, Police Protection of the Draft EIR for analyses that demonstrate that the project will not result in project level or cumulative significant impacts to fire and police protection.
COMMENT NO. 67-6 The increase and impact of new students to the area schools has not been seriously studied and reported. Exactly how and where will they be housed?
RESPONSE NO. 67-6 As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project will not result in significant impacts to schools. Also refer to Response to Comment No.11-9, above.
COMMENT NO. 67-7 The transit plaza does not exist, though the Traffic and Circulation section notes the West LA Plan policies, and finds this project completely consistent. How can this be when this project is proposing development in advance of a subway, a functioning transit plaza, bike lanes, or even the TDM program that was supposed to be in place years ago? Please explain.
RESPONSE NO. 67-7 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-3 for clarification regarding the transit area that currently exists at the southeast corner of the Century Park West and Constellation Boulevard intersection. Refer to Response to Comment No. 4-1 and Topical Response No. 5, Transportation Demand Management Plan, for discussion pertaining to a potential connection from the project site to a future subway portal. As a point of clarification, the results of the Draft EIR traffic analysis do not assume trip reductions due to a future subway or rail line connections. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 67-1 and 67-2 for further discussion of the TDM Plan proposed for the project. Refer also to Response to Comment No. 59-43 for additional discussion of bicycle lanes along Century Park West.
COMMENT NO. 67-8
Inconsistency with the West LA Plan and General Plan: Areas of new open space for the general public are not provided in private balconies, condo recreation facilities or shopping corridors, or plazas. These open spaces mean neighborhood parks and trails.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-503 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 67-8 As discussed in detail in Tables 23 and 24 of Section IV.G, Land Use of the Draft EIR, the project generally supports the land use policies of the General Plan Framework and West Los Angeles Community Plan that relate to open space. The shopping center would include open space areas to be used by patrons and residents, and would therefore reduce the demand for open space elsewhere. In addition, the residential component will provide open space for project residents that will also reduce the demand for open space elsewhere. The project includes improvements that would also promote pedestrian activity within the project area. In addition, a mitigation measure has been provided to ensure that the project will provide improvements and/or funding for the provision of public park facilities in accordance with the LAMC, which implements the requirements of the Quimby Act.
COMMENT NO. 67-9 Housing with luxury condos is not available to all segments of the population.
RESPONSE NO. 67-9 Table 24 on page 418 of the Draft EIR states that the project would be partially consistent with Objective 1-4 of the Community Plan. Specifically, while the project would not provide affordable residential units, the project would provide a range of housing types that would be available to a range of segments of the population. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 3-6 above.
COMMENT NO. 67-10 The recreational amenities provided to the residents of the condos are exclusive to them, and not beneficial to the community. In seeking to attract families and children to their new open space in the central plaza, they do not indicate what the families will be doing there, other than shopping or eating. Open spaces are parks without commercial entities attached.
RESPONSE NO. 67-10 Refer to Response to Comment No. 67-8 above. The recreational amenities provided for on-site residents will reduce the demand for such amenities that would otherwise be generated elsewhere if these amenities were not provided on-site. In addition, the on-site open space areas within the shopping center will be used for a variety of activities, including passive recreation wherein families can gather.
COMMENT NO. 67-11 And how will all of these families be arriving at this new destination? Certainly not on public transportation if there are more than one or two and need strollers and such.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-504 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Responses to Written Comments
RESPONSE NO. 67-11 Refer to Topical Response No. 4, Project Trip Generation, for a detailed discussion on the project trip generation forecast and the trip generation rates incorporated as part of the Draft EIR traffic analysis. The ITE trip generation rates employed in the traffic analysis reflect suburban centers, typically with little or no transit opportunities in the vicinity of the surveyed sites. Topical Response No. 4 also contains a comparison of the existing shopping center trip generation through the use of the ITE/WLA TIMP trip generation rates versus actual driveway traffic counts. It was concluded based on the comparison of the weekday and weekend peak hour traffic volumes that the Draft EIR project trip generation forecast produced a very conservative forecast of the project’s actual trip generation.
COMMENT NO. 67-12 I trust that there will be a forthcoming revised analysis of this project, taking into consideration all of the community's concepts. I would like to be notified in a more timely manner, of any future actions, hearings, or meetings that pertain to this New Century Plan. Given the size and depth of this DEIR, adequate time was not really given for its review.
RESPONSE NO. 67-12 The Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA as implemented by the City of Los Angeles. The Draft EIR is thorough and properly discloses the potential impacts of the project. Thus, revised analysis of the project is not warranted. This Final EIR includes responses to comments received regarding the Draft EIR as well as corrections and additions to the Draft EIR.
Concerning public review of the Draft EIR, a public review period of 47 days, beginning on March 13 and ending on April 28, was initially provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). In addition, this review period was extended through May 12 to provide more time for responsible and trustee agencies as well as the public to comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, the public review period of the Draft EIR lasted a total of 61 days, well beyond the 45 days required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a).
The commenter will be included on future mailing lists for the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles New Century Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2006061096 July 2008
Page III-505 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress