Appendices Appendix FEIR-1 Draft EIR Comment Letters STATE of CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR's OFFICE A/PLANNING and RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE and PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G

Appendices Appendix FEIR-1 Draft EIR Comment Letters STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE a/PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GoVERNOR November 28,2017

Milena Zasadzien City of Los Angeles AJ 200 N. Spring St, Rm 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Subject: The Fig Project SCH#: 2016071049

Dear Milena Zasadzien:

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 November 27, 2017, 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 21104( 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 infornlation 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. ~ . ~ ~"~;~ -Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse

Enclosures cc: Resources Agency

1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base

SCH# 2016071049 Project Title The Fig Project Lead Agency Los Angeles, City of

Type EIR Draft EIR Description The project would remove eight existing multi-family residential buildings and surface parking areas in order to develop a 624,167 sf mixed use project comprised of three components. The Hotel Component would include 298 rooms, 15,335 sf of retail and restaurant uses, 13,553 sf of shared guest and public amenities, and 7,203 sf of public meeting spaces. The student housing component would include 222 student housing units and 32,991 sf of community-serving retail and restaurant uses. The mixed income housing component would include 186 dwelling units, 20,364 sf of creative office space, and 7,000 sf of retail and restaurant uses. The project would also construct a seven story above ground parking structure to provide parking for all three components.

Lead Agency Contact Name Milena Zasadzien Agency City of Los Angeles Phone 213-978-1360 Fax email Address 200 N. Spring St, Rm 750 City Los Angeles State CA Zip 90012

Project Location County Los Angeles City Los Angeles, City of Region Latl Long 34° 0' 48.80" N 1118° 16' 55.31 " W Cross Streets S. Figuerroa Street and W. 39th Street, S. Flower Dr Parcel No. 5037-032-003/008,022/033,041/048 Township Range Section Base

Proximity to: Highways 1-110 Airports Rai/ways Metro Expo & Blue Line Waterways Schools Various Land Use Multi-family residential & surface parking / C2-1 L (Commercial, Height District 1L) / Community Commercial

Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Other Issues

Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Office of Emergency Services, California; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Resources, Recycling and Recovery; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission

Date Received 10/12/2017 Start of Review 10/12/2017 End of Review 11/27/2017

Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STAtE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Environmental and Cultural Department 1550 Harbor BII/d., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 313-3710 Fax (916) 313.s411

October 18, 2017 30vem0rsOfflceofPIlMino&_rc~ Melina Zasadzien City of Los Angeles 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 OCT 242017 Los Angeles, CA 90012 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Sent via e-mail: [email protected]

Re: SCH# 2016071049, The Fig Project, City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County, California

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Executive Summary with Table 1-2, Analysis of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, section C - Cultural Resources, and section K - Tribal Cultural Resources; the Project Description; Initial Study Environmental Checklist; Appendix C, Cultural Resources Report, prepared by Eyestone Environmental for the City of Los Angeles. We have the following concems:

1. The Initial Study indicates the determination for Archeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources is "Potentially Significant Impacts" and indicates there would be further analysiS in the EIR Tribal input on the project indicated the area to be sensitive for Cultural Resources (without specifics). The EIR did not provide any significant analysis of Archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources and indicated a determination of "Less Than Significant" which may be in error.

2. Lack of information from tribes does not mean there are no potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AS-52, with or without consultation occurring. Mitigation language for archaeological resources is not always appropriate for or similar to measures specifically for handling Tribal Cultural Resources. For sample mitigation measures, please refer to California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental CheCklist Form," http://resources.ca.gov/cega/docs/ab52/Clean-final-AS-52-App-G-text-Submitted.pdf

3. Mitigation for inadvertent finds of Archaeology Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources is missing or incomplete. Standard mitigation measures should be included in the document

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE).

CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AS 52).4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or miti~ated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AS 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resol,lrces" , that now includes "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the Significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment6 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.7 Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (5B 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the deSignation or proposed designation of open space. Both 5B 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19668 may also apply.

, Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1 ; Cal. Code Regs., til14, § 15064.5 (b) ; CEaA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) 3 Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., til 14, § 15064 subd.(a}(1}; CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a}(1) 4 Govemment Code 65352.3 5 Pub. Resources Code § 21074 S Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2 7 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.3 (a) 6 154 U.S.C. 300101 , 36 C.F.R § 800 et seq. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AS 52 and S8 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

Agencies should be aware that A8 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in A8 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. Additional information regarding A8 52 can be found online at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-contentJuoloads/2015/1 O/AB52TribaiConsuitation CalEPAPDF .odf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under A8 52: Requirements and 8est Practices".

The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.

A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached.

Please contact me at [email protected] or call (916) 373-3710 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gayle Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D Associate Governmental Project Analyst

Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse

2 Pertinent Statutory Infonnation:

UnderAB 52: AS 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a requesUor consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. For purposes of AS 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (S8 18).10 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Altematives to the project. b. Recommended mitipation measures. c. Significant effects. 1 1. The following topiCS are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, woject alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. 2 With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the conSUltation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the 13 information to the public. If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.14 Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or 15 b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the im~act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. 6 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b).17 . An environmental'impact report may not be certified, nor maya mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested conSUltation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice ofthe project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.18

9 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (dl and (el 10 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b) 11 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) 12 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) 13 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c)(1) 14 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b) 15 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b) 18 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a) 11 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (el 18 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d) 3 This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document.

UnderSB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.

• SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https:/Iwww.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the trlbe.19 • There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,2o the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments:

• Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. • The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. • 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. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures 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 public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.

19 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)). 20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2. 21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). 22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines. Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 4 o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. Protecting the traditional use of the resource. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial Blace may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. 3 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated.24 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program ~Ian provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources.2 In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e» address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

23 (elv. Code § 815.3 (e». 24 (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). 25 per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14. section 15064.5(1) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(1) . 5 STATE Qf CALlFORNIA-(;ALlFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 Seriolls Drought. PHONE (213) 897-8391 Making Conservation FAX (213) 897-1337 a California Way ofLife. TIY 711 I3CWKj"'OfbofftaliDg&~ www.dot.ca.gov

November 20,2017 NOY 20 2017 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Ms. Milena Zasadzien City Planner Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: The Fig SCH # 2016071049 Ref. GTS # LA-2016-00037AL-NOP GTS # LA-2016-01 179AL-DEIR Vic. LA-IIO/PM 19.483

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed Project would demolish eight existing multi-family residential buildings and surface parking areas in order to construct a mixed-use development on an approximately 4.4-acre site located adjacent to Exposition Park and near the University of Southern California'S (USC) University Park Campus in the City of Los Angeles. The hotel would include 298 rooms, 15,335 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, 13,553 square feet of shared guest and public amenities, and 7,203 square feet of public meeting spaces. The student housing would include 222 student housing units and 32,991 square feet of community -servicing retail and restaurant uses. The mixed-income housing would include 186 dwelling units, 20,364 square feet of creative office space, and 7,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The project would result in up to 624,167 square feet of new floor area.

Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. However, the City may use the Level of Service (LOS) methodology until The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (aPR) complete its CEQA Guideline to implement SB743 (https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php).

Caltrans is aware of challenges that the region faces in identifying viable solutions to alleviating congestion on State and Local facilities. With limited room to expand vehicular capacity, this development should incorporate multi-modal and complete streets transportation elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. Prioritizing and allocating space to efficient modes of travel such as bicycling and public transit can allow streets to transport more people in a fixed amount of right-of-way.

"Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Milena Zasadzien November 20,2017 Page 2 of3

Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets and other traffic calming measures. Please note the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the road diet treatment as a proven safety countermeasure, and the cost of a road diet can be significantly reduced if implemented in tandem with routine street resurfacing. After reviewing the environmental document based on LOS, we have the following comments:

1. The project claimed to generate 7,631 daily trips and 6341702 AM/PM peak hour trips. There are 27 related projects in the project vicinity generating 45,155 daily trips and 4,264/5,254 AM/PM peak hour trips. Many of the project and related trips would be traveling on the State facilities once the projects are built. Therefore, significant cumulative trafflc impacts on the State facilities would occur. As a reminder, the decision makers should be aware ofthis issue and be prepared to mitigate significant cumulative traffic impacts.

2. Cal trans , traffic concerns is that the potential traffic contlict may occur at the following locations.

a. Study location # 22 1-110 SB Ramps & Martin Luther King 1. Blvd. i b. Study location # 23 1-110 NB Ramps/Hill St. & Martin Luther King Jr. BlvdY c. Study location # 5 (Appendix B) SR-I10 off-ramp at Exposition Blvd.iii

With additional traffic trips assigning to the above locations Caltrans have traffic conflict and speed differential concerns. The analysis should show traffic condition after mitigations are implemented.

3. For the freeway mainlines, wHh additional traffic trips from the project and related projects, many of the freeway segments may be overflowing in the future. A spillover of vehicles has the potential to create significant speed differentials and increase the number of conflicts. This may cause potential traffic conflict at the access points such as weaving, diverging, and merging areas within the project vicinity. As a reminder. CEQA does not exempt these type of operational concerns from evaluation. We would like the City to work with Caltrans in identifying feasible mitigations or provide more effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) for the potential significant cumulative traffic impact.

4. Normally, potential improvements/mitigations may include restriping, striping with additional lane, upgrade traffic signal controller, signal timing adjustment, install CCTV cameras to monitor traffic operations, install traffic signal control system detection loops at intersection, right-of-way acquisition, reconstruct/add deceleration/acceleration lane (auxiliary lanes). interchange improvements, off-ramp expansion, freeway widening, install an overhead sign structure, cold plane and apply friction surface treatment, remove and replace pavement i Referenced to Traffic Study, November 4,2016, Page 67, Table 4.2 Future With Project Condition-AM Peak Hour (existing is congested, not LOS B. Please validate LOS at this location) ii Referenced to Truffic Study, November 4, 2016, Page 69, Table 4.3 Future With Project Condition-PM Peak Hour iii Referenced to Traffic Study, November 4,2016, Appendix B, LADOT-Caltmns MOU Threshold Check, Table B-3 shows LOS F. Mitigation may be needed at this location.

"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and effie/enttransportation system 10 enhance Califol'l1ia 's economy and livability" "

Ms. Milena Zasadzien November 20,2017 Page 3 of3

delineation, install pavement markers, upgrade ADA curb ramps, maintain traffic control system, remove and replace the raised island, install LED lighting system, overhead signs, fair share contribution to Caltrans planned projects and etc. to resolve any potential traffic conflict issues. Any feasible mitigation selection should also include Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) when necessary. Any of these fore mentioned mitigation measure options should be considered for this project.

5. Once potential mitigations/improvements are identified, we encourage the City to condition the developer to implement the mitigation/improvement or to make a fair share contribution toward fuhlre improvements on the State facility; we would like the developer to sign a Traffic Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans prior to circulation of the FEIR.

6. Stonn water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water. Additionally, discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without any storm water management plan.

7. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, will require a transportation permit from Caltrans. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.

Caltrans will continue to work with the Lead Agency and/or traffic consultant closely in an effort to evaluate traffic impacts, identify potential improvements, and complete a Traffic Mitigation Agreement before the FEIR release. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2017-01179AL-DEIR.

cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse

"Provide a safe. sltstainable, integrated and efficient transportalion system 10 enhance Cali/ornia's economy and livability" From: Lin, Alan S@DOT Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 Subject: SCH # 2016071049 The Fig To: OPR State Clearinghouse Cc: Milena Zasadzien

Hard copy to follow!

Alan Lin, P.E. Project Coordinator State of California Department of Transportation District 7, Office of Transportation Planning Mail Station 16 100 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 897-8391 Office (213) 897-1337 Fax

1 STATE Of CALlfORNIA-CAi lfORN IA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G IlROWN J[ Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 SeriOlls Drought. PHONE (213) 897-8391 Making COllsenation FAX (213) 897-1337 a California Way of Life. TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov

November 20, 2017

Ms. Milena Zasadzien City Planner Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: The Fig SCH # 2016071049 Ref. GTS # LA-2016-00037AL-NOP GTS # LA-2016-01179AL-DEIR Vic. LA-II OIPM 19.483

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed Project would demolish eight existing multi-family residential buildings and surface parking areas in order to construct a mixed-use development on an approximately 4.4-acre site located adjacent to Exposition Park and near the University of Southern California's (USC) University Park Campus in the City of Los Angeles. The hotel would include 298 rooms, 15,335 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, 13,553 square feet of shared guest and public amenities, and 7,203 square feet of public meeting spaces. The student housing would include 222 student housing units and 32,991 square feet of community - servicing retail and restaurant uses. The mixed-income housing would include 186 dwelling units, 20,364 square feet of creative office space, and 7,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The project would result in up to 624,167 square feet of new floor area.

Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. However, the City may use the Level of Service (LOS) methodology until The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) complete its CEQA Guideline to implement SB743 (https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php).

"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and ejJicienttransportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Milena Zasadzien November 20,2017 Page 2 of3

Cal trans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets and other traffic calming measures. Please note the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) recognizes the road diet treatment as a proven safety countermeasure, and the cost of a road diet can be significantly reduced if implemented in tandem with routine street resurfacing.

After reviewing the environmental document based on LOS, we have the following comments:

I. The project claimed to generate 7,631 daily trips and 6341702 AMIPM peak hour trips. There are 27 related projects in the project vicinity generating 45,155 daily trips and 4,264/5,254 AMIPM peak hour trips. Many of the project and related trips would be traveling on the State facilities once the projects are built. Therefore, significant cumulative traffic impacts on the State facilities would occur. As a reminder, the decision makers should be aware of this issue and be prepared to mitigate significant cumulative traffic impacts.

2. Caltrans' traffic concerns is that the potential traffic conflict may occur at the following locations.

a. Study location # 22 1-110 SB Ramps & Martin Luther King J. Blvd.i b. Study location # 23 I-110 NB RampslHill St. & Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.ii c. Study location # 5 (Appendix B) SR-IIO off-ramp at Exposition Blvd.iii

With additional traffic trips assigning to the above locations Cal trans have tramc conflict and speed differential concerns. The analysis should show traffic condition after mitigations are implemented.

3. For the freeway mainlines, with additional traffic trips from the project and related projects, many of the freeway segments may be overflowing in the future. A spillover of vehicles has the potential to create significant speed differentials and increase the number of conflicts. This may cause potential traffic conflict at the access points such as weaving, diverging, and merging areas within the project vicinity. As a reminder, CEQA does not exempt these type of operational concerns from evaluation. We would like the City to work with Caltrans in identifying feasible mitigations or provide more effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) for the potential significant cumulative traffic impact.

4. Normally, potential improvements/mitigations may include restriping, striping with additional lane, upgrade traffic signal controller, signal timing adjustment, install CCTV cameras to monitor traffic operations, install traffic signal control system detection loops at intersection, right-of-way acquisition, reconstruct/add deceleration/acceleration lane (auxiliary lanes), interchange improvements, off-ramp expansion, freeway widening, install an overhead sign structure, cold plane and apply friction surface treatment, remove and replace pavement i Referenced to Traffic Study, November 4,2016, Page 67, Table 4.2 Future With Project Condition·AM Peak Hour (existing is congested, not LOS B. Please validate LOS at this location) Ii Referenced to Traffic Study, November 4, 20 16, Page 69, Table 4.3 Future With Project Condition·PM Peak Hour iii Referenced to Traffic Study, November 4, 20 16, Appendix B, LADOT·Caltrans MOU Threshold Check. Table B-3 shows LOS F. Mitigation may be needed at this location.

"Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Milena Zasadzien November 20, 2017 Page 3 of3

delineation, install pavement markers, upgrade ADA curb ramps, maintain traffic control system, remove and replace the raised island, install LED lighting system, overhead signs, fair share contribution to Cal trans planned projects and etc. to resolve any potential traffic conflict issues. Any feasible mitigation selection should also include Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) when necessary. Any of these fore mentioned mitigation measure options should be considered for this project.

5. Once potential mitigations/improvements are identified, we encourage the City to condition the developer to implement the mitigation/improvement or to make a fair share contribution toward future improvements on the State facility; we would like the developer to sign a Traffic Mitigation Agreement with Cal trans prior to circulation of the FEIR.

6. Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water. Additionally, discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without any storm water management plan.

Cal trans will continue to work with the Lead Agency and/or traffic consultant closely in an effort to evaluate traffic impacts, identify potential improvements, and complete a Traffic Mitigation Agreement before the FEIR release. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2017-01179AL-DEIR.

cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse

"Provide a safe, slistainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Ca lifornia's economy and livability" s NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Environmental and Cultural Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento. CA 95691 Phone (916) 373·3710 Fax (916) 373·5471

October 18, 2017

Melina Zasadzien City of Los Angeles 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sent via e-mail: [email protected]

Re: SCH# 2016071049, The Fig Project, City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County, Califomia

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

1. The Initial Study indicates the determination for Archeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources is "Potentially Significant Impacts" and indicates there would be further analysis in the EIR. Tribal input on the project indicated the area to be sensitive for Cultural Resources (without specifics). The EIR did not provide any significant analysis of Archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources and indicated a determination of "Less Than Significant" which may be in error.

2. Lack of information from tribes does not mean there are no potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB-52, with or without consultation occurring. Mitigation language for archaeological resources is not always appropriate for or similar to measures specifically for handling Tribal Cultural Resources. For sample mitigation measures, please refer to California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form," http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab52/Clean-final-AB-52-App-G-text-Submitted.pdf

3. Mitigation for inadvertent finds of Archaeology Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources is missing or incomplete. Standard mitigation measures should be included in the document.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' , speCifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared' In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE).

CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52)4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or miti~ated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resources" , that now includes "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environmentS Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.' Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (5B 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the deSignation or proposed designation of open space. Both 5B 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19668 may also apply.

1 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 2 PUb. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) 3 Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CECA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1) 4 Government Code 65352.3 5 Pub. Resources Gode § 21074 6 Pub. Resources Gode § 21084.2 1 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.3 (al 8 154 U.S.C. 300101,36 C.F.R . § 800 et seq. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and 5B 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resourceslforms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-contenVuploads/2015/10/AB52TribaIConsultation CaIEPAPDF.pdf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices".

A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached.

Please contact me at [email protected] or call (916) 373-3710 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gayle Totton, B.S., MA, Ph.D Associate Governmental Project Analyst

Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse

2 Pertinent Statutory Information:

Under AS 52: AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated conlact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the conSUltation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consuHation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project? and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning· as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).'0 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mit~ation measures. c. Significant effects.' 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, wject alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the 13 information to the public. . If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the Identified tribal cultural resource.'4 CDn'sultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting In good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.15 Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the imp,act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. 6 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or If there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a Significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b).17 . An environmental 'impact report may not be certified, nor maya mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested conSUltation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or othelWise failed to engage in the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 2108Q.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.'·

(I PUb. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e) 10 Pub. Resources Code § 21080,3.1 (b) 11 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a.) 12 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) 13 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c){1) 14 PUb. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b) 15 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b) 16 Pub. Resources Code § 2108.2.3 (a) 17 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (e) .16 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d) 3 This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document.

Under SB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.

• S8 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe." • There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research," the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conciusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments:

• Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, Of, failing both, mitigation measures. • The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE .. o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. • 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. o The final report containing site forms, site Significance, and mitigation measures 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 public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: • Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. • Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.

19 {Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a){2». 20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, 21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b». 22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 4 o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity. taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource. Including. but not limited to. the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property. with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. '0 Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric. archaeological. cultural. spiritual. or ceremonial Blace may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. 3 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated:4 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program ~Ian provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources" In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity. a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. . o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should Include In their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5. Public Resources Code section 5097.98. and Cal. Code Regs .• tit. 14. section 15064.5. subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. subds. (d) and (e» address the processes to be followed in the event of an Inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

" (Clv. Code § 815.3 (e». 24 (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). 25 per Cal. Code Regs .• tit. 14, section 15064.5(1) (CEOA Guidelines section 15064.5(f}). 5 From: Ryan Banuelos Date: Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:04 AM Subject: SCAQMD Staff Comments for the Proposed The Fig Project To: "[email protected]" Cc: Michael Krause , Lijin Sun

Dear Ms. Milena,

Attached are the SCAQMD staff comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed The Fig ENV-2016-1892-EIR (SCAQMD Control Number: LAC171012-03). The original, electronically signed letter will be forwarded to your attention by regular USPS mail. SCAQMD staff comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be reviewed for incorporation into the Final EIR. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments.

Sincerely,

-Ryan Bañuelos

Ryan Bañuelos Air Quality Specialist, CEQA South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909.396.3479 [email protected]

SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: November 17, 2017 [email protected] Milena Zasadzien, City Planner City of Los Angeles – Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring St., Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed The Fig Project (ENV-2016-1892-EIR)

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR.

SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to demolish eight existing multi-family residential buildings and construct a mixed-use development with seven levels that will include a hotel, student housing, residential uses, commercial uses, and retail on 4.4 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of aerial photographs and Figure II-2 in the Draft EIR, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately west of State Route 110. Construction is expected to last 18 months and be completed in 2020.

SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analysis In the Air Quality Section, the Lead Agency conducted a HRA analysis and found that the Maximum Exposed Individual Resident cancer risk would be 8.9 in one million which is below SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk1. The Lead Agency also acknowledged the City of Los Angeles’ recently adopted Ordinance No. 184,245, which, among other things, requires the use of MERV 13 for regularly occupied areas of buildings located within 1,000 feet of a freeway.2 However, the Lead Agency proposed MERV 13 or better for people living and working on the second and third levels only, MERV 9 or better for the fourth level, MERV 8 or better for the fifth level, MERV 7 or better for the sixth level, and MERV 6 or better for the seventh level3.

SCAQMD staff has concerns about the HRA analysis in the Draft EIR. The HRA analysis used a methodology which may have likely led to an under-estimation of the Proposed Project’s health risk impacts. Details are included in the attachment. Additionally, the attachment includes SCAQMD staff’s recommendation that the Lead Agency should use MERV 13 or better for all seven levels throughout the Proposed Project.

Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Ryan Bañuelos, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at [email protected].

1 Draft EIR. Section IV. B, Air Quality. Page IV.B-38. 2 Ibid. 3 Appendix B.2, Health Risk Assessment. Page 15. Milena Zasadzien 2 November 17, 2017

Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources

Attachment LS:RB LAC171012-03 Control Number

Milena Zasadzien 3 November 17, 2017

ATTACHMENT

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analysis

1. In the HRA, the Lead Agency averaged the DPM emissions for the 30-year of exposure and used that emission rate to estimate health risks. The most recent 2015 revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance acknowledges that children are more susceptible to the exposure to air toxics and have revised the way cancer risks are estimated to take this into account. Since the emissions from trucks get cleaner with time due to existing regulations and technologies, it would not be appropriate to average out the emissions over the 30-year exposure duration since this would underestimate the health risks to children who would be exposed to higher DPM concentrations during the early years of project operation. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the DPM emissions for each year of operation be applied to each of the corresponding age bins (i.e. emissions from Year 1 of project operation should be used to estimate cancer risks to the third trimester to 0 year age bin; Year 1 and 2 of project operation should be used to estimate the cancer risks to the 0 to 2 years age bins; and so on).

Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and the SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, the SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005. This Guidance Document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions4. Additional guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways or other polluting sources) can be found in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.5 Guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high-volume roadways is also available on CARB’s website.6

Recommended Project Design Feature - MERV 13 or Better 3. Notwithstanding the court rulings, the SCAQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of SCAQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive uses within close proximity of freeways, SCAQMD staff recommends that, prior to approving the project, Lead Agencies consider the impacts of air pollutants on people who will live in a new project and provide mitigation where necessary. Since the Proposed Project is located within 1,000 feet of State Route 110, and to be consistent with the recently adopted City Ordinance No. 184,245, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the provision of air filtration media that achieves MERV 13 or better for all of the regularly occupied areas throughout the seven levels of the Proposed Project.

4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning- guidance/guidance-document. 5 California Air Resources Board. 2005. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf, 6 In April 2017, CARB published a technical advisory, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways: Technical Advisory, to supplement CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. This technical advisory is intended to provide information on strategies to reduce exposures to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways to assist land use planning and decision-making in order to protect public health and promote equity and environmental justice. The technical advisory is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Milena Zasadzien 4 November 17, 2017

Limits to Enhanced Filtration Units 4. Notwithstanding the recommendation on MERV 13 or better, the Lead Agency should consider and evaluate the limitations of the enhanced air filtration units before implementation. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters,7 costs were expected to range from $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the resident. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and it does not account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. These filters also have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. The presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should therefore be evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate near roadway exposures.

Enforceability of Enhanced Filtration Units 5. To ensure that the enhanced filtration units are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project and that they are effective in reducing exposures to DMP emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details on implementation and monitoring in the Final EIR. At a minimum, the Final EIR should discuss the responsible implementing and enforcement agency (or entity); recommended schedules for replacing the enhanced filtration units; ongoing monitoring schedules; criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.

7 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13+ while the proposed mitigation calls for less effective MERV 12 or better filters. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see also 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. From: Williams, Marquis Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:22 AM Subject: The Fig - Metro Comment Letter To: Milena Zasadzien

Good morning Milena,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig project in Los Angeles. Please find Metro’s attached comment letter and related documents. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Derek Hull ([email protected]) or me.

Best,

Marquis Williams

LA Metro Transportation Associate Countywide Planning & Development, Joint Development 213.922.3729 metro.net | facebook.com/losangelesmetro | @metrolosangeles Metro provides excellence in service and support.

1 ~ Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.922.2000 Tel Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 metro.net ~ MetroMetropolitan Transportation Authority

November 27, 2017 Milena Zasadzien Department of City Planning City of Los Angeles 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: Comment Letter for The Fig - 3900·3972 S. Figueroa Street, 3901·3969 S. Flower Drive, 450 w. 39th Street, Los Angeles - Notice ofAvailability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Ms. King: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig located at 3900-3972 S. Figueroa Street, 3901-3969 S. Flower Drive, and 450 W. 39th Street in the City of Los Angles. This letter conveys recommendations from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) concerning issues that are germane to our agency's statutory responsibility in relation to our facilities and services that may be affected by the proposed project. Metro is committed to working with stakeholders across the County to support the development of transit oriented communities (TOCs). TOCs are built by considering transit within a broader community and creating vibrant, compact, walkable, and bikeable places centered around transit stations and hubs with the goal of encouraging the use of transit and other alternatives to driving. Metro looks forward to collaborating with local municipalities, developers, and other stakeholders in their land use planning and development efforts, and to find partnerships that support TOCs across Los Angeles County. Project Description The project proposes to demolish eight existing multi-family residential buildings and surface parking areas in order to develop a mixed-use project on an approximately 4.4-acre site. The project is comprised of three components: a Hotel component that includes a 21-level high rise with 298-rooms; a Student Housing component that is a seven-story building with 222-units; and a Mixed-Income Housing component that is a seven-story building with 186 dwelling units, 20,364 square feet of creative office space, and approximately 7,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The project would also construct a nine-story above ground parking structure for all three components. Metro Comments Bus Stop Adjacency

Metro Bus Lines 81 and 200 operate on Figueroa Street and Lines 442 and 550 operate on 39th Street, adjacent to the proposed Project. One Metro bus stop on the corner of Figueroa Street and 39th Street, The Fig Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR- Metro Comments 11/27/17 is directly adjacent to the proposed Project. The following comments relate to bus operations and the bus stop: 1. Although the Project is not expected to result in any long-term impacts on transit, the developer should be aware of the bus facilities and services that are present. The existing Metro bus stop must be maintained as part of the final Project. 2. During construction, the stop must be maintained or relocated consistent with the needs of Metro Bus Operations. Please contact Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator at 213-922-4632 and Metro's Stops and Zones Department at 213-922-5190 at least 30 days in advance of initiating construction activities. Other municipal buses may also be impacted and should be included in construction outreach efforts. 3. Metro encourages the installation of bus shelters with benches, way finding signage, enhanced crosswalks and ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as pedestrian lighting and continuous canopies of shade trees in paths of travel to access transit stops and other amenities that improve safety and comfort for transit riders. The City should consider requesting the installation of such amenities as part of the development of the site. 4. Driveways accessing parking and loading at the Project site should be located away from transit stops, and be designed and configured to avoid potential conflicts with on-street transit services and pedestrian traffic to the greatest degree possible. Vehicular driveways should not be located in or directly adjacent to areas that are likely to be used as waiting areas for transit. 5. Final design of the bus stop and surrounding sidewalk area must be ADA-compliant and allow passengers with disabilities a clear path of travel to the bus stop from the proposed development. Transit Orientation Considering the proximity to the Metro Expo and Silver Lines, Metro would like to identify the potential synergies associated with transit-oriented development: 1. Metro supports development of commercial and residential properties near transit stations and understands that increasing development near transit represents a mutually beneficial opportunity to increase ridership and enhance transportation options for the users of the developments. Metro encourages the City and Project sponsor to be mindful of the Project's proximity to transit, including orienting pedestrian pathways toward the stops. 2. Metro would like to inform the Project sponsor of Metro's employer transit pass programs including the Annual Transit Access Pass (A-TAP) and Business Transit Access Pass (B-TAP) programs which offer efficiencies and group rates that businesses can offer employees as an incentive to utilize public transit. For more information on these programs, contact Devon Deming at 213-922-7957 or [email protected]. 3. The proximity of the project to various transit services suggests that tenants will have an array of options to meet their transportation needs. Metro encourages the Project Sponsor to evaluate the parking requirements against the location of public transit assets. Metro encourages the incorporation of transit-oriented, pedestrian-oriented parking provision strategies such as the reduction or removal of minimum parking requirements for specific areas and the exploration of shared parking opportunities or parking benefit districts. These

Page 2 of4 The Fig Notice of Availability of a Draft EI R- Metro Comments 11/27/1 7

strategies could be pursued to encourage more transit-oriented development and reduce automobile-orientation in design and travel demand.

4. With an anticipated increase in traffic, Metro encourages an analysis of impacts on non motorized transportation modes and consideration of improved non-motorized access to the station including pedestrian connections and bike lanes/paths. Appropriate analyses could include multi-modal LOS calculations, pedestrian audits, etc.

S. The Project should address first-last mile connections to transit, encouraging development that is transit accessible with bicycle and pedestrian-oriented street design connecting stations with housing and employment concentrations. For reference, we would like to direct City staff to view the First Last Mile Strategic Plan, authored by Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), available on line at: http://media.metro.net/docs/sustainability path design guidelines.pdf 6. Metro encourages the installation of wide sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, a continuous canopy of shade trees of various species to ensure adequate shading along public sidewalks, enhanced crosswalks with ADA-compliant curb ramps, and other amenities along the primary building frontage to improve pedestrian safety and comfort to access the nearby bus stops. The City should consider requesting the installation of such amenities as part of the development of the site.

Adive Transportation

Coordinate with the City to provide safe, convenient, and direct connections for people walking and biking between the project and adjacent destinations, such as the LA Memorial Coliseum, Banc of California Stadium, and University of Southern California campus, especially at the intersection ofW. 39th Street/Exposition Park Drive and S. Figueroa Street.

Congestion Management Program

Beyond impacts to Metro facilities and operations, Metro must also notify the applicant of state requirements. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), with roadway and transit components, is required under the State of California Congestion Management Program (CMP) statute. The CMP TIA Guidelines are published in the "2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County," Appendix D (attached). The geographic area examined in the TIA must include the following, at a minimum:

1. All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on/off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour (of adjacent street traffic).

2. If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Within the study area, the TIA must analyze at least one segment between monitored CM P intersections.

3. Mainline freeway-monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour.

Page 3 of4 The Fig , Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR- Metro Comments 11/27/17

4. , Caltrans must also be consulted through the NOP process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system.

The CMP TIA requirement also contains two separate impact studies covering roadways and transit, as outlined in Sections 0.8.1 - D.9.4. If the TIA identifies no facilities for study based on the criteria above, no further traffic analysis is required. However, projects must still consider transit impacts. For all CM P TIA requirements please see the attached guidelines.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Derek Hull at 213-922-3051 or by email [email protected]. Metro looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR. Please send it to the following address:

Metro Development Review One Gateway Plaza MS 99-18-3 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Sincerely,

ere Hull Manager, Transportation Planning

Attachments: CMP Appendix D: Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis

Page 4 of4

GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX IMPACT ANALYSIS

Important Notice to User: This section provides detailed travel statistics for the Los Angeles area which will be updated on an ongoing basis. Updates will be distributed to all local jurisdictions when available. In order to ensure that impact analyses reflect the best available information, lead agencies may also contact MTA at the time of study initiation. Please contact MTA staff to request the most recent release of “Baseline Travel Data for CMP TIAs.”

D.1 OBJECTIVE OF GUIDELINES

The following guidelines are intended to assist local agencies in evaluating impacts of land use decisions on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) system, through preparation of a regional transportation impact analysis (TIA). The following are the basic objectives of these guidelines:

Promote consistency in the studies conducted by different jurisdictions, while maintaining flexibility for the variety of project types which could be affected by these guidelines.

Establish procedures which can be implemented within existing project review processes and without ongoing review by MTA.

Provide guidelines which can be implemented immediately, with the full intention of subsequent review and possible revision.

These guidelines are based on specific requirements of the Congestion Management Program, and travel data sources available specifically for Los Angeles County. References are listed in Section D.10 which provide additional information on possible methodologies and available resources for conducting TIAs.

D.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Exhibit D-7 provides the model resolution that local jurisdictions adopted containing CMP TIA procedures in 1993. TIA requirements should be fulfilled within the existing environmental review process, extending local traffic impact studies to include impacts to the regional system. In order to monitor activities affected by these requirements, Notices of Preparation (NOPs) must be submitted to MTA as a responsible agency. Formal MTA approval of individual TIAs is not required.

The following sections describe CMP TIA requirements in detail. In general, the competing objectives of consistency & flexibility have been addressed by specifying standard, or minimum, requirements and requiring documentation when a TIA varies from these standards.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-2 D.3 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS

In general a CMP TIA is required for all projects required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) based on local determination. A TIA is not required if the lead agency for the EIR finds that traffic is not a significant issue, and does not require local or regional traffic impact analysis in the EIR. Please refer to Chapter 5 for more detailed information.

CMP TIA guidelines, particularly intersection analyses, are largely geared toward analysis of projects where land use types and design details are known. Where likely land uses are not defined (such as where project descriptions are limited to zoning designation and parcel size with no information on access location), the level of detail in the TIA may be adjusted accordingly. This may apply, for example, to some redevelopment areas and citywide general plans, or community level specific plans. In such cases, where project definition is insufficient for meaningful intersection level of service analysis, CMP arterial segment analysis may substitute for intersection analysis.

D.4 STUDY AREA

The geographic area examined in the TIA must include the following, at a minimum:

All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic).

If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections (see Section D.3), the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Within the study area, the TIA must analyze at least one segment between monitored CMP intersections.

Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.

Caltrans must also be consulted through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system.

If the TIA identifies no facilities for study based on these criteria, no further traffic analysis is required. However, projects must still consider transit impacts (Section D.8.4).

D.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

The following sections describe the procedures for documenting and estimating background, or non-project related traffic conditions. Note that for the purpose of a TIA, these background estimates must include traffic from all sources without regard to the exemptions specified in CMP statute (e.g., traffic generated by the provision of low and very low income housing, or trips originating outside Los Angeles County. Refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3 for a complete list of exempted projects).

D.5.1 Existing Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic volumes and levels of service (LOS) on the CMP highway system within the study area must be documented. Traffic counts must

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-3 be less than one year old at the time the study is initiated, and collected in accordance with CMP highway monitoring requirements (see Appendix A). Section D.8.1 describes TIA LOS calculation requirements in greater detail. Freeway traffic volume and LOS data provided by Caltrans is also provided in Appendix A.

D.5.2 Selection of Horizon Year and Background Traffic Growth. Horizon year(s) selection is left to the lead agency, based on individual characteristics of the project being analyzed. In general, the horizon year should reflect a realistic estimate of the project completion date. For large developments phased over several years, review of intermediate milestones prior to buildout should also be considered.

At a minimum, horizon year background traffic growth estimates must use the generalized growth factors shown in Exhibit D-1. These growth factors are based on regional modeling efforts, and estimate the general effect of cumulative development and other socioeconomic changes on traffic throughout the region. Beyond this minimum, selection among the various methodologies available to estimate horizon year background traffic in greater detail is left to the lead agency. Suggested approaches include consultation with the jurisdiction in which the intersection under study is located, in order to obtain more detailed traffic estimates based on ongoing development in the vicinity.

D.6 PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION

Traffic generation estimates must conform to the procedures of the current edition of Trip Generation, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). If an alternative methodology is used, the basis for this methodology must be fully documented.

Increases in site traffic generation may be reduced for existing land uses to be removed, if the existing use was operating during the year the traffic counts were collected. Current traffic generation should be substantiated by actual driveway counts; however, if infeasible, traffic may be estimated based on a methodology consistent with that used for the proposed use.

Regional transportation impact analysis also requires consideration of trip lengths. Total site traffic generation must therefore be divided into work and non-work-related trip purposes in order to reflect observed trip length differences. Exhibit D-2 provides factors which indicate trip purpose breakdowns for various land use types.

For lead agencies who also participate in CMP highway monitoring, it is recommended that any traffic counts on CMP facilities needed to prepare the TIA should be done in the manner outlined in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. If the TIA traffic counts are taken within one year of the deadline for submittal of CMP highway monitoring data, the local jurisdiction would save the cost of having to conduct the traffic counts twice.

D.7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION

For trip distribution by direct/manual assignment, generalized trip distribution factors are provided in Exhibit D-3, based on regional modeling efforts. These factors indicate Regional Statistical Area (RSA)-level tripmaking for work and non-work trip purposes.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-4 (These RSAs are illustrated in Exhibit D-4.) For locations where it is difficult to determine the project site RSA, census tract/RSA correspondence tables are available from MTA.

Exhibit D-5 describes a general approach to applying the preceding factors. Project trip distribution must be consistent with these trip distribution and purpose factors; the basis for variation must be documented.

Local agency travel demand models disaggregated from the SCAG regional model are presumed to conform to this requirement, as long as the trip distribution functions are consistent with the regional distribution patterns. For retail commercial developments, alternative trip distribution factors may be appropriate based on the market area for the specific planned use. Such market area analysis must clearly identify the basis for the trip distribution pattern expected.

D.8 IMPACT ANALYSIS

CMP Transportation Impact Analyses contain two separate impact studies covering roadways and transit. Section Nos. D.8.1-D.8.3 cover required roadway analysis while Section No. D.8.4 covers the required transit impact analysis. Section Nos. D.9.1-D.9.4 define the requirement for discussion and evaluation of alternative mitigation measures.

D.8.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis. The LA County CMP recognizes that individual jurisdictions have wide ranging experience with LOS analysis, reflecting the variety of community characteristics, traffic controls and street standards throughout the county. As a result, the CMP acknowledges the possibility that no single set of assumptions should be mandated for all TIAs within the county.

However, in order to promote consistency in the TIAs prepared by different jurisdictions, CMP TIAs must conduct intersection LOS calculations using either of the following methods:

The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method as specified for CMP highway monitoring (see Appendix A); or

The Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) / Circular 212 method.

Variation from the standard assumptions under either of these methods for circumstances at particular intersections must be fully documented.

TIAs using the 1985 or 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis must provide converted volume-to-capacity based LOS values, as specified for CMP highway monitoring in Appendix A.

D.8.2 Arterial Segment Analysis. For TIAs involving arterial segment analysis, volume-to- capacity ratios must be calculated for each segment and LOS values assigned using the V/ C-LOS equivalency specified for arterial intersections. A capacity of 800 vehicles per hour per through traffic lane must be used, unless localized conditions necessitate alternative values to approximate current intersection congestion levels.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-5 D.8.3 Freeway Segment (Mainline) Analysis. For the purpose of CMP TIAs, a simplified analysis of freeway impacts is required. This analysis consists of a demand-to-capacity calculation for the affected segments, and is indicated in Exhibit D-6.

D.8.4 Transit Impact Review. CMP transit analysis requirements are met by completing and incorporating into an EIR the following transit impact analysis:

Evidence that affected transit operators received the Notice of Preparation.

A summary of existing transit services in the project area. Include local fixed-route services within a ¼ mile radius of the project; express bus routes within a 2 mile radius of the project, and; rail service within a 2 mile radius of the project.

Information on trip generation and mode assignment for both AM and PM peak hour periods as well as for daily periods. Trips assigned to transit will also need to be calculated for the same peak hour and daily periods. Peak hours are defined as 7:30- 8:30 AM and 4:30-5:30 PM. Both “peak hour” and “daily” refer to average weekdays, unless special seasonal variations are expected. If expected, seasonal variations should be described.

Documentation of the assumption and analyses that were used to determine the number and percent of trips assigned to transit. Trips assigned to transit may be calculated along the following guidelines:

Multiply the total trips generated by 1.4 to convert vehicle trips to person trips; For each time period, multiply the result by one of the following factors:

3.5% of Total Person Trips Generated for most cases, except:

10% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 15% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 7% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 9% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 5% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 7% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 0% if no fixed route transit services operate within one mile of the project

To determine whether a project is primarily residential or commercial in nature, please refer to the CMP land use categories listed and defined in Appendix E, Guidelines for New Development Activity Tracking and Self Certification. For projects that are only partially within the above one-quarter mile radius, the base rate (3.5% of total trips generated) should be applied to all of the project buildings that touch the radius perimeter.

Information on facilities and/or programs that will be incorporated in the development plan that will encourage public transit use. Include not only the jurisdiction’s TDM Ordinance measures, but other project specific measures.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-6 Analysis of expected project impacts on current and future transit services and proposed project mitigation measures, and;

Selection of final mitigation measures remains at the discretion of the local jurisdiction/lead agency. Once a mitigation program is selected, the jurisdiction self- monitors implementation through the existing mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA.

D.9 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATION

D.9.1 Criteria for Determining a Significant Impact. For purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00); if the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02). The lead agency may apply a more stringent criteria if desired.

D.9.2 Identification of Mitigation. Once the project has been determined to cause a significant impact, the lead agency must investigate measures which will mitigate the impact of the project. Mitigation measures proposed must clearly indicate the following:

Cost estimates, indicating the fair share costs to mitigate the impact of the proposed project. If the improvement from a proposed mitigation measure will exceed the impact of the project, the TIA must indicate the proportion of total mitigation costs which is attributable to the project. This fulfills the statutory requirement to exclude the costs of mitigating inter-regional trips. Implementation responsibilities. Where the agency responsible for implementing mitigation is not the lead agency, the TIA must document consultation with the implementing agency regarding project impacts, mitigation feasibility and responsibility.

Final selection of mitigation measures remains at the discretion of the lead agency. The TIA must, however, provide a summary of impacts and mitigation measures. Once a mitigation program is selected, the jurisdiction self-monitors implementation through the mitigation monitoring requirements contained in CEQA.

D.9.3 Project Contribution to Planned Regional Improvements. If the TIA concludes that project impacts will be mitigated by anticipated regional transportation improvements, such as rail transit or high occupancy vehicle facilities, the TIA must document:

Any project contribution to the improvement, and

The means by which trips generated at the site will access the regional facility.

D.9.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). If the TIA concludes or assumes that project impacts will be reduced through the implementation of TDM measures, the TIA must document specific actions to be implemented by the project which substantiate these conclusions.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-7 D.10 REFERENCES

1. Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development: A Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991.

2. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991.

3. Travel Forecast Summary: 1987 Base Model - Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS), California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), February 1990.

4. Traffic Study Guidelines, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 1991.

5. Traffic/Access Guidelines, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

6. Building Better Communities, Sourcebook, Coordinating Land Use and Transit Planning, American Public Transit Association.

7. Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities, Orange County Transit District, 2nd Edition, November 1987.

8. Coordination of Transit and Project Development, Orange County Transit District, 1988.

9. Encouraging Public Transportation Through Effective Land Use Actions, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, May 1987.

2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County FORM GEN. 160 (Rev. 8-12) CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: November 6,2017 NOV 2 7 2017 MAJOR PROJECTS TO: Vincent P. Bertoni, Director of Planning UNIT Department of City Planning

Attn: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner Department of City Planning

FROM: Ali Poosti, Division Manager Wastewater Engineering Services Divisio LA Sanitation

SUBJECT: THE FIG - NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND A V AILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

This is in response to your October 12, 2017 letter received on October 18, 2017 requesting a review of your proposed mixed-use project located at 3900-3972 S. Figueroa Street, 3901-3969 S_ Flower Street, and 450 W_ 39th Street, Los Angeles, 90037. LA Sanitation (LASAN), Wastewater Engineering Services Division (WESD) has reviewed the proposed project in the request.

Upon review of the most recent submission, it has been determined that no additional hydraulic analysis is necessary due to no changes in either the project description or the scope that affects the wastewater conveyance system. As such, the previous response dated August 8, 2016 (Notice of Preparation of an Envirorunental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting) is still valid_ Please notify our office in the instance that additional envirorunental review is necessary for this project.

If you have any questions, please call Christopher DeMonbrun at (323) 342-1567 or email at chris. [email protected]

CD/AP:al

c: Kosta Kaporis, LASAN Abdulsamad Danishwar, LASAN Christopher DeMonbrun, LASAN

File Location: \CEQA Review\FINAL CEQA Response LTRs\ FINAL DRAFT\The Fig - NOC and NOA ofdEIR.doc From: Jean Frost Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:28 AM Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9 - Part 2 To: [email protected]

Ms. Milena Zasadzien

Please accept the following comments on the DEIR by the University Park HPOZ Board.

1 1

University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Est. March 22 2000 by ordinance #171686

University Park H.P.O.Z. Board

Jean Frost, Chairperson Jim Robinson, Vice Chair David Raposa, Treasurer Steven Fader, Architect Dan Burke, Member

November 27, 2017

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

By e mail: [email protected]

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

HPOZs are charged with the mission “to develop and maintain the appropriate settings and environment to preserve these (historic) buildings and structures, landscaping, natural features and areas” and “to ensure that all procedures comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.1” In pursuit of that mission, please consider the following suggestions and comments regarding the draft EIR for 3900 South Figueroa.

The University Park HPOZ Board met at a duly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2017 and considered the DEIR for 3900 South Figueroa, “The Fig Project” which is currently being circulated for public comment. While the site is not within the University Park Historic Preservation Zone (HPOZ) it is part of the context of the University Park area. Its development history and pattern of development is synchronous and parallels the University Park Preservation Plan Context Statement.

As a formally constituted local historic district known as an HPOZ, we are stewards of historic properties within the Zone and can offer expert opinion on properties and development outside the Zone. The HPOZ Board routinely reviews infill development within the Zone to insure that it is sensitive to the historic properties while meeting the demands for development and site improvement. As experts in real estate, preservation, contracting, and restoration, we can offer expert advice that may be of help in considering and evaluating the proposed 3900 South Figueroa development.

1 HPOZ Ordinance 2

The Flower Drive California Register District is an asset and should be retained and included and incorporated in any plans to develop the subject site. We believe this is eminently possible for the 4.4 acre parcel under control of the DEIR’s developer, and needs to be explored in further Alternatives discussion. The Flower Drive Historic District has indeed met a very high bar of review already in order to be designated not once, but twice, by the State Historic Resources Commission on July 25 and November 7, 2008.2

We urge that the developer applicant consider alternatives that incorporate the Flower Drive California Register Historic District within the development scheme. Of the alternatives contained in the DEIR, we support the environmentally superior Alternative #2. But we are also cognizant that there are other alternatives possible that achieve more of the project goals while preserving the Flower Drive Historic District .We are disappointed that such alternatives are not included in the DEIR.

Demolition of our historic resources is neither acceptable nor supportable under the facts of this proposal. The Flower Drive Historic District should not be demolished with its primary and secondary severe, irreversible and unmitigated impacts on this historic resource.

Respectfully,

Jean Frost, Chair (for)

The University Park HPOZ Board

2 See Staff Report, October 23, 2008, DEIR, Appendix C, pages 156-158, strenuous analysis by SHPO staff, Cynthia Toffelmier, State Historian II, on criteria and significance of the Flower Drive California Register Historic District From: Cindy Heitzman Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:14 PM Subject: Comments on DEIR - The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV- 2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049 To: "[email protected]"

Dear Ms. Zasadzien,

Please find attached our comment letter on the referenced project. Feel free to contact me by phone or email as listed below.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Cindy Heitzman, Executive Director

5 3rd St., Suite 424

San Francisco, CA 94103

415-495-0349

Join CPF today! www.californiapreservation.org

November 27, 2017 RD 5 3 STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103-3205

415.495.0349 PHONE Via Email [email protected] 415.495.0265 FAX

Milena Zasadzien [email protected] Los Angeles Department of City Planning WWW.CALIFORNIAPRESERVATION.ORG

200 North Spring Street, Room 750

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049 PRESIDENT Andrea Galvin, El Segundo VICE-PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Dear Ms. Zasadzien, Kyle Normandin, Pasadena VICE-PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Christopher Wasney, AIA, Palo Alto The California Preservation Foundation shares in the concerns set forth in comments TREASURER submitted by the West Adams Heritage Association regarding the draft environmental Christine Lazzaretto, Pasadena SECRETARY impact report (DEIR) that has been prepared for The Fig Project. Amy Minteer, Esq., Los Angeles

The California Preservation Foundation (CPF) is a membership-based organization whose Matthew Berkley, M.A., Pasadena mission is to “provide statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the Adrian Scott Fine, Los Angeles Christine Lazzaretto, Pasadena protection of California’s diverse cultural heritage and historic places.” Since 1977, the CPF G. Taylor Louden, AIA, Culver City has assisted thousands of individuals and organizations in their efforts to protect historic Naomi Miroglio, FAIA, San Francisco Greg Mix, Danville and cultural resources throughout California. Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Bill Schaeffer, Napa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley The Fig Project would demolish seven out of the remaining 17 contributing resources in Andrew Wolfram, AIA, San Francisco Sally Zarnowitz, AIA, Berkeley the California Register-eligible Flower Drive Historic District to make way for a hotel, student housing and mixed-income housing. The contributing resources on the Project

site contain 32 rent controlled apartments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Heitzman

We urge the City to consider a preservation alternative that would preserve all of the contributing resources on the Project site and also allow development of hotel uses,

student housing and mixed-income housing at the site. It is our understanding that Page & Turnbull developed just such an alternative in consultation with both the preservation

community and the Project applicant. This alternative would provide the hotel uses, student housing and mixed-income housing in taller towers and underground parking on

the Project site, while preserving the contributing resources to the Flower Drive Historic District.

This alternative should be fully analyzed by the City as it would eliminate the significant historic resource impacts associated with the proposed Project, while still providing the affordable housing and other uses planned for the Project.

Yours truly,

Cindy Heitzman Executive Director From: Cynthia Kellman Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:31 AM Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049 To: Milena Zasadzien Cc: Amy Minteer

Dear Ms. Zasadzien,

Attached please find a comment letter from Amy Minteer regarding the above-captioned subject.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Cynthia Kellman CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Tel: 310-798-2400 x6 Fax: 310-798-2402 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cbcearthlaw.com

Hermosa Beach Office Amy Minteer Phone: (310) 798-2400 Email Address: Fax: (310) 798-2402 [email protected] San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Direct Dial: Phone: (619) 940-4522 www.cbcearthlaw.com 310-798-2400 Ext. 3

November 27, 2017

Via Email [email protected] Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049

Dear Ms. Zasadzien,

On behalf of the West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA), we provide these comments on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) that has been prepared for The Fig Project, to be located at 3900 South Figueroa Street. The Fig Project would demolish seven out of the remaining 17 contributing resources in the California Register- eligible Flower Drive Historic District to make way for a hotel, student housing and mixed-income housing. This massive Project would replace 32 existing rent control residential units. Despite many comments during the scoping process and meetings with community members wherein a feasible alternative was developed that would allow for a scaled back version of the Project while protecting the historic resources on this site, the City and developer appear committed to a specific project that destroys Los Angeles history.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project’s significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 2 of 10 consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The environmental impact report process is the “heart of CEQA” and is the chief mechanism to effectuate its statutory purposes. (In Re Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1162.) We are concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate many of the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts, in particular the impacts to the Flower Drive Historic District.

I. The DEIR’s Analysis and Mitigation of Historic Resource Impacts Is Inadequate.

The Fig Project would demolish more than 1/3 of the California Register-eligible Flower Drive Historic District. Expert architectural historian and historic preservation consultant Mitzi March Mogul has submitted comments on behalf of WAHA that detail the importance of this historic district and the far reaching impacts of demolishing most of one of the last remaining districts of its kind.

While the DEIR recognizes that the demolition of 7 out of the 17 contributing resources in the Flower Drive Historic District is a significant impact, it incorrectly claims this impact is unavoidable. As detailed below and in other comments submitted by WAHA, demolition of these resources is unnecessary as there are feasible alternatives proposed that could allow for development of needed housing and commercial uses that would incorporated these existing residential units into the Project.

A. Analysis of Cumulative Historic Resource Impacts is Inadequate.

The DEIR’s analysis of historic resource impacts is also inadequate because it fails to disclose the significant cumulative impacts The Fig Project would have. The DEIR analysis claims that previous demolitions of smaller multi-family residences such as the Flower Drive Historic District justify the demolition of the last few remaining examples of this type of resource due to its isolation. If anything, the District’s isolation from other smaller multi-family residences demonstrates the cumulative impact of the modern developments displacement of the historic neighborhood. When nominating the District to the California Register, expert Peter Moruzzi stated that the Flower Drive Historic District was “the last intact grouping of multi-family residences erected in the once-larger Zobelein Tract during the Roaring Twenties.” The historic residences in this area have been demolished piece by piece and this Project would essentially be the final nail in the coffin. After the proposed demolitions, it is unlikely the Flower Drive Historic District would retain its historic significance, opening the last remaining remnants of the site to demolition as well. This cumulative impact must be acknowledged.

Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 3 of 10

Additionally, the DEIR completely ignores the project that is planned for the site north of the Project site, adjacent to the remaining 10 contributing resources for the Flower Drive District. The 3800 S. Figueroa Mixed Use Development would develop a seven story transit-oriented, mixed-use development. The cumulative impacts of this development and The Fig Project on the Flower Drive Historic District must be analyzed.

B. The DEIR’s Mitigation Measures Are Improperly Deferred and Lack Enforceability.

Additionally, the DEIR’s proposed mitigation for historic resource impacts is improperly deferred. The DEIR presents two competing mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure C-2 calls for the creation of a salvage and reuse plan, while Mitigation Measure C-3 requires at least three of the contributing resources to be relocated to a site within five miles of the Project site. If resources are to be relocated, their historic elements and materials should not be salvaged, but the DEIR fails to address how a balance would be struck between these two competing measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).)

Further, there is no indication whether MM C-3 is actually feasible despite CEQA’s requirement that mitigation measures be fully enforceable. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4).) There is no discussion whether there are sites available for relocation within the five mile radius. There is also no discussion of impacts that would associated with such relocation, which can only be assessed when potential locations have been disclosed. The effects of mitigation measures is required to be disclosed in the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(D).)

II. The DEIR’s Analysis of Land Use Impacts Is Inadequate and Inaccurate.

The DEIR’s claim that there are no land use impacts due to inconsistencies with existing plans lacks evidentiary support. The Fig Project would run afoul of a fundamental goal of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan—to protect and preserve historic resources. (SELA Community Plan Goal 18 and corresponding objectives and policies.) While the DEIR acknowledges the inconsistency, it still claims there would no significant adverse land use impacts due to inconsistencies with a land use plan. The conflicts between the Project and the Community Plan’s fundamental goal of protecting and preserving historic resources are clear and this significant impact must be acknowledged. (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, sub. X.b.)

The DEIR fails to discuss The Fig Project’s consistency, or lack thereof, with the update to the Community Plan, which was just approved on November 22, 2017. The updated Community Plan is the relevant plan for purposes of making consistency determinations in approving this Project. The DEIR should provide the decisionmakers Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 4 of 10 with an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the updated Community Plan to allow for a complete review of the Project under CEQA. It should be noted that under the updated Community Plan, the Project site is designated RD1.5-1, which allows far less development than is planned as part of this Project. The inconsistency between The Fig Project and the approved updated Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan must be disclosed.

The DEIR also claims that the North University Park-Exposition Park-West Adams Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay District’s regulations should not apply to the Project because it has a frontage on Figueroa Street. The frontage for the Project site is currently on Flower Drive, not Figueroa Street. The Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay District ordinance states “except properties fronting on Figueroa Street” and when the ordinance was adopted by the City, this property fronted on Flower Drive. Thus, the development regulations and findings required for the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay District should be required. As it does not include the required additional parking and it would conflict with applicable land use plans intended to protect historic resources, the required findings cannot be made.

The Fig Project would displace the residents in 32 existing rent controlled residential units. While the Project includes an affordable housing component, there is no analysis comparing the affordability of the proposed units with the existing units. Further, the DEIR fails to address the significant time lapse between the eviction of the existing tenants from rental control units and the availability of the new units, which would be at least 18 months. This residential displacement impact should be evaluated in the DEIR.

III. The DEIR’s Analysis of Alternatives is Inadequate.

The purpose of an alternatives analysis is to determine if feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures would substantially lessen a project’s significant environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) For this reason, the alternatives analysis is the “core of the EIR.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal 3d 553, 564.) “One of [an EIR’s] major functions . . . is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400.) Further, “Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that…the agency’s approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.)

The Fig Project would remove eight multi-family residential buildings containing 32 dwelling units that are located on the northeastern portion of the Project site fronting Flower Drive. (DEIR pp. II-1 through II-3.) These residential buildings are part of the Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 5 of 10

Flower Drive Historic District (DEIR p. II-3), which is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Los Angeles history and contains buildings embodying the distinctive characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival Style. (DEIR p. II-6.) The Project would demolish seven of the District’s 17 contributing buildings. (DEIR p. II-6.)

The DEIR defines the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as:

a. Aesthetics – views and operations;

b. Historic Resources – impacts on the Flower Drive Historic District;

c. Noise – cumulative onsite noise during construction and operation; and

d. Traffic congestion.

(DEIR p. I-22 to I-24.)

Accordingly, a CEQA-compliant alternatives analysis should focus on alternatives that would reduce impacts on views, preserve the Flower Drive Historic District, produce less noise, and reduce vehicle trips that congest intersections. With the exception of the required “no project” alternative and the rejected Alternative 2, the DEIR’s alternatives analysis fails in this regard. The two other alternatives demolish some or all of the contributing buildings to the historic district and are designed not to meet the Project objectives.

Additionally, the DEIR’s table V-2, which compares the relative environmental impacts of the four alternatives over 8 pages, is very difficult to read and should be revised. A summary table or color-coding would be helpful.

A. The Project’s Underlying Purpose is Easily Satisfied.

The project objectives determine what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) The Project’s underlying purpose is “to revitalize the Project Site by developing a high quality mixed-use development that provides new multi-family housing opportunities and neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant uses that serve the community and promote walkability.” (DEIR p. II-7.) There is no reason that an alternative retaining the historic buildings would not satisfy the Project’s underlying purpose.

The Project’s secondary objectives include:

Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 6 of 10

1) Developing an infill mixed-use project that provides much-needed market rate and affordable housing units near multiple transit opportunities in the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan area.

2) Develop new student housing along the Figueroa Corridor, in close proximity to the University of Southern California’s campus.

3) Develop new short-term and extended-stay lodging opportunities that are easily accessible to Exposition Park, the USC campus, and the Los Angeles Convention Center, as well as other museum and cultural facilities in the surrounding area.

4) Develop new retail, restaurant, commercial office, and hospitality uses within the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area that provide short- and long- term employment opportunities and maximize sales and transient occupancy tax revenue for the City.

5) Create an environmentally sensitive development by incorporating sustainable and green building design and construction to promote resource conservation, including waste reduction, efficient water management techniques, and conservation on energy to achieve LEED equivalency.

6) Improve the visual character and pedestrian environment along Figueroa Street by removing a surface parking lot, providing active ground-level retail and commercial uses, and creating a buffer from the freeway by locating the parking structure on the eastern portion of the site.

7) Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and pollutant emissions and maximize the public investment in transit by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to the newly-expanded Metro Expo Line, Blue Line, and several bus lines.

(DEIR pp. II-7 and II-8.)

Although not analyzed in the DEIR, a Project alternative that preserved the Flower Drive Historic District contributing resources and included a 21-story residential and hotel tower would satisfy all of these objectives while retaining the integrity of the historic district. This feasible alternative should be analyzed in a revised DEIR. In any case, a multitude of Projects could be designed on the non-historic district portions of the Project site that would provide multi-family housing, neighborhood-serving retail and restaurants, and increased walkability. Moreover, “a lead agency may not give a project's purpose an artificially narrow definition” and thereby circumscribe the alternatives analysis. (In re Bay Delta Prog. Environmental Impact Report Coord. Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166.)

Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 7 of 10

B. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence for Rejecting Alternative 2, Which Would Retain the Integrity of the Historic District.

The DEIR analyzes four alternatives. Alternative 1 is the required “no project” alternative. Alternative 2, the Community Plan Update Compliant/Historic Preservation Alternative, would retain the existing buildings of the historic district and construct two additional buildings containing 150 new units of student housing, 60 units of market rate housing, and 15,000 square feet of commercial uses. (DEIR, p. V-3.) Alternative 3, the Reduced Density/Partial Historic Preservation Alternative, would retain four of the historic buildings, while constructing 166 units of student housing, 62 units of affordable housing, 78 units of market rate housing, a 224-room hotel, and 83,000 square feet of commercial uses. (Ibid.) Alternative 4, the Zoning Compliant Alternative, would demolish the historic buildings in favor of 210 units of student housing, 32 units of affordable housing, 58 units of market rate housing, and 40,000 square feet of commercial uses. (Ibid.) The 21-story tower originally proposed for the site is not analyzed in the DEIR.

The City can only approve the Project with its significant and unavoidable impacts if “there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect[s].” (CEQA Guidelines § 15043.) When an agency seeks to approve a project despite the significant impacts the project would have on the environment, the agency must adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081.) A statement of overriding considerations must include specific finding, supported by substantial evidence, that “[t]here is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect...” (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15043, 15093(b).) Although a statement of overriding considerations is a policy statement, it must still be supported by substantial evidence. (Woodward Park Homeowners, supra, 150 Cal. App. 4th at 718.) A less impactful alternative can only be rejected if it is “truly infeasible.” (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.)

The City lacks substantial evidence to support its rejection of Alternative 2, the Community Plan Update Compliant/Historic Preservation Alternative. Alternative 2 would preserve the eight existing residential buildings of the historic district, thereby eliminating the significant impact on historic resources. (DEIR p. V-33.) Alternative 2 would also construct two buildings, one containing 150 units of student housing and 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, and one containing 60 market rate residential units. (DEIR p. V-26.) Unlike the Project, Alternative 2 is consistent with existing land use plans and would not require a zone or height district change. (DEIR p. V-27.) The DEIR also admits that Alternative 2 would have reduced visual impacts (DEIR pp. V-27 to 31) and would generate less noise than the Project. (DEIR p. V-39). Alternative 2 would also generate 1,896 net daily vehicle trips, far less than the 7,631 net daily trips that would be generated by the Project. (DEIR p. V-46.) While still significant, this would “substantially lessen” the traffic congestion impacts as compared Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 8 of 10 to the Project. (DEIR p. V-46.) Alternative 2 would wholly avoid two of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts while substantially lessening the Project’s other two significant impacts, exactly as envisioned by CEQA. (DEIR p. V-52.)

Instead of advocating for this environmentally superior alternative, the DEIR finds that Alternative 2 “would fail to meet three of the Project’s basic objectives and would not achieve the remaining objectives to the same extent as the Project.” (DEIR p. V-54.) The DEIR claims that the Project would fail to meet objectives (1), (3), and (4) as outlined above. Substantial evidence does not support this claim. First, Alternative 2 would satisfy the Project’s underlying purpose of revitalizing “the Project Site by developing a high quality mixed-use development that provides new multi-family housing opportunities and neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant uses that serve the community and promote walkability.” (DEIR p. II-7.) Alternative 2 includes housing, retail, and restaurant uses that would serve the community and promote walkability. Second, the DEIR overstates the degree to which objective (1) would not be satisfied. Objective (1) is to provide an infill mixed-use project with market rate and affordable housing units near transit opportunities. Alternative 2 is an infill mixed-use project with market rate housing units near transit opportunities. If the City desires affordable housing, the Alternative could be reconfigured to include affordable housing units. The objective is mostly satisfied and could be completely satisfied.

Objective (3) is to develop short term and extended stay lodging opportunities that are easily accessible to USC and other nearby institutions. As proposed, Alternative 2 would not meet this objective. However, the Alternative still meets the underlying purpose of the Project. Alternatives are not required to meet all project objectives, and in reality it “is virtually a given that the alternatives to a project will not attain all of the project’s objectives.” (Watsonville Pilots Ass'n v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1087.) Moreover, the City is not required to approve the developer’s preferred project. The lead agency must exercise its independent judgment on project objectives, and must not uncritically accept the applicant’s objectives. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.1 (c)(1); Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1352; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1460.)

Objective (4) is to develop new retail, restaurant, commercial uses, and hospitality uses that provide short and long-term employment and maximize sales and revenue for the City. Alternative 2 includes retail, restaurant, and commercial uses. There is no reason that short term and long term employment opportunities could not be provided. The objective is satisfied.

The City also cannot support findings that Alternative 2 would not satisfy the other objectives – of providing new student housing near USC, of improving the visual Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 9 of 10 character and pedestrian environment along Figueroa Street, and of reducing VMT by developing an underutilized site near transit. Alternative 2 would develop all of the Project site fronting Figueroa. The retained historic buildings front Flower Drive and would not impact the Figueroa Corridor or the provision of an improved pedestrian environment.

C. The DEIR Fails to Analyze a Historic Preservation Alternative that Would Satisfy All Project Objectives.

CEQA prohibits approval of projects with significant adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate those impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Guidelines § 15021(a)(2).) It is not necessary for such a Project alternative to satisfy all Project objectives, but it is possible here. The DEIR fails to analyze an alternative that preserves the Flower Drive Historic District and includes student and affordable housing, as well as hotel uses. This alternative would avoid impacts to historic resources and satisfy all of the Project objectives that the DEIR claims are not fully satisfied by Alternative 2.

Just such alternative was developed in meetings between representatives for The Fig Project developer and members of the historic preservation community, including the LA Conservancy, WAHA, North University Park Community Association and Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee. On November 7, 2016 and November 21, 2016, these parties met to find an alternative that would allow for preservation of the entire Flower Drive Historic District. An agreement was reached that an alternative with approximately the same number of units and hotel rooms could be achieved with two-21 story towers, one for student and mixed-income housing and the other for hotel uses. Parking would be located underground to avoid demolition of historic resources. Although this alternative would require a height variance from the City, it would not impact feasibility because the Project itself requires CUPs for uses and variances for height and FAR. (DEIR p. II-24 and II-25.) The preservation community has encouraged the adoption of such an alternative and was shocked that this alternative was not included in DEIR for analysis. The DEIR should be revised to analyze a historic preservation alternative that provides hotel and affordable housing uses.

D. The DEIR Fails to Analyze Offsite Alternatives that Would Avoid Adverse Impacts to Historic Resources.

Although the Project’s significant impacts to the Flower Drive Historic District could be avoided by moving the Project, the DEIR rejects offsite alternatives without providing any analysis. (DEIR p. V-4.) Instead, the DEIR constrains an offsite alternative to adjacent parking lots and the land underneath Flower Drive and claims that the applicant does not own sufficient land in the immediate area for the Project to be moved. (DEIR p. V-4.) Offsite alternatives should be considered when “significant Milena Zasadzien November 27, 2017 Page 10 of 10 effects of the project would be avoided or lessened by putting the project in another location,” as here. (Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(A).) The Guidelines take a narrow view of what constraints would render an alternative site infeasible (for example, the lack of extractable resources on a site for a resource extraction project). (Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(B).) Furthermore, California Courts have endorsed the use of rigorous off site alternatives analyses. (See, for example, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553 [upholding EIR in part because of adequate analysis of an offsite alternative] and Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 [EIR found inadequate for failure to assess an offsite alternative that would have reduced impacts].)

A developer’s ownership or lack of ownership of an alternative parcel is not sufficient reason to dismiss offsite alternatives. The DEIR’s claim that the Applicant “cannot be reasonably be expected to acquire, control, or access an alternative site in a timely fashion” is not sufficient. (DEIR p. V-4.) Without any evidence, the DEIR claims, “development of the Project at an alternative site could potentially produce other environmental impacts that would otherwise not occur at the current Project Site and result in greater environmental impacts when compared with the Project.” (DEIR p. V- 4.) This is precisely why analysis of offsite alternatives is required in an EIR. However, because the DEIR did not analyze such an alternative, the public and decisionmakers will never know if an offsite alternative would avoid significant environmental impacts, such as that posed by the destruction of the historic district, or create new ones. The DEIR fails to suffice as an informational document. The DEIR must be revised to include an analysis of offsite alternatives for the Project that would avoid significant adverse impacts to the Flower Drive Historic District.

Conclusion

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward to reviewing your responses to our comments.

Sincerely,

Amy Minteer From: Marcello Vavala Date: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:50 PM Subject: LA Conservancy comments, Fig Project Draft EIR To: "[email protected]" Cc: Adrian Fine , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , Ken Bernstein , "[email protected]"

Dear Ms. Zasadzien,

Attached, please find the LA Conservancy’s comments on the Fig Project Draft EIR. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Marcello

Marcello Vavala Preservation Associate Los Angeles Conservancy 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 826 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 430-4217

laconservancy.org E-News – Facebook – Twitter – Instagram

Membership starts at just $40 Join the Conservancy today

November 29, 2017

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: [email protected]

Re: The Fig Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR (SCH No. 2016071049)

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The Fig Project. On August 17, 2016 the Conservancy previously commented on the project’s Notice of Preparation. The Flower Drive California Register Historic District (District) would be impacted, with the demolition of eight structures comprising nearly half of the District (seven contributors and one non-contributor) located on the 3900 block of S. Flower Drive. Four new mixed-use buildings, with primary uses consisting of hotel, student housing, mixed-income housing and parking, are proposed. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The Conservancy has previously raised concerns about this project and its significant impacts on the District. Despite our pressing for meaningful consideration of potentially feasible preservation alternatives to demolition, the Draft EIR does not adequately address this fundamental concern and requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

I. Impacts to cultural resources

The District of period revival fourplexes is notable for its very high percentage of contributing structures spanning two city blocks: seventeen contributors out of nineteen total structures, or nearly ninety percent. The northern portion of the District located on the 3800 block of S. Flower Drive contains eleven structures: ten contributors (53% of the District’s total contributors) and one non-contributor. The southern portion of the District located on the 3900 block of S. Flower Drive contains eight structures: seven contributors (37% of the District’s total contributors) and one non-contributor.

The demolition of the 3900 block of S. Flower Drive, which constitutes nearly one half of the District, is an unavoidable, significant impact to both cultural resources and aesthetics. With nineteen structures, only two of which are non-contributors, the District is composed of an unbroken series of multi-family dwellings spanning two blocks that share consistency of size, massing, orientation, building type and architectural style. The demolition of the entire 3900 block of the District and the removal of the seven contributors located there would result in the loss of 37% of

the District’s total contributors. Only 53% of the District’s total contributors would remain in the 3800 block of S. Flower Drive, outside the project area.

II. Draft EIR Fails to Subtantiate Infeasibility of Alternative 2/the Environmentally Superior Alternative

A key policy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the lead agency’s duty to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with historic environmental qualities and preserve for future generations examples of major periods of California history.”1 To this end, CEQA “requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.”2 The fact that an environmentally superior alternative may be more costly or fails to meet all project objectives does not necessarily render it infeasible under CEQA.3 Reasonable alternatives must be considered “even if they substantially impede the project or are more costly.”4 Likewise, findings of alternative feasibility or infeasibility must be supported by substantial evidence.5

The Draft EIR contains one full preservation alternative, Alternative 2: Community Plan Update Compliant/Historic Preservation Alternative, which has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. It would retain and reuse all eight buildings in the District that occupy the project area paired with a reduced scale of new construction consisting of two five-story structures for market rate and student housing.

While Alternative 2 would enable the District to remain intact, the elimination of the hotel component and the marked reduction in density means that it less fully meets the project objectives than the proposed project. Yet the broadly defined project objectives provide an array of stated goals that Alternative 2 does in fact meet, despite contrary and unsubstantiated claims included within the Draft EIR.

The two main uses found in the proposed project that are eliminated in Alternative 2 are affordable housing and hospitality uses in the form of short-term and extended stay lodging opportunities. However, even with these uses deleted, Alternative 2 is able to meet the majority of the seven project objectives. With the exception of the third stated project objective to develop new short-term and extended-stay lodging opportunities, Alternative 2 meets either all or most of the remaining six project objectives.

The analysis of the feasibility of Alternative 2 is flawed in two significant ways. First, it concludes that particular project objectives would be entirely unmet when in fact substantial portions of them would be met. Secondarily, the analysis suggests that a reduction in the quantity of residential units or retail spaces provided in Alternative 2 equates to a shortcoming in meeting particular project objectives when the objectives are broadly focused on the provision of particular uses and not their extent.

1 Public Resource Code, Sec. 21001 (b), (c). 2 Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41; also see Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1. 3 Guideline § 15126.6(a). 4 San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc’y v. County of San Bernardino (1984), 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 750; Guideline § 15126(d)(1). 5 Public Resources Code § 21081.5.

Additionally, the Conservancy questions why a preservation alternative pairing higher density new construction with the retention and reuse of the District buildings was not evaluated? We specifically addressed this point in our August 17, 2016 comments on the Notice of Preparation and urged for their inclusion in the Draft EIR. In previous meetings with the applicant this type of alternative was under consideration.

The City and applicant have a mandate to reduce impacts wherever possible. Given that the initial concept for the project during the NOP stage included a maximum height of 21 stories for the hotel structure, and that the project team discussed the possibility of considering a project alternative with increased height at community meetings held in November 2016, why was such an alternative neither evaluated alongside the other project alternatives nor discussed in the rejected alternatives section?

III. Demolition of Cultural Resources at Odds With Goals of the Exposition Park/University Park Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan and Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan

The Fig Project is located in the Exposition Park/University Park Redevelopment Plan area. As such, the project will have to make findings of consistency with that plan, which sets several goals to promote the retention and reuse of historic structures.

These include a series of Redevelopment Plan Goals:  To encourage the preservation of historical monuments, landmarks and buildings  To retain by means of rehabilitation residences and businesses where appropriate  To eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Expanded Project Area in accordance with the Plan6

The redevelopment plan contains a section specific to historic buildings, stating:  To the extent practical, special consideration shall be given to the protection, rehabilitation, or restoration, relocation, of any structure determined to be historically significant.7

The redevelopment plan prohibits incompatible uses, stating:  No use or structure which by reason of appearance…would be incompatible with the surrounding area or structures shall be permitted in any part of the project area.8

The considerable priority placed on the retention and reuse of historic structures in the Redevelopment Plan is not adequately acknowledged in the Land Use section of the Draft EIR, which underplays the Project’s inconsistency in meeting preservation goals and policies among others in the Redevelopment Plan. In reality, the other goals and policies can be applied to all parcels within the Redevelopment Plan area, whereas the preservation goals and policies are intended to focus special consideration to those parcels that contain existing assets to the community in the form of historic resources that contribute to the community’s character.

6 Hoover Redevelopment Plan, 4th Amendment, XII. §1220, Redevelopment Plan Goals: 8-9. 7 Hoover Redevelopment Plan, 4th Amendment, O. §1321, Buildings of Historic Significance: 30. 8 Hoover Redevelopment Plan, B. q. §523, Incompatible Uses: 14.

Many parcels in the Redevelopment Plan area do not contain historic resources and can be treated as blank slates with regard to project conception. Others do contain identified historic resources, many of which were first surveyed through the efforts of the CRA. Fewer still are the number of parcels containing historic resources listed at either the local, state or national levels.

Given that the Redevelopment Plan is intended to provide guidance on new projects and places a specialized focus on the retention and reuse of historic resources, we are deeply concerned that the Draft EIR simply affirms the Project’s obvious inconsistency with the Redevelopment Plan’s preservation goals and provides no substantive discussion or analysis. We seriously question the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s analysis and methodology: if a project that destroys a historic resource can be characterized as substantially consistent because it meets the remaining goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, what value does such an exercise have for historic resources in the Redevelopment Plan Area?

Additionally, a core objective of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan is to “protect and encourage reuse of the area’s historic resources.” The proposed project would instead demolish nearly one half of the California Register Historic District and significantly compromise this historical resource.

About the Los Angeles Conservancy: The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with nearly 6,000 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or [email protected] should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy cc: City Councilmember Curren Price, Jr., Council District 9 West Adams Heritage Association Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources California Office of Historic Preservation

From: Jean Frost Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Subject: DEIR Comment, The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV- 2016-1892-EIR; First email To: [email protected] Cc: Amy Minteer , Adrian Fine , [email protected]

Please accept the following comments which we will send in two separate e mails. Please confirm receipt. A hard copy will also be delivered today.

Via Email [email protected]

And by hand

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9

WAHA does not support the proposed project in its current form and hopes that the developer and the Los Angeles Department of City Planning will rectify the many problems in the project and incorporate the observations and suggestions contained in the following commentaries. The DEIR is not legally sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA.

Should you have questions about any of the presented material, contact information for each author is included on their individual stationary.

I. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 213 747- 2526. Jim Childs, A.D.H.O.C. / Environmental Setting, Aesthetics and Visual Resources II. Mitzi March Mogul / Consultant / Cultural Resources D_IVC III. Laura Meyers, N.U.P.C.A. / Land Use and Planning D_IVG IV. Ed Conery, West Adams Heritage Coalition, D_IVJ Traffic & Access V. Jean Frost, WAHA, Project Alternatives V VI. Roland Souza, President, WAHA / Environmental Context

1 From: Jean Frost Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:16 AM Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9 - Part 2 To: [email protected] Cc: Amy Minteer , Adrian Fine , [email protected]

Ms. Milena Zasadzien

Attached please find the second e mail with the second phase attachments relative to WAHA’s comment on the 3900 South Figueroa DEIR.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you.

1 WAHA West Adams Heritage Association ------West Adams Heritage Association, 2263 Harvard Boulevard, Historic West Adams, Los Angeles, CA 90018

November 27, 2017

Via Email [email protected] And by hand

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9

Dear Sir/Madam,

The West Adams Heritage Association is a non-profit, community based organization comprised of over 350 households in the West Adams/University Park area, which includes the project site. WAHA was founded in 1983 in order to promote education and preservation of the architectural and cultural heritage of the West Adams District. West Adams contains eleven Historic Preservation Overlay Zones, eight National Register Historic Districts, and over 125 individually designated Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monuments.

WAHA routinely comments on land use applications and environmental documents on behalf of the Association members, as well as other issues which affect the historic character of its namesake community. The organization has many concerns about the proposed project for 3900 South Figueroa Street, (EIR Case File No. ENV-2016-1892- EIR.) WAHA’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report have been organized by topic and section. Just as the DEIR presents it’s various sections, Traffic, Land Use, and Cultural Resources, etc. as separate sections, our comment letter will follow this practice. The cover letter and each section will be e mailed as a separate pdf and a hard copy will be hand delivered to your office. Please confirm receipt of the pdfs by e mailing me at [email protected].

WAHA has taken the same approach in reviewing the document and submitting comments on these topics. Given the unwieldy nature of the DEIR document, in the interest of clarity, WAHA is submitting its comments as an “anthology.” Experts in each subject have reviewed the DEIR and written separate letters of comment in their area of WAHA Cover Letter ENV-2016-1892-EIR 1 expertise. No inference should be made that by not addressing the variety of other DEIR issues in their individual letters, that these experts implicitly agree with or support the conclusions of DEIR.

WAHA wishes to be officially on record that it does not support the proposed project in its current form and hopes that the developer and the Los Angeles Department of City Planning will rectify the many problems in the project and incorporate the observations and suggestions contained in the following commentaries. The DEIR is not legally sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA.

Should you have questions about any of the presented material, contact information for each author is included on their individual stationary.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 213 747-2526.

Sincerely,

Jean Frost Vice President and Chair, West Adams Heritage Association Historic Preservation Committee c/o 2341 Scarff Street, Los Angeles, CA. 90007, [email protected]

WAHA COMMENTATORS:

I. Jim Childs, A.D.H.O.C. / Environmental Setting, Aesthetics and Visual Resources II. Mitzi March Mogul / Consultant / Cultural Resources D_IVC III. Laura Meyers, N.U.P.C.A. / Land Use and Planning D_IVG IV. Ed Conery, West Adams Heritage Coalition, D_IVJ Traffic & Access V. Jean Frost, WAHA, Project Alternatives V VI. Roland Souza, President, WAHA / Environmental Context

WAHA Cover Letter ENV-2016-1892-EIR 2

A D H O C Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee

Milena Zasazdien Tel. 213-978-1360 / Email: [email protected] Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, City Hall – Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

November 27, 2017

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report / ENV Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR State Clearing House No. 2016079 / THE FIG Project located at: 3900-3972 S. Figueroa St. 3901-3969 S. Flower Dr. 450 W. 39 St. L.A. Calif. 90037 / City Council District No.9 / Southeast L.A Community Plan Area District / Exposition-University Park Redevelopment Project Area / North University Park- Exposition Park-West Adams Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay District, / California Register Flower Drive Historic District / Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area / Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone.

Ms. Milena Zasazdien

I am writing as both the Chair of A.D.H.O.C. as well as a participating member of the West Adams Heritage Association’s (WAHA) Historic Preservation Committee’s Response Team to make comment on the above referenced proposed Project’s compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Although I will be focusing my review primarily on this DEIR’s section IV Environmental Impact Analyses: Aesthetics, Views, it should not be inferred that any absence of comment on other aspects of the DEIR implies any form of approval. WAHA’s Response Team and Coalition members who have supplied specific comments on other sections have the support and concurrence of A.D.H.O.C. for their conclusions

My written response comments on the DEIR are in addition to my oral remarks made to the various administrative and project representatives present at the August 10, 2016 Public Scoping Meeting held by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning at USC’s 11-story Radisson Hotel at 3540 S. Figueroa just four blocks from the subject property. I made it clear then that their proposed demolition of almost half of the existing FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT was unacceptable and that it would not be compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1 I also submitted extensive written comments on August 16, 2016 in response to the City’s Notice of Preparation (N.O.P.), which is available in Appendix A of the DEIR. Again my comments challenged the developers’ concept of demolishing California Registry listed historic properties in order to add more USC student housing and an above grade nine-story parking tower.

I, along with other historic preservation advocates also attended two private meetings on November 07 and 21, 2016 with the Project developers’ team, their attorney and their architectural consultsants from Page & Turnbull and preservation community representatives. The purpose of those meeting was to try and arrive at a design for a Project Alternative that included the existing historic structures of the FLOWER HISTORIC DISTRICT and the goals for the Project’s economic viability. At the conclusion of the second meeting I understood that there was a consensus for a propsed new Project Alternative concept, which would retain the elements of the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT, the propsed 21-story Hotel, and add a second tower for the residential components.

------

Insert Hotel illustration 4x6

------

Although the developers had publicly expressed a willingness to consider alternative designs in response to the preservation community’s concerns about their initial design’s failure to respect of the historic setting they have inexplicably rejected their own tower- concept and make no reference to its’ viability in the DEIR. This is a significant failure.

By way of background I am a professional historic-preservation consultant doing business under a L.A. City license as the dba “Preservation Video” since 1995. I have served since 1987 as Chair of the Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee (A.D.H.O.C.) the local University-Exposition Park grass roots preservation advocacy organization. I was part of the WAHA preservation team in 2008 that

2 brought forward the successful nomination to the California Register of the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT. I was also the advocate in 1993 for the successful nomination of the ZOBELEIN ESTATE as a Los Angeles City Historic Cultural Monument (No. 583)

I speak herein as a recognized historic preservation authority with decades of experience and knowledge of the requirements, and appropriate implementation, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with extensive and specific experience in the University-Exposition Park community.

It is certainly not uncommon for me to be disappointed, yet again, by another insufficient LA City Planning Department’s issued environmental document. I was however hoping that the DEIR would have been prepared with serious consideration for the real impacts to our historic assets and would avoid the subjective trivialization of the importance of historic properties so frequently found in a biased, self-serving report prepared for entrenched developers. Although I will admit that it is somewhat refreshing not to have to argue for a project to have a DEIR instead of the typically inadequate proffered Mitigated Negative Declarations, or worse a Categorical Exemption that is usually issued when our historic resources are at risk. However in this instance their DEIR is also a failure.

Our precious FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT will be destroyed by this Project’s proposed demolitions. In the Planning Department’s DEIR the very first page, “Project Description”, reports that: “The Project“involves the removal of eight existing multi-family residential buildings...” There is no mention that the eight buildings comprise almost half of the listed California Register’s FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT. This limited description is dismissive and misleading. Why is the use of just a simple descriptive adjective like “historic” such an anathema to the Planning Department? There is no identification what-so-ever by the staff, for the benefit of the decision makers, that the proposed removal is not just for eight multi-family residential buildings but is in fact for demolition of eight of the nineteen buildings that comprise the California Register’s FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

Should this Project actually be allowed to demolish almost half of the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT then the remaining ten historic structures will most surely fall under the bulldozer’s destruction. Half a historic district cannot survive. Should this irresponsible concept of the “justification” for the wholesale demolition of listed historic properties become reality, it will establish a precedent and no historic district will be safe from the consequences.

A word about the DEIR’s misuse of percentiles. The DEIR’s preparers consistently proclaim that their demolition of eight of the nineteen structures amount to only 37% of listed contributing historic resources. I am puzzled at how they arrived at that figure. A loss of eight out of nineteen is 42.1%. If they choose to not-count the two historic non- contributors then the equation is seven out of seventeen, which results in a 41.1% loss. Apparently they chose a more creative comparative by only counting the loss of the seven listed contributors compared to the whole nineteen of the Historic District. Seven divided by nineteen equals 36.8%. This obfuscation of a simple fact is unfortunately systemic of the distortions and manipulations found throughout the DEIR.

Discussions about the DEIR from the development proponents take that 37% and turn it into a taking point that claims only one-third of the Historic District is being “removed” so

3 their rounding-down seems to be an acceptable interpretation. In fairness I feel that I should therefore be able to take the actual 42% figure and round it up to an “almost half” statement in balance to their distortions. Whether it is argued for one-third or one-half it is a futile debate since the loss of only one of the listed historic properties is unacceptable. The Project proposes eight demolitions not one. These eight historic buildings are not given the dignity that they deserve as part of our City’s cultural heritage. The DEIR minimizes their collective historic importance by consistently dismissing them as simply “multi-family residential buildings”.

A. Aesthetics, Views, Light/Glare, and Shading b. Cumulative Impacts (1) Aesthetics

The DEIR reports on two “close” related Projects from their ”Table III-1 Related Projects”: Project No.15, the California African American Museum and Related Project No.21, the LAFC soccer stadium are the focus of the DEIR’s comments. Absent however from the report and from Table III-1 is any mention of the neighboring 3800 S. FIGUEROA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

------

Insert Flower View No.15 / 4½ x7

------

4 As a member of the North Area Neighborhood Development Council’s (NANDC) Policy Committee I had the opportunity to review their proposed Project’s Plans and found a significant differences between that proposal and the THE-FIG Project. The developers of “APMPY / First Phase Development, LLC Project” brought this forward to the Policy Committee on December 18, 2016 and it was obvious in our review that they had discussion with Planning and Building & Safety. So it is a puzzle to me why it was not included in Table iii-1 when a “Sports Museum” at 1900 S. Main Street is listed as a “Related Project.”?

------

Insert Site Section #24 4 x 6

------

The 3800 Project abuts several of the historic structures along the northeast end of the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT. Like THE-FIG it is a proposed mixed use development of seven stories (84 ft.) on Figueroa St. but it steps down in height (25 ft.) on its’ eastern side to help mitigate its’ impact to the Historic District. Their Project does not try to maximize the development envelope: 117 units allowed vs. 84 units proposed / 64 parking spaces required vs. 136 spaces proposed.

It was vetted by the Policy Committee and gained the support of the NANDC Neighborhood Council (10/05/17) providing a Mitigated Negative Declaration replaced the Planning Departments’ inadequate suggestion of a Categorical Exemption.

B. Aesthetics, Views, Light/Glare, and Shading 5 b. Cumulative Impacts (2) Views

The preparers, in spite of their myopic views had to concede that “the Project would be prominently visible, taller, and would have more perceived bulk than the existing commercial and residential structures”. They concluded however that the constructed Project would have less then significant impacts on the views of surrounding historic resources such as the Exposition Park Rose Garden, the DC-8 aircraft, the Downtown Los Angeles skyline, the California Science Center, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Zobelein Estate. They report that: “Public viewing locations or vantage points of the Project Site include public streets and sidewalks adjacent to the Project Site and in the surrounding area.”

Although they identify both 39th Street and Flower Drive as vantage points they ignore the inspiring view available from that intersection. Ironically a most telling historic aerial photograph of the location had been submitted in the 3800 S. Figueroa Project packet.

------

Insert photo Xmas tree lane

4½ x 7

------

When traveling west along 39th Street from the east of the I-110 freeway a viewer emerges from the viaduct at Flower Drive and is confronted with the striking view of the LA Memorial Coliseum dead ahead with its’ Perstyle, the Olympic-Torch, the headless statues and the historic formal landscaped entrance of Christmas Tree Lane. To the north and to the south the two flanking block faces of the Flower Drive Historic District.

6 Should you ever had been fortunate to visit Yosemite Valley National Park and exited through the highway tunnel to be surprised and overwhelmed by an immediate scenic vista of the Valley floor backed by the magnificent Half-Dome, you understand the visceral importance of revelation. The DEIR prepares should have been encouraged to actually walk out through the 39th Street viaduct and stand on the intersection of Flower Drive and 39th Street. They would see before them a very urban vista, to be sure, but also a visceral moment that is unforgettable.

The Flower Drive Historic District with its’ eleven historic structures to the north of 39th Street and the eight historic structures to the south create the welcoming arms which form a foreground frame for the unfolding Christmas Tree Lane (Valley-Floor) and LA Memorial Coliseum (Half-Dome) panorama. The power of inspirational views facilitated by revelation is an uncommon urban experience today. We have finite inspirational subjects with very few scenic view-corridors to observe them from, let alone the surprise to a first-timer passing through a viaduct.

It is a critical public view that us gone unappreciated by the preparers. The FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT is important as the foreground element in the Coliseum’s panoramic setting. This two block-long streetscape, bifurcated by 39th Street provides the last remaining cohesive residential architecture that is from the Exposition Park period of significance, which also illustrates the relationship between the Park and the University Park community. When you leave the intersection of Flower Drive and 39th Street, cross Figueroa you are in Exposition Park and on your way up Christmas Tree Lane to watch magic in the Coliseum.

The DEIR hasn’t adequately reviewed the environmental impacts to the Coliseum’s environmental setting caused from the potential loss of this significant view corridor. The preparers should therefore, along with many other failures, issue a SEIR to correct their many deficiencies.

Certainly one of the most important reasons to preserve our historic-cultural heritage is to pass it forward so others many better understand their context. The FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT is certainly the remnant remains of the once vast Zobelein subdivision. That said, the DEIR’s repetitive attempt to on one hand dismiss the Historic District because it lacks “context” as a remnant, and on the other hand, claim the remaining half-a-remnant District was still supportable is at the least, inconsistent.

The FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT must not be cut in half. It is not just the numbers of historic structures that will survive or won’t survive but their collective narrative that will surely be lost. The historic integrity of the Historic District is dependent on its combined streetscape: the uniform setback, the rhythm of the structure’s similarities and differences. Our 20th Century’s greatest tragedies to University Park are without question the creation of the I-10 and the I-110 Freeways built in the 1950’s.

This destruction and bifurcation of our community is perhaps no more clearly observed by the concrete wall of the Harbor Freeway across the street on the eastside of the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT: The grand Zobelein subdivisions of commercial and residential subdivisions wiped out by a Federal Highway Project. This wall does not deny the historic context of FLOWER DRIVE but, to the contrary, helps explain the evolutionary narrative of the development patterns of University Park.

Insert new map-page with different margins

8 Freeway created the loss of any sense of a cohesive neighborhood setting… Due to its location adjacent to the Harbor Freeway barrier wall and the demolition of numerous residential properties south of the District and on its South Figueroa boundary it became physically isolated from surrounding neighborhoods. Today, the Flower Drive District remains the last intact cluster of multi-family residences created in the once larger Zobelein Tract during the Roaring Twenties. Further, the District and its contributing elements continue to retain their original use and association as multi-family dwellings for the working and middle classes in the University District south of downtown.”

The DEIR preparers have underestimated the historic-cultural relationship between the FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT and the ZOBELEIN ESTATE HCM. The ZOBELEIN ESTATE HCM is located at 3738-3770 South Flower, which is directly across 38th Street from the north terminus of the Historic District. It is the original location of the Zobelein family home. Directly across the street are the last two cohesive historic blockfaces of the Zobelein Tract. Together they form a historic corridor into the past.

WAHA put forward the nomination of the potential California Register Flower Drive Historic District to secure that this last vestige of the Zobelein Tract would have protections under CEQA. At that time the Zobelein Estate had been declared an HCM, an honor that comes with its’ own CEQA protections. It has not been an issue in the past to make the nexus between the two designations. Such connections should however have been made during the research for the DEIR.

The DEIR however failed to make this nexus and therefore handled both historic properties as separate entities. They are not and any negative impact to part or all of the historic resources must be understood in the context of their inter-relationship.

The City and the developers would approve the demolition of almost half of a California Register listed Historic District for the construction of a vertical parking structure and an unneeded USC student housing complex. What they need to do however is place their parking underground where it belongs and take their residential vertical where it belongs thereby saving the southern half of the Historic District.

For the administrative record, the only proposed Alternative besides a “No-Project” that could be at all acceptable to the community would be “Alternative-2” since it retains the southerly half of the Historic District. I suspect that this Alternative is simply a “straw- dog” offering that will be easily disregarded. It is unfortunate that the City and developers chose not to engage in a process with meaningful Alternatives that could have encouraged healthy dialogue that might have resulted in a compromise solution. They did not, and the DEIR fails in a responsibility to CEQA and the community.

James Childs / Chair A.D.H.O.C. and WAHA coalition member 2326 Scarff Street L.A. CA. 90007 213-747-2526

9 MITZI MARCH MOGUL HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT 1725 Wellington Road Los Angeles, CA 90019 323/734-9980 [email protected]

November 21, 2017

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243 E-mail: [email protected]

Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR State Clearinghouse Number: 2016071049

Dear Ms. Zasadzien,

As an architectural historian and historic preservation consultant with 30 years in practice, I was engaged by West Adams Heritage Association to analyze the Cultural Resources Section of the DEIR for the Flower Drive HD in Los Angeles, California, and the proposed project which would affect that district, to determine whether or not the proposed project will have long-time adverse effects on the historic properties. I want to make it clear that while I have concerns about deficiencies in other topics within the DEIR, significantly Land Use and Project Alternatives, in this response letter I am concentrating on addressing the inadequacy of the Cultural Resources section with regard to the impacts on the Flower Drive Historic District.

It is not the intent of this report to build a case for the historic significance of Flower Drive; that has already been established and canonized. My role is to analyze the effects of the proposed project on the District and the arguments put forth in the DEIR and reach a conclusion or conclusions as to whether the proposed project conforms to the requisite guidelines set forth by the State of California, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or any other officially recognized body with regard to protection of historic resources and whether the DEIR correctly and fairly examines the effects of demolition of 37% of a historic district.

Before getting into the minutiae of the DEIR, I want to call attention to what may be the most important point in the entire conversation: they’ve buried the lead! The following quote comes almost at the end of Appendix C which involves Cultural Resources: Appendix C, Section 4.4 discusses Potential Projects Impacts and states unequivocally that the project would have a direct

1 impact on historical resources. “The Flower Drive Historic District is eligible for the California Register and therefore a historical resource under CEQA. Eight buildings on the Project Site are within the boundaries of the district and would be demolished as a result of the Project. Further, the district as a whole would be substantially altered. Instead of 19 buildings spread along two blocks, the district would be reduced to 11 buildings on one block. While the remaining block may still be considered eligible as a historic district, it would be greatly reduced in size. This report conservatively considers the impact on the historic district to be significantly adverse.” There is a lot of repetitive language throughout the DEIR—technical recitations, assertions, and sometimes acknowledgements. A reader must plow through all of the obfuscation in order to reach this concession to a key point.

The section of the DEIR on Historic Resources is small—only 25 pages. Of those 25, a portion is dedicated to discussing Archeological and Paleontological Resources. Instead of examining each of those topics in a linear fashion, the environmental analysis is broken up by alternating paragraphs of each topic—first Historic, then Archeological, then Paleontological. This is confusing to even the experienced reader (deliberately?). It is customary to discuss all of the issues associated with each of the topics in a contextual group rather than skipping back and forth.

The small amount of space devoted to Historic Resources is not surprising, however. The Flower Drive Historic District has been on the California State Historic Register since 2008 and came as no surprise to the developers when they purchased the property. As a practical matter, it makes no difference whether the District was formally listed or determined eligible for listing on the Register. The legalities are the same.

After considerable review, the Staff Report of the State Office of Historic Preservation recommended adopting the attached findings and to designate the Flower Drive Historic District and its seventeen contributing resources as formally determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The nomination was supported by the Los Angeles Office of Historic Preservation and the Community Redevelopment Agency.

There are several project alternatives outlined in the DEIR. All of them would have some degree of negative impact, however all but two are completely unacceptable as they would dismantle the district completely. Alternative 1 is the “no project” alternative. Clearly, something will be built 2 by someone at some time, so I believe that to argue for a “no project” alternative would be a waste of time. However, Alternative 2, which alters the design of the project to accommodate the existing historic district, is certainly within the realm of possibility. There is no reason why the project cannot be designed to do so. Had the developer chosen to do so, he would have eliminated most if not all of the opposition to the proposed project. The inference is that he wants some of every building category all rolled into one project, rather than an approach which selects one or two types without asking for entitlements at the expense of established historic resources. There is a third alternative, which was presented and discussed during a meeting with the developer and his architectural firm in 2016, which provided for preservation of Flower Drive by altering the project design. That alternative has been entirely eliminated from consideration in the DEIR.

It is impossible to impartially and legitimately analyze the conclusions reached in the DEIR without first drawing attention to what may be the most elemental aspect of the issue: the statements made that the Flower Drive Historic District was “determined eligible,” “appears eligible” and “…has not been formally listed in the California Register.” These statements are a mischaracterization of the listing process and misleading as to the actual status of the District. In fact, the DEIR preparers include in Appendix C the Staff Report from the State Office of Historic Preservation which specifically states that Flower Drive has been “formally determined eligible.” Indeed, no one would be referring to it as a District if it were not, in fact, an official District with full recognition and protection thereof. The developer and his representatives would be more than happy to declare that the structures on Flower Drive have no standing if that were the case. The fact is that the process of both State and National Register listing treats eligibility the same as full listing, with the same benefits and protections. In the case of Flower Drive, the only reason that it does not appear on the State Inventory is because a majority of property owners objected to it. That being said, the State Historic Resources Commission, at their November 7, 2008 meeting voted to reaffirm their original finding (from March of earlier that year) that Flower Drive qualified as a State Historic District and voted to designate it as such. When a preponderance of property owners object, a property may be determined as “eligible,” a “term of art” which has the same significance as “formal” listing. According to the State Office of Historic Preservation, the Flower Drive Historic District was formally listed and is part of their inventory.

3 The DEIR states that, “Generally, a lead agency must consider a property a historical resource under CEQA if it is eligible for listing…” Not generally—always; CEQA does not offer advice; it presents requirements/regulations. This paragraph is repeated verbatim under the section entitled Regulatory Framework. This appears to be an attempt to minimize the significance of listing.

The following excerpt from the Public Resources Code 4855 C, 1 and 2 outlines the procedure for Nomination and Determination of Eligibility and clarifies my comments above:

14 CCR § 4855 § 4855. State Historical Resources Commission's Public Hearing of a Nomination. After technical review by the Office, the nomination will be scheduled for a hearing by the State Historical Resources Commission. The Commission will only consider comments that relate to the criteria for listing a resource in the California Register.

(a) Public notification. At least sixty (60) days before the hearing to consider the nomination for listing, the Office shall do all of the following:

(1) Notify all affected historical resource owners that their resource has been nominated for listing; the time and place set for the hearing; and that the Commission will consider public comments related to whether the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register as well as any objections of the owner(s).

(2) Notify the local government and interested local agencies of the time and place set for the hearing and the opportunity for public comments in support of or opposition to the proposed listing.

(3) Notify the general public by means of the Commission's hearing notices of the scheduled hearing date and the opportunity to comment on the nomination.

(4) In the case of an historic district, nominated either individually or as part of a survey, the Office must make a reasonable effort to obtain the identities and addresses of all owners of resources within the proposed district. The Commission must provide notice of the hearing and

4 opportunity to comment or object to all identified owners whether or not their properties were nominated as contributing resources.

(b) Support of or objections to the nomination. The Commission shall consider public comments when it determines whether to list the historical resource in the California Register. Any person or organization, including the following, may submit supporting or opposing comments to the Office before the hearing.

(1) Resource owners. Private resource owners must make any objection to listing in a notarized letter stating that they are the sole or partial owners, that they object to the listing, and the reasons for their objection. Letters of support from private resource owners are welcomed, but not required. If a private resource owner does not reply to a properly transmitted letter of notification, the absence of a reply will be interpreted as consent to the historical resource designation.

(A) Each owner or partial owner of a privately owned individual historical resource has one vote regardless of what percentage of the resource such person owns. Within a district, each owner has one vote regardless of how many buildings, or what percentage of the area of the proposed district, such person owns.

(B) If a majority of private resource owners should object for any reason, the proposed individual resource or district will not be listed. However, in such cases, the Commission shall designate the resource as “formally determined eligible for listing in the California Register.” A resource that has been designated as eligible may be listed at a later time if, and when, the objection is withdrawn.

(2) Local government. Support of, and objections by, local government are to be given full and careful consideration. When the local government objects to the listing, the findings of the Commission shall identify the historical or cultural significance of the resource and explain why the resource was listed in the California Register over the objections of the local government.

(c) Determinations of eligibility and formal listing. A privately owned resource may not be listed in the California Register over the objection of its owner, or in the case of a resource with multiple owners, over the objection of a majority of private resource owners. A district may not 5 be listed in the California Register over the objection of a majority of private resource owners within the proposed district. If a district is listed, it will be listed in its entirety and all contributing resources will be listed, whether or not the owner of that resource has objected.

(1) If a private resource cannot be listed solely due to owner objection, the Commission shall designate the resources as “formally determined eligible for listing.”

(2) An historical resource shall be considered formally “listed in the California Register” when the Commission, upon reviewing the nomination, designates the resource as eligible for listing and accepts it for official listing in the California Register.

(3) The Commission shall adopt written findings to support its determinations. Findings shall include a description of the historical resources and the historical or cultural significance of the resources and identification of those criteria on which any determination was based.

The authors of the DEIR are well aware of the listing process and understand the distinctions between eligibility and listing and they know full well that the only reason there is not an inventory listing is due to the opposition of a few property owners within the District. Regardless, the State Office treats the Flower Drive Historic District as it does any other and the purpose of the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR is not to determine whether or not there is any layer of historic protection for it or whether or not it merits protection. The DEIR states that its “purpose…is to identify historic resources that may be affected.” In fact, Historic Resources have already been identified. They were confirmed in a series of public hearings which are part of an established process. The purpose of the DEIR is to fairly analyze what the impacts would be if the proposed project were to take precedence over and eliminate a State Historic District.

During a series of meetings last year, a representative of the developer stated that even if a large number of the structures in the District were to be demolished, that Flower Drive would continue to exist as a Historic District, albeit in smaller form. That individual was asked if he (or any representative of the project) had discussed such an alteration with the State Office of Historic Preservation and had proof of such a concession. The response was that they had not. Indeed, even if they had made such a request for a pre-determination, the State Office would not have rendered an opinion one way or the other. The State Office does not sanction requests over the telephone and a written review or consent could only be done after an action has been taken; they 6 do not respond to theoretical situations or conditions. There is no letter in the file at the State Office of Historic Preservation either requesting a determination of continued viability of the District or one granting such a determination. Therefore, any assurance given verbally or in writing by the developer or his representatives with regard to continued accreditation of the District is completely without merit and must be disregarded from any consideration of the issues surrounding the DEIR. The statements in the DEIR which reference a smaller “District” are misleading, because there is no evidence—and certainly no guarantee—that the Flower Drive Historic District would, in a truncated form, continue to be a California Register District. This is a form of “Russian Roulette” as there is no way to anticipate the response of the State Office to demolition until after it were to happen.

West Adams Heritage Association nominated Flower Drive to the State Historic Register in 2008. The nomination was prepared by Peter Moruzzi. It was heard by the State Historic Resources Commission in March of that year during their quarterly meeting, held in Santa Barbara, California. Along with Mr. Moruzzi and then WAHA President Jim Robinson, I attended that meeting and spoke in favor of the nomination. After considerable deliberation, the Commission decided in favor of designating the Flower Drive Historic District.

The decision was appealed by a property owner, supported by officials of the University of Southern California. The question of whether the Commission would hear a “Request for Redetermination” (appeal) was scheduled for November 7, 2008, again on the agenda of the Commission’s quarterly meeting. In other words, the way the notice was presented was that the Commission would hold a hearing to decide whether or not to hear an appeal on the designation, not necessarily that the appeal would be heard that day.

Representing WAHA, I attended that meeting as well, held in Sacramento, California. As the agenda item was called, each of the commissioners leaned in to their microphones and stated, “For the record, I was contacted by phone by Mr. Rusty Areias in regard to this item.” Mr. Areias is a former member of the California State Assembly, followed by his position of Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. He then became—and at the time of the State Historic Resources Commission was—a principal at California Strategies, a public affairs and lobbying firm. It was clear that Mr. Areias had attempted to influence the Commissioners with regard to Flower Drive and that they were stating the contact in order to protect their

7 integrity. In 2013 Areias and two other employees of California Strategies were fined for seeking to influence state government decisions without registering as lobbyists.

A lengthy hearing commenced with regard to the question of reconsideration, with Mr. Areias and I each being given twenty minutes to speak and then another twenty minutes each for rebuttal. The commissioners decided that they would, in fact, entertain the appeal—immediately, without advance notice. Another lengthy session followed, with Mr. Areias and I again each being given twenty minutes to speak and then another twenty minutes each for rebuttal. Mr. Areias, obviously prepared for the appeal to be heard that day, had brought a number of visual aids to help bolster his position. I had no visual aids, only my verbal presentation. After all public testimony had been taken, the commissioners began their deliberations. Everyone in the audience assumed that Mr. Areias would carry the day due to his political influence, name recognition, and funding. However, in a stunning upset, the Commissioners voted in favor (six to two) to validate their original finding that Flower Drive did meet the qualifications to be designated as a Historic District.

This back-story is included in this document in order to make absolutely clear that every process was followed to its ultimate conclusion and that despite efforts to denigrate Flower Drive and prevent its designation, the fact that it met or exceeded every standard and qualification for listing was obvious. There can be no dispute over the integrity of the architecture and its eligibility for inclusion on the historic register. This should have been obvious also to the developers of the proposed project and indeed, they were notified by their own attorney as well as the community. They had every opportunity to alter their plans to accommodate the District and avoid the lengthy process now playing out via the DEIR.

The developer, via the DEIR document, is advocating to demolish 37% of the Flower Drive Historic District. The argument being made by the developer and DEIR is that the loss of more than one third of the District will not completely destroy the District, but only diminish its size is specious and certainly insulting to all of the professionals and experts who were involved in its nomination and designation. While insult is not punishable by legal statute, nor is moral imperative, the protection of existing laws, ordinances, and other established legislation should take precedence over a private business development. There is no overriding factor in this situation which would support demolition of a large portion of the District. The developer has

8 had and continues to have viable alternatives to the project as currently proposed. It is the developer who insists on “his way or the highway”—an all or nothing proposition.

One of the fundamental sections of The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the evaluation of Cumulative Effects. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "Cumulative impacts" refers to “two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts, Mar 24, 2016) The demolition of even one historic structure can have adverse effects; the cumulative impact of losing eight buildings—37% of the district—would have a disastrous effect. The district was awarded historic status on the basis of being a collection which represents an architectural type, indicative of an era. The argument which was put forth by those in opposition to the historic designation was that it was surrounded by modern constructions and that when exiting the buildings, one would see the adjacent freeway wall. However, the response to that argument—and the one which prevailed—was that what mattered was not what someone would see upon exiting, but rather what one saw looking at the streetscape of the buildings themselves—the view corridor. The buildings provide their own context; what surrounds them is secondary.

The Executive Summary, pg 1-30 states, “Although the Project would remove eight existing buildings from the Project site that are within the boundaries of the Flower Drive Historic District, which would reduce the size of the Historic District and potentially alter its integrity or eligibility as a historic resource, Related Project Nos. 15 and 21 would not affect any buildings in the Historic District. Thus, while the Project would impact the Historic District, cumulative impacts would not occur. As such, cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics would be less than significant.” This is either a misunderstanding of the meaning of cumulative effects or a deliberate effort to mislead readers of the DEIR. Related projects 15 and 21 have nothing whatever to do with the proposed project. One is a planned remodel of the African-American History Museum and the other is the soccer stadium which is replacing the Sports Arena. While at-large projects can have an impact on specific historic resources, cumulative effects must first and foremost be evaluated in relation to the project that is immediately affecting them. In this case, the effects of the proposed multi-use project at the center of the DEIR are what must be considered first.

9 The DEIR states, “The Historic District is comprised of a geographically isolated grouping of 1920’s multi-family residences that were erected in response to growing population pressures in the University district during that time period.” In fact, all housing is erected in response to growing population pressures, whether it was built in 1895 or 1985. That this particular group may now be seen as “geographically isolated” is in no way the fault of the District, but rather that the surrounding neighborhood has been incrementally dismantled by voracious developers such as the current ones associated with this project. In any case, despite the DEIR statement that the District has not retained its setting and integrity, even they “admit” that the California State Historic Resources Commission, in designating Flower Drive as a Historic District, has decided that those two categories are irrelevant in this case.

Even without taking into account the changes to the surrounding area which have already isolated Flower Drive, the loss of such a significant portion of a historic district would alter its integrity. The district’s ability to tell its “story” would be truncated. It would not be able to convey the character and atmosphere of its original time and place. Like a group of paintings by various artists, but all done in a particular style, the Flower Drive Historic District represents and communicates a narrative about a type of residential architecture which created a neighborhood. Cumulative effects are insidious. The DEIR would have us believe that the loss of more than a third of the buildings would be alright because two thirds would remain. What percentage point is too much? When we discuss the loss of resources within a district, it is important to remember that each structure relies on the others to form a critical mass. The story is collective, so each loss is compounded, making the net result worse than the individual loss.

Other nearby historic resources, such as those found in Exposition Park, will co-exist with new projects like the planned LucasFilm Museum of Narrative Art, and there is no reason why the Flower Drive Historic District cannot also continue to be part of a community newly reconfigured by the proposed project.

Again, we are talking about the loss of more than one third of a Historic District.

CEQA Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5(b)(1) states “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” 10

Nominating anything to the Historic Registers (local, State, or National) is a formidable and arduous process. The nominated resource must meet a high bar in order to even make it on to the official agenda of any given agency. Why have processes of historic designations if they can be summarily dismissed by a private developer for financial gain. Historic designations exist for the benefit of society, a tangible remnant of the past and an acknowledgement of the importance of history in managing the future. A private development, while a hallmark of capitalism and a necessary instrument, can, in fact, be designed to accommodate historic fabric. As Los Angeles (indeed all western civilization) becomes increasingly crowded and pressure is put on all types of development, it is incumbent upon everyone to tread carefully with each and every decision. Demolition is not a retroactive process. Particularly with regard to a historic resource, a cavalier attitude cannot be tolerated. At some point we must consider the cumulative impacts not just on Flower Drive as an individual resource, but on the historic built environment as a collective whole. One can only wonder what the reaction would be if the Greek government decided to allow demolition of a portion of the Acropolis to financially benefit a private business concern.

The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR do nothing to mitigate (to make something less harmful, unpleasant, or bad—Cambridge English Dictionary) the loss of the historic buildings.

The DEIR concedes that the District “retains a high degree of integrity” and that the proposed project would have a “significant and unavoidable impact” on the District. The DEIR acknowledges that the CEQA Threshold Guide favors the District. There is no way to mitigate the adverse impact on the district except to alter the proposed project to accommodate the existence of the District.

A HABS record is not a mitigation measure as it would not alleviate or temper any impacts, but would only be a record of what used to exist. Salvage of materials is merely environmental monopoly. Relocation is a last resort and generally frowned upon as a manipulation of history. Sometimes it is the only way to preserve a significant structure. The DEIR seems to suggest that the developer be required to relocate three of the structures, however in this situation, moving any of these four-plexes would not only be a difficult and monumentally costly operation, but unless they were relocated into a neighborhood of similar architecture and era, they would be meaningless. In a historic district, each resource is dependent upon the others for their context. There is no question that the houses on Flower Drive would not qualify individually for 11 monument status, but taken as a whole group, they represent and reflect an important aspect of our cultural, economic, and social history. Regarding relocation of additional structures as a mitigation, the recommendation is that any third party be financially responsible and require that said relocation be no sooner than 90 days prior to construction. Permits and plans take longer than 90 days so that requirement is only a way of discouraging such actions.

Appendix C, Section 4.6 (Conclusion, paragraph 2) states that: “Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1-3 would not reduce the direct impact on the historical resource to a less than significant level, but are recommended none the less to document the history of the district for the sake of posterity. While relocation of some of the contributors would be meaningful mitigation it does not avoid the significant adverse impact to the district. The only way of reducing the impact on the historical resource would be to redesign the Project to preserve the contributing buildings the feasibility of which is addressed in the EIR.” Use of the term EIR rather than DEIR is probably a typographical error, but in any case, such feasibility is not discussed in the DEIR and while the “sake of posterity” comment is dismissive of the actual purpose of mitigation, the rest of the statement is true: The only way of reducing the impact on the historical resource would be to redesign the Project to preserve the contributing buildings. The foregoing statement appears many times throughout the DEIR.

There are empirical truths in this discussion. 1. Flower Drive is an established historic district of the State of California. 2. The proposed project can be built using an alternative which would respect the pre-existence of the historic district. 3. The California Environmental Quality Act sets forth regulations which protect historic buildings and districts. Any attempt to bypass these facts is nothing more than rationalization to promote private financial interests. The DEIR is a document which employs disingenuous language in order to distract from the nature of both the historic district and the proposed project in an attempt to rationalize a business position.

A lot of space is occupied in the DEIR explaining listing criteria, integrity, context, historic districts. This is moot information as a panel of experts representing the State of California long ago concluded that Flower Drive meets the criteria; the purpose of the DEIR is not to argue for or against listing, but to analyze impacts. No matter how hard the authors try to obfuscate the facts, even they cannot avoid the conclusion that, “The only way of reducing the impact on the historical resource would be to redesign the Project…” This is stated repeatedly throughout the DEIR. So, we actually agree on that point! The question is: what are the Los Angeles Planning 12 Department and the developer going to do about it? Will they manipulate the facts and twist them like a pretzel in order to produce the results desired by the developer?

In a series of meetings held last year at the offices of the project architect, a number of alternatives were presented. A review of the effects of each one forced a difficult decision from the community as they struggled to find common ground and reach a compromise with the developer. The alternative accepted by the community would have given the developer perhaps 98% of what he was asking for while preserving the Flower Drive District. It was not an ideal solution but was pragmatic. The DEIR has dismissed any real preservation alternatives as the developer continues his campaign to seek an “all or nothing” result. The DEIR refers throughout to “unavoidable” impacts, which is deceptive as most, if not all, of the impacts of this project are design flaws and therefore avoidable.

Developers are frequently fond of accusing preservationists of being obstructionists to development and progress, and blame them for the high cost of the CEQA process. In this case, it is the other way around. The developer could redesign the project to leave the Flower Drive Historic District intact, save himself the time and money of the DEIR/EIR process, save community members the time and difficulty of DEIR/EIR responses (for which they receive no remuneration), and proceed with his development. He has chosen not to. The Flower Drive Historic District, which has managed to survive for more than 90 years, must be given deference and allowed to endure, not out of sentimentality, but because its significance has been legally substantiated and validated.

Sincerely, Mitzi March Mogul Mitzi March Mogul

N. U. P. C. A. NORTH UNIVERSITY PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

November 27, 2017

Milena Zasadzien City Planner, Environmental Section/Major Projects Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 351 Van Nuys, CA 91401

RE: DEIR, The Fig Project, ENV-2016-1892-EIR (Flower Drive Historic District Proposed Demolition and Construction of new Hotel, Housing and Parking Structure)

Dear Ms. Zasadzien:

I am writing on behalf of the North University Park Community Association (N.U.P.C.A.) and as a part of the West Adams Heritage Coalition.

N.U.P.C.A. is a 36-year-old historic preservation association that has provided during these decades the principle stewardship in insuring that the appropriate level of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the historic inventory of North University Park be applied. N.U.P.C.A. has not only been involved in community preservation advocacy for 36 years, but since the early 1980s N.U.P.C.A. has also served in an advisory capacity on the Community Advisory Committee (known as a “PAC” and later a “CAC”) to the Community Redevelopment Agency’s Exposition Park-University Park Project Area (former Hoover). I personally held that position beginning in 1989 through the cessation of the Agency’s Project Area meetings, and from that vantage point I/we have previously dealt with these particular properties’ and discussions about their futures.

Thank you for the further opportunity to comment on the proposed “The Fig Project” and the related proposed demolition of the 3900 block of South Flower Drive (which constitutes about half of the Flower Drive California Register Historic District). However, I must start out by saying I am extremely disappointed and frankly flabbergasted that you and Planning Department staff seemingly ignored and did not incorporate into the DEIR scope the previous NOP comments made by me and others regarding items we felt important (and technically required) to explore in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). To wit: the original deficient notice/project description, still utilized in the DEIR; the improper description of the actual status of the Flower Drive Historic District, also still utilized in the DEIR; the actual requirements related to Los Angeles being a Certified Local Government (CLG); requirements related to the still-in-effect redevelopment plan (a type of specific plan overlay), which were given short-shrift in the DEIR; and a proper evaluation of feasible preservation alternatives, among other concerns. 1

When you and I spoke in October, you acknowledged that the description of the Flower Drive District status was incorrect. But rather than agreeing to correct it now and recirculate the DEIR, you stated that staff had decided it could be corrected in the Final EIR.

However, in reviewing previous NOP comments by me, the Los Angeles Conservancy, and others, it is clear that you were already informed as to the correct information (actions taken by SHPO and the State Commission).

This leads to a very harsh comment by me now: So either you didn’t actually read or chose to purposefully ignore the NOP comments (thus making a mockery of the NOP process), or it would seem there is a whiff of collusion between staff and the project applicants as the latter try to “PR spin” the situation to make it appear as if Flower Drive is not a designated historic resource, and thus for purposes of this review its nearly-half removal/demolition is unimportant when compared to the resulting project.

My initial NOP comments are appended to this letter at its end.

Today I am primarily commenting on the Land Use Chapter of the DEIR, IV.G.

GENERAL COMMENTS In the most general terms, this DEIR (and any DEIR) should be outlining environmental issues so that the final decision-makers (in this case, both the Los Angeles City Council and then the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles) are able to understand all of the “competing environmental challenges” before coming to a final determination about the proposed project. And yet, throughout the DEIR for The Fig Project, the authors are relatively dismissive of those land use policies, goals and objectives (both City of Los Angeles and in the Redevelopment Plan) that would argue against this project as currently proposed, while highlighting other policies, goals and objectives that favor the project both as it is proposed and, frankly, as it could be envisioned if real alternatives had been explored.

Still addressing the broad brushstrokes, the DEIR fails to balance its analysis of land use policies regarding historic preservation, retention of affordable housing, and the conservation of multi- family neighborhoods versus other land use policies regarding transit-oriented mixed use projects.

It is the balancing act itself that becomes important in the end, when the actual decision-makers must act. The DEIR should have taken a fair approach and made more clear what is being lost/unavoidable significant environmental impacts versus elements which do not have an impact if the project proceeds as currently proposed. I noted throughout the comparison charts (policies/objectives/goals) that the DEIR authors declared items “consistent” when they were not and the DEIR did not present any sort of, let’s call it a “balance sheet,” where someone could objectively compare the plusses and minuses.

2 CONSISTENCY The DEIR authors state that “The intent of the compatibility analysis is to determine whether the Project would be compatible with surrounding uses” (page IV.G-20), but then goes on to primarily compare and evaluate the project in relation to Exposition Park across the street, and its impact on Figueroa itself, without much or any consideration of its compatibility with what would be the remaining portion of the Flower Drive Historic District, north of 39th Street.

And, the DEIR claims that, overall, The Fig Project is “consistent” with the City’s land use plans and regulations. I disagree.

Although it is true that (page IV.G-20) that a project need not be perfectly in every way consistent with every policy in an applicable land use plan, there is an important caveat even in that discussion, namely the reference to “not preclude the attainment of its primary goals.” That modifying definition also means that a project could and should be adjusted so long as the adjustment doesn’t preclude attaining the goals. There is nothing in the stated Project Goals (page II-7 and I am sure elsewhere in the DEIR) which preclude the alternatives that have been discussed with the Applicant team, including but not limited to: underground parking; taller buildings and one fewer structure; and the creation of an internal driveway/roadway servicing the hotel component on 39th Street behind the (in this alternative proposal) retained Flower Drive multi-family buildings.

I have heard comments (from staff, and from Applicant team members) that they didn’t “want to” have parking accessed from Figueroa (yet now it is); and that the team behind the new soccer complex “objected” to this project having tall buildings for fear that building or buildings would somehow block the view of the stadium from the 110 Freeway. Neither of these things actually relates to the DEIR’s stated project goals. I also note that staff itself said the buildings should be only seven stories so they would be “compatible” with the Community Plan even though the demolition of the eight structures on Flower Drive which necessarily follows the shortening of the buildings is certainly not compatible with the Community Plan or other land use plans and regulations.

NEW SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY PLAN The DEIR notes that the Department of City Planning is “in the process” of updating the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan but then fails to evaluate The Fig Project’s consistency or compatibility with it. The Los Angeles City Council adopted the updated Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan on November 22, 2017. The City Attorney is now preparing the final ordinance. The DEIR does note in a footnote (No. 4 on page IV.G-6) that “a portion” of the subject site representing the Flower Drive Historic District has a zone change from C2-1L to RD1.5-1. But the DEIR never mentions this again.

I do not propose to do the work of the DEIR authors. However, no doubt the reason there is a zone change is to protect the Flower Drive Historic District and conserve the neighborhood. Clearly The Fig Project at this point and as proposed is in conflict with those goals which are symbolically expressed by that change in zoning. And of course a proposed zone change from

3 C2-1L to (T)(Q)C2-2D is quite different than a zone change from RD1.5 to C2-2D. The question this DEIR does not answer is: How is it different?

A key initiative in the updated Community Plan is that now buildings as tall as 15 stories may be allowed in some instances within half a mile of a major transit point (e.g. the Expo Line station at Fig/Flower and Exposition).

Since the Planning Commission had adopted the updated version of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan many months before the DEIR was released in October 2017, the DEIR should have analyzed The Fig Project in terms of both the old Community Plan (last updated 16 years ago) and the new Plan, which has been now adopted and in fact is likely to be in effect before the final EIR is certified.

VESTING ZONE CHANGE & TRACT MAP Presumably the rationale for not considering the updated Community Plan and several newly- implemented ordinances is that one of the categories of sought-after entitlements is “vesting” zone and tract maps. But the approval of a vesting is in itself discretionary.

Here’s the issue: The Project Applicant team met with me and about a dozen other interested parties twice in November, 2016 to discuss alternatives to the project that was in the application package deemed accepted by the City several months earlier. That submitted project and the one we were reviewing in November 2016 was not the identical project now described in the current DEIR. I do not have a problem with that; indeed I prefer to continue a fair exploration of alternatives that would retain the Flower Drive Historic District and the neighborhood that 32 families call home. HOWEVER, a vesting application must be complete and is not to change. This project has changed, significantly, from the original submission. My opinion is that the vesting cannot be approved because the project has been altered (specifically it no longer includes a 21-story, full service hotel and instead is proposing a seven-story, no-amenity hotel and extended stay guest rooms). There is no discussion of the ramifications of a vesting zone change (e.g., applicant no doubt does not wish to be subject to the requirements of the voter- approved Proposition JJJ and resultant TOC ordinance) approval versus disapproval within the DEIR.

GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORK Here I will simply walk through the charts presented in the DEIR Land Use chapter.

On page IV.G-29, Framework Objective 3.1, the DEIR states the project is consistent with the objective to “accommodate a diversity of uses that support the needs of the City’s existing and future residents…” Excuse me, but this project does not accommodate the residents who will lose their 32 homes. These working class families will not be accommodate in this new development.

Page IV.G-31, regarding Framework Policy 3.2.4, “Provide for the siting and design of new development that maintains the prevailing scale and character of the City’s stable neighborhoods…” The DEIR makes the common mistake of equating the zoning for the character of a neighborhood. Zoning is not character, so the fact that the zoning on Figueroa

4 happens to be commercial has nothing to do with a policy that addresses scale, design, and character. The correct answer for this particular Policy 3.2.4 is that The Fig Project is inconsistent insofar as it is currently proposed it places a domineering, eight-story and massive parking structure adjacent to the remaining portion of the Flower Drive Historic District. The project is asking city officials to waive transitional height rules. And the remaining residents of Flower Drive will basically be presented with the rear side of a development that is not designed around the prevailing scale and character of their neighborhood.

Yes, we can agree that the scale is compatible with the larger uses found in Exposition Park across the way. But I do not believe this is what the policy makers on the citywide Framework Element had in mind when they wrote Policy 3.2.4.

There’s a late night talk show host whose popular tag line is “Really?” On page IV.G-33, relative to Policy 3.4.1 and Objective 3.7 – Really? “Conserve existing stable residential neighborhoods” and “provide for the stability and enhancement of multi-family neighborhoods” by demolishing half of the Flower Drive Historic District neighborhood, and the DEIR states that this is consistent with these two elements? Again, really? Do the authors not realize that real people live in this neighborhood and they will not only lose their homes, but the loss of this half of the neighborhood destabilizes the other half.

Ditto Objective 3.18 (page IV.G-37), the DEIR’s assertion that the project is consistent with the objective to “provide for the stability and enhancement of multi-family residential…areas” is patently false. This project will be a destabilizing influence on the portions of the neighborhood that remains behind.

In its further analysis of how the project would, in the authors’ view, “maintain the prevailing scale and character of the City’s stable residential neighborhoods” (page IV.G-46), the DEIR again states that the project is consistent because it would be compatible to the “surrounding” uses across a wide boulevard and thence deeper into Exposition Park, without even a mention of the compatibility (or lack thereof) with the remaining portion of the Flower Drive district neighborhood.

LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN CONSERVATION ELEMENT On page IV.G-51 – Oh, come on. The DEIR says that despite the proposed demolition of the Flower Drive Historic District, the project is otherwise consistent with the Conservation Element. Do you mean because there are no tribal burial grounds or the last survivor of an animal or insect species (that we know of) here?

The Fig Project is completely, utterly, absolutely inconsistent with the City’s Conservation Element inasmuch as it proposes the unprecedented action of demolishing nearly one half of an entire California Register Historic District. With the geographic boundaries of a Certified Local Government whose “job” requirement is to assure these things do not happen on its watch. There is simply no justification for this DEIR to state that the project is at all consistent with the City’s Conservation Element.

5 HOUSING ELEMENT Even though the project offers 20 percent affordable units, it is targeting moderate income (80 percent of API) and does not appear to be setting aside 5% for very low as required by Measure JJJ and the TOC ordinance. In addition Applicants are requesting relief from the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, without explaining why.

On page IV.G-53, Housing Element Objective 1.2, it is not correct that The Fig Project helps to “preserve quality rental and ownership housing for households of all income levels and special needs.” The project demolishes 32 units of affordable housing. The project has no provisions for special needs housing. It is not consistent with either aspect of this Objective.

On page IV.G-55, Objective 2.4: the project is NOT consistent with the objective to “promote livable neighborhoods with a mix of housing type, quality design and a scale and character that respects unique residential neighborhoods in the City.” The project DISRESPECTS the Flower Drive neighborhood. Same comment relative to Policy 2.4.1 on the next page. The DEIR is incorrect when it says the project is consistent with these elements.

ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVE AREAS The DEIR does not analyze the consistency of the project with this specific plan, since, according to the DEIR (page IV.G-15) the project would not involve the conversion of any existing buildings into residential, live/work or hotel-related uses. But that is only because of the project applicants’ steadfast refusal to fairly consider alternatives to the demolition of nearly half of the Flower Drive Historic District. Conversely, if the eight buildings were retained and incorporated into The Fig Project’s design and program (if not to retain as affordable housing, then perhaps as live/work spaces, creative offices or even the extended stay spaces now envisioned as a part of the hotel component), the Adaptive Reuse specific plan could apply and therefore should be evaluated within the EIR.

FIGUEROA CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND FOOTNOTE 14 On page IV.G-71, the DEIR authors write that The Fig Project is “subject to” Community Plan Footnote 14. Not exactly. No developer is required to seek a zone and height district change nor an increase in FAR. Although it is clear that the City’s priorities have to some extent changed since the adoption of the GPA and footnote, it is also clear that its purpose was to facilitate mixed-used student housing alternatives (to development within nearby stable/character residential neighborhoods); its stated purpose was not to facilitate the construction of hotels nor to hasten the demolition of a historic district nor the demolition of a stable character neighborhood (that is, the Flower Drive district).

Indeed, even though it is true that Flower Drive is included on the GPA map, the actual action was to: “adopt a General Plan Amendment ….for mixed use projects on Figueroa Street and the west side of Flower Street from the Santa Monica Freeway on the north to Martin Luther King Boulevard on the south, subject to limitations” and with no mention of “Flower Drive.” Flower Street is not the same street as Flower Drive.

6 In any case, it is important to note that the Community Redevelopment Agency (now CRA/LA, the Successor Agency) did not adopt the Figueroa Corridor General Plan Amendment. Indeed, former Agency project manager for the Hoover/Exposition/University Park Project Area, Oscar Jauregui, testified at the Planning Commission during the hearing for the GPA, stating specifically that the Agency Board had voted not to adopt the changes, and that the CRA would instead continue to evaluate each project on its stand-alone merits. Furthermore, the Redevelopment Plan, he said, does not allow by right the construction of housing units within commercial zones, and each such proposal would be required to seek a “Variation” (similar to a variance) to the Plan. This is a much higher level approval than what is described in the DEIR as being a potential “Owner Participation Agreement” and other “approvals as may be required.”

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF LOS ANGELES EXPOSITION/UNIVERSITY PARK REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The Fig Project is inconsistent and incompatible with many CRA policies and objectives, yet the DEIR states otherwise.

On page IV.G-75, this project, contrary to the DEIR’s assertion, is not consistent with the goal “to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight…and to conserve, rehabilitate and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan.” Notably, The Fig Project’s applicants have not include all of the adjacent blighted parking lots in this proposed development/redevelopment of the Figueroa portion of the site, even though applicants do control those sites through ownership agreements.

The project does not “conserve” nor “rehabilitate” the current 32 units of housing for the same number of households/families. The Fig Project does not present a redevelopment project that is in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan because it demolishes and/or removes nearly half of the Flower Drive Historic District. Given that the proposed project is mixed use, and this use is not permitted by right within this Redevelopment Plan, the DEIR should not say it is consistent with it.

More troubling is the DEIR’s evaluation that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan’s goal “to promote compatible development, with consideration to scale, height, material, architectural quality, and site orientation” (IV.G-77). As proposed, The Fig Project would not have any consideration as to scale in relationship to the adjacent remnant portion of the Flower Drive Historic District. It would have an eight-story parking structure (the tallest structure in the complex) as a replacement for the prior continuation of the Flower Drive streetscape; this massive structure (seemingly not included in the FAR calculations) appears to not have a setback on Flower Drive, thus interrupting further the integrity of the Flower Drive District.

Applicants have also asked for a waiver of transitional height regulations (noting that Flower Drive has now been approved for an RD1.5 zoning designation). The fact that The Fig Project improves the pedestrian streetscape environment along Figueroa and potentially creates a “more cohesive” street environment there and across from Exposition Park does not mean it is a compatible development in relationship to Flower Drive.

7 On page IV.G-78, the DEIR appropriately indicates that The Fig Project is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan’s goal “to encourage the preservation of historic monuments, landmarks, and buildings, particularly those affected by new development which is subject to an owner participation or disposition and development agreement.” But the DEIR fails to describe the consequence for such inconsistency. Here it is: In order to make a Determination that a Variation from the Redevelopment Plan is permissible, the Agency Board must first make a finding that “Permitting a variation will not be contrary to the objectives of the Plan.” Furthermore, “In permitting such variation, the Agency shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare, and to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of this Plan.” Noting, again, that among the Redevelopment Plan Goals are objectives to “encourage the retention of existing residences,” “to encourage the preservation of historical monuments, landmarks and buildings,” and “to promote compatible development.”

In addition, the Agency may but is not required to authorize residential density bonuses, but in order to do so shall make a finding that the project would “Contribute to a desirable residential environment, neighborhood stability, and not adversely impact the neighboring environment.” Arguably, the demolition of the southerly portion of the Flower Drive Historic District would not increase neighborhood stability for the remaining northern portion of the neighborhood.

The Fig Project applicants have the opportunity to create a project that retains and potentially creates a new, lively neighborhood that respects the existing historic structures and the families who live in them. It is important for the decision-makers of today to understand that the staff of the Community Redevelopment Agency knew full well that creating a project at this site would be challenging; we discussed it many times and specifically discussed the possibility of changing Flower Drive to be a green space/plaza community without vehicular traffic, with parking provided in a joint/shared use structure or structures flanking the District and serving new mixed use developments along the Figueroa Corridor. Absent similar creative thinking, The Fig Project has become the square peg in the Redevelopment Plan’s round hole, and is inconsistent with the Plan.

CURRENT SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY PLAN In the evaluation table on page IV.G-59, no, the project is NOT consistent with Policy 1-1.2. It does not “protect existing single family and low density residential neighborhoods from encroachment” since it proposes demolishing half of an entire neighborhood.

Although we are now clearly being repetitive, the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan also calls out (Policy 1-4.1) the goal to “protect and encourage reuse of the area’s historic resources (page IV.G-63), and the DEIR rightly notes the project is inconsistent. I just wanted to point out that this land use policy of protecting historic resources repeats throughout all of the pertinent land use plans relative to this site, and the project should have thus placed more importance on a fair evaluation of alternatives that would preserve and protect designated historic resources.

Page IV.G-64, the DEIR should not claim that the project is consistent with a policy (Policy 1- 5.2) that expects to “ensure that new housing opportunities minimize the displacement of the residents.” There is nothing in this project’s description that would give the 32 current

8 households new housing within this development, thus there are 32 households being displaced. No two ways around that fact. It is not consistent.

PRIOR REMARKS DURING THE NOP PROCESS Following is a repeat of my prior remarks, covering the project description, the Redevelopment Plan, cumulative impacts, and the City of Los Angeles’s role and obligations as a Certified Local Government (in different typeface and italics):

First, I would like to point out that the Notice itself is deficient/defective, and as a result you should recirculate the Notice for the general public, re-notice interested parties, and extend the comment period. The Notice in its Project Description fails to mention that the proposed “demolition” actually involves historic resources, namely contributors to the Flower Drive California Register Historic District (it only mentions demolition in the context of “multi-family housing”). Although those of us who are already knowledgeable of the facts immediately understood that that would mean the loss of a designated historic resource, other parties in seeing that project description could easily have decided to not read deep into the remainder of the Notice, thus never learning of the true impact being proposed, e.g. the loss of half of a Historic District.

Moreover, the Notice is peppered with references to “Flower Street.” The proposed Project is on Flower Drive, not on the nearby Flower Street.

My additional comments here are brief.

1). As discussed with you and also the Applicant’s representatives at the Scoping Open House, it is not only imperative to retain the entire Flower Drive District, it is also feasible if everyone thinks “outside the box” and considers a different site plan that incorporates these structures – a site plan that may include taller multi-family housing structures with a corresponding smaller footprint, incorporating the adjacent vacant (blighted) surface parking lot(s) to the south but controlled by the same underlying ownership and/or a potential partial or full street vacation of Flower Drive in order to incorporate all of the elements stated by Applicants as their desired Project while retaining the historic resources.

2). This proposed Project lies within the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Project Area, which remains a governing “specific plan” type land use overlay. The Project conflicts with multiple goals and elements of the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan also requires the preservation of historic resources with “special consideration.” It also includes the requirement that any project not leave blight in its wake (e.g., the retention rather than the elimination of the blighted surface parking on the southerly parcels of the block does not meet redevelopment goals).

Please do not respond that it is not the same ownership! Essentially there have been two primary family ownerships of the multiple parcels from 3800 Flower Drive all the way to the southern tip of the 3900 block for several decades, and in recent years that ownership was consolidated in one

9 of those family’s holdings. The underlying ownership group has been attempting to sell both block faces from at least 2007 onward; we dealt with several potential development proposals at the CRA PAC/CAC over the years and I personally have walked the site with multiple potential developers over the years. All potential developers have been consistently informed that any Project would need to retain historic resources and eradicate blight.

3). Applicant’s representatives at the Scoping Open House made economic arguments, namely that it would be “too expensive” to build the housing structures taller (although Applicant is already proposing a 21-story hotel) and implied it would also be too expensive to expand the proposed Project to include the blighted surface parking areas because they have “long term leases.” Notably they did not argue that they could not have control over these parcels, but rather that they are encumbered with leases that do not benefit the community. A DEIR should not consider such economic arguments when evaluating superior environmental alternatives.

4). I found it really inappropriate that staff appeared very “chummy” with the outside environmental consultants, combined with Applicant’s representatives repeated statements that they would be happy to consider any alternatives, “just know that they will then reject them.” And that they would be going to “PLUM” to ask that the City Council speed up the transfer of the redevelopment plan jurisdiction to the Los Angeles City Planning Department so that they would not need to deal with redevelopment plan issues. I understand that staff did not say these words. But it is still inappropriate and arguably taints a (quasi) independent environmental evaluation that is designed to provide decision-makers with proper decision-making information.

5). Given that this is the second officially-submitted proposal within a short stretch of time that would demolish a part of the Flower Drive District (and given that we have dealt with other development proposals for this large site), and given the spate of recent demolitions and one removal of a historic resource (to another site) within what historically was known as The University District (which included the subject Project site), the DEIR does need to address cumulative impacts.

6). I would also like to point out that the prior NOP on the prior proposed demolition of a portion of the Flower Drive Historic District also did not put in the Notice that it was a California Historic District. Is there a reason why the Department of City Planning’s Major Projects/Environmental Review Section is purposely trying to keep that information out of the public eye?

7). Last but certainly not least: The City of Los Angeles is a “Certified Local Government,” which confers benefits BUT requires that it, specifically meaning the Planning Department, exercise certain responsibilities. Authorizing the demolition of a California Register Historic District runs (or demolition of half a District) completely runs counter to those responsibilities.

According to the California State Office of Historic Preservation’s online description of Certified Local Governments’ responsibilities, “CLGs’ must comply with five basic requirements:

10  Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and protection of historic properties;  Establish an historic preservation review commission by local ordinance;  Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;  Provide for public participation in the local preservation program; and  Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.

One of those responsibilities is the protection of historic resources under CEQA. A Certified Local Government may be de-certified if “the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities.” Allowing this Project to go forward as proposed would be grounds, in my opinion, for a de-certification (with the associated ramifications that the City of Los Angeles would no longer be eligible to apply for certain grant monies -- monies it has been utilizing for at least the past five years). Staff should exercise its CLG responsibilities and authority and require that the Project Applicant re-design the site plan in such a manner as it would protect the Flower Drive Historic District before staff deems the application “complete” and begins processing it.

In sum, the Project as presently proposed, while it certainly could become an economic catalyst for the immediate Expo Park neighborhood and may in the end add to the area’s housing stock, as presented it conflicts with long-adopted historic preservation strategies that are environmentally sensitive, and help enhance the community character. Flower Drive simply should not be lost.

Thank you for considering my comments (and my previous comments).

Sincerely,

Laura Meyers N.U.P.C.A. representative to the CRA University-Exposition Park CAC citizen advisory committee Tel. 323-737-6146 / E-mail: [email protected] 1818 S. Gramercy Place, Los Angeles CA 90019

11 West Adams Heritage Coalition

Via Email [email protected]

Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049, CD9 Traffic and Access

1. The Project traffic study should have included Hoover Street and Jefferson Boulevard as a study intersection. Table IV.J-8 in the Draft EIR shows that the Project would increase the V/C at Figueroa and Jefferson by 0.026 (a significant impact) and at Vermont and Jefferson by 0.006 (just below a significant impact). Any Project traffic that is using Jefferson to access the 10 Freeway via Vermont or Hoover would need to travel through the intersection of Jefferson and Hoover, which is also an important pedestrian connection between the USC campus and USC Village. This intersection is also heavily trafficked by existing traffic accessing the USC campus. Project traffic could significantly impact this intersection and should have been evaluated in the Project’s traffic study.

2. The Project traffic study should have conducted a residential street analysis. The Draft EIR claims (pages IV.J-36 and IV.J-37) that a residential street analysis is not required because the Project includes a residential component, the arterials that would be used be Project traffic are not sufficiently congested, that the Project would not add substantial traffic to these arterials, and that the Project is located in a commercial corridor and a network of residential streets is not available to provide an alternate route. All of these contentions are belied by information included in the Draft EIR. While the Project includes residential units, it also includes substantial commercial uses including hotel, office, retail and restaurant uses that would generate 5,332 daily trips, or 70% of the Project’s daily total trips (Draft EIR Traffic Study, Appendix L, Table 4.1). Accordingly, the Project should have been considered a non-residential Project for purposes of Criterion 1. With respect to congestion on Figueroa Boulevard (the primary arterial that would be used to access the Project), Table IV.J-8 of the Draft EIR shows that Figueroa Street intersections would be heavily congested during both the am and pm peak hours, including Figueroa and Jefferson (LOS F am; LOS E pm); Figueroa and Exposition (LOS E am; LOS D pm); Figueroa and Martin Luther King (LOS F am and pm); and Figueroa and Adams (LOS F am and pm) for the Future With Project condition. The Draft EIR specifically states that the presence of LOS E and F intersections on an arterial is indicative of congestion (Draft EIR, page IV.J-37, paragraph 2). The Draft EIR analysis demonstrates that the primary arterial that would be used by the Project is characterized by substantial congestion, and therefore the Project would be within Criterion 2. With respect to Criterion 3, the Project would clearly add substantial traffic to the congested arterial, including 7,361 daily trips, 634 am peak hour trips, and 702 pm peak hour trips (Traffic Study, Draft EIR Appendix L, Table 4.1). With respect to Criterion 4, the Draft EIR characterizes the area through which these arterials travel as a “commercial corridor”. This is incorrect. There are at least five major student housing projects located along Figueroa between the Project Site and Adams Boulevard. There are large residential areas located both north of the USC campus and south of Martin Luther King Boulevard that could be affected by cut- through traffic seeking to avoid congestion on Figueroa. Streets that could be affected by this traffic that are located within residential neighborhoods include 32nd Street, 30th Street/McClintock Avenue, 29th Street and 27th Street to the north of the Project Site, and 40th Place, 40th Street, 41st Place, and 41st Street to the south of the Project Site. Each of these streets would provide access to alternate routes (Hoover Street, Vermont Avenue) that would avoid congestion on Figueroa. Accordingly, the Project would fall within Criterion 4. Taking all of these factors into account, the Project Traffic Study should be revised to determine whether Project traffic on any of these streets, as well as any others that could be affected by cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods, would exceed the LADOT thresholds for residential street impacts.

3. Characterizations of existing traffic conditions provided in the Draft EIR are belied by simple observation of these conditions. For instance, the Draft EIR characterizes the existing condition at Intersection 30, Figueroa/Adams as LOS D, which the Draft EIR defines as “cars are sometimes required to wait for more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues.” (emphasis added, Draft EIR, page IV.J-20). Contrary to this assertion, traffic on eastbound Adams Boulevard approaching this intersection routinely backs up to the Tracy Clinic, a distance of approximately one-quarter mile, during the pm peak hour, requiring several traffic light cycles for drivers to get through this intersection. Similarly, the Project Traffic Study purports to represent conditions before and after a USC football game, yet consistently shows traffic volumes during the pre- game hour that far exceed those during the post-game hour, even though patrons arrive before the game over a period of several hours to participate in tailgating and other pre-game activities, whereas traffic leaving after the game is concentrated in the hour or so immediately following the game. Basic logical fallacies such as these call into question the reliability of the data used in the Project traffic analysis. Underreporting of existing traffic volumes would result in Project traffic impacts being understated.

4. Table IV.J-7 shows Existing Conditions and Existing With Project Conditions at intersections 30, 31 and 32 as LOS A, even though the V/C at these intersections is greater than 0.60, which is the limit for LOS A (Draft EIR, page IV.J-20). Additionally, Table IV.J-7 shows the change in V/C for intersections 28 through 32 as 0.00 during the pm peak hour, which is inconsistent with the V/C values reported for those intersections. Accordingly the evaluation of significance for these intersections may not be accurate.

Edward Conery

West Adams Heritage Coalition (WAHC) P.O. Box 15881 LA, CA 90007

TO: Los Angeles City Planning

ATT: Milena Zasadzien

RE: ENV-2016-1892-EIR, “The Fig” Project D.V Alternatives

Dear Sir/Madam:

CEQA requires that EIRs identify and address project alternatives in order for decision makers to have before them a range of reasonable alternatives that enable them to make informed decisions. The decision must be fact based and, the alternatives analysis, at its underlying goal, must help guide the decision makers to adopt alternatives that reduce project impacts while fulfilling some, but not all, of the project objectives. At its core, the DEIR must be able to provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The DEIR has not chosen a reasonable range of alternatives that reduce environmental impacts while achieving most of the project goals.

Of the alternatives offered in the DEIR, the environmentally superior Alternative 2 would be acceptable to the preservation goals. However since the developers have insisted on a hotel component and, with the obvious need for affordable housing, it is unlikely that decision makers would endorse that alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is drawn in such a way as to skew factual options and to encourage its failure.

At the heart of the DEIR’s inadequacy, is the failure to provide an alternative that meets most of the project’s goals while retaining the Flower Drive Historic District. The DEIR describes impacts to historic resources as unavoidable when in fact they are avoidable by project redesign. That a redesigned project is not one of the alternatives, when their own consultants, Page and Turnbull, had two meetings with the preservation community on such a design, is unfathomable.1 Such an omission arbitrarily drives one to accept the proposed project because the preservation alternative in the DEIR does not meet the developer’s project goals. This a contrived effort to seek approval of their project rather an alternative that would meet most of the projects goals within a parameter that preserves the Flower Drive Historic District. (which for clarity we will call the Page & Turnbull alternative.)

1 The West Adams Heritage Association, the Los Angeles Conservancy and others met with the developers and their Attorney, Bill Delvac, on November 7 and November 21, 2016 to discuss alternatives that retained all or most of the Flower Drive Historic District.

Failure to Provide a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

This narrow selection of alternatives is in direct contradiction to CEQA’s requirement that EIRs identify and address project alternatives in order for decision makers to have before them a reasonable range of alternatives that enable decision makers to make informed decisions. The alternatives provided in this DEIR are prejudicial rather than informative. This DEIR has chosen alternatives not based on reason, nor based on reducing environmental impacts, but rather alternatives that are intended to justify the proposed project. The DEIR continually describes impacts as unavoidable when indeed they are avoidable with project redesign.

The DEIR’s obfuscation does not start with the Alternatives section: rather it begins with the Project Description “The Project involves the removal of eight existing multi-family residential buildings and surface parking area in order to constrict a mixed-use development on an approximately 4.4 acre site (Project Site) located adjacent to Exposition Park and near the University of Southern California (USC) University Park Campus in the City of Los Angeles.” 2 Nowhere is it mentioned in the introduction that this involves demolition of eight buildings located in a California Register Historic District. The absence of real consideration of the Flower Drive Historic District and lack of restraint in seeking their goals at the cost of what is our history is a deliberate understatement throughout the DEIR and obscures the facts.

Failure to Identify a Preservation Alternative that Meets Project Goals

The alternatives presented in the DEIR’s “V. Alternatives” cannot meet the legally required demands of CEQA. The alternatives discussion omits an obvious alternative which the proponent considered which evolved from two meetings with their consultant, Page & Turnbull, at the P&T offices on November 7 and November 21, 2016. The meetings purpose was described as “As a few of you know, after the scoping meeting, we decided to engage the Page & Turnbull team to help us identify options that might retain some or all of the contributors while carrying out the project program. I am not sure we will find a solution but we are looking for it. I would ask that you participate in a discussion on this. The team has some preliminary thoughts to which we want to get your reaction and of equal or greater importance is we want to hear your thoughts.”3

One of the alternatives arrived at which received support by the preservation community at the meeting: “The full preservation alternative is with 2 towers and underground parking, 1 residential bldg. 7 stories. Requires removal of the Flower Dr. Garages. Parking at rear rather than front (a la Biltmore)”; Project requires zone change from C21L to 2D for a height increase; they stated that the "hotel has to be on a corner."4

2 DEIR, II. Project Description, page II-1

3 Bill Delvac, Attorney for Spectrum, e-mail of 10/18/2016, Spectrum Flower Drive Options

4 Mitzi March Mogul, notes from meeting with Page & Turnbull and the developers, 11/21/2016

None of the drawings or materials from those meetings are available and none of the considerations were provided as handouts and the materials are protected by a confidentiality agreement. Therefore our details are from notes and memory.

The Environmentally Superior Alternative #2

Of the alternatives within the DEIR, Alternative #2 is recognized as the environmentally superior alternative. One wonders why the Alternative #2 calls for student housing and market rate housing rather than, for example, a hotel and affordable housing. The continued reference to hotel tax and the tax base component is prejudicial and weighs the environmental concerns in the context of generating taxes. Why delete these two objectives and retain the two others? One might speculate it is to prejudice the reader against the environmentally superior alternative. Could not one create a preservation alternative that consists of a hotel and an affordable housing element or, as we have suggested, a taller development that meets all of the project objectives and preserves the Flower Drive Historic District? If the taller hotel component were at the southerly portion of the site, stepping down northerly with mixed use and affordable housing as it transitions to the Flower Drive Historic District, most of the developer’s goals could be met while preserving the Flower Drive Historic District. The community does not have access to the multiple alternatives developed by Page & Turnbull but we believe there are feasible alternatives that are NOT in the DEIR and ought to be.

And also absent in the DEIR is any acknowledgement of the 21 story hotel scenario (right) which was described in the NOP, which was the original proposed plan at the scoping meeting and the first public proposal. There is no factual explanation as to how or why this option was dismissed.

The Alternatives Discussion

The Alternatives fail to select a reasonable alternative that meets the objectives of the developer and preserves the District. This is eminently possible. Alternative #2 is a deliberately scaled down project which may be rejected because of its failure to meet the project objectives. Missing is a preservation alternative that meets most of the objectives but may require discretionary planning adjustments to height. But, since this is already a highly discretionary project, that should not be an issue. Any mixed use development in this site would require an owner participation agreement or a development agreement with CRA due to its variation from the Hoover Redevelopment Plan which is in full force and effect until 2024.

Section 15126.6 of the 2010 CEQA Guidelines states:

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. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider

a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The Alternatives have been chosen not to give the decision makers reasonable alternatives but rather to stack the decision maker’s options in a prejudicial view to embrace the project as proposed.

CEQA: Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states:

An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

The “rule of reason” requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives must be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision- making.

This DEIR fails the reasonable alternative test and drives the decision makers to approve their proposed project over preservation alternatives that more fully meet their project objectives.

The DEIR ought to have analyzed in its Alternatives discussion alternative sites that include parcels owned either by the developer or by public entities.

Eliminating Severe Impacts

The DEIR alternatives fail to meet the test of eliminating the substantial and severe environmental impacts of the project as proposed. One of the primary purposes of CEQA is to identify, though the evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, ways in which the environmental effects of a project can be avoided or minimized. It is not true that the negative impacts are unavoidable. None of the alternatives provided, except for Alternative #2, avoid impacts and demolition to the district. But such an alternative is possible.

CEQA: Section 21002 of CEQA states, in part, that: “… it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects...”

Failure to Recognize Impacts

The DEIR fails to assess impacts to the entire District and its impact on the remaining ten buildings north of the project site. There is no assessment of that impact, nor the cumulative impact of this project.

The assertion that there are no secondary impacts made by GPA Consulting in Appendix C is simply a misinterpretation of the facts by a consultant seeking a certain conclusion. GPA dismisses impacts 4

because in their opinion the Flower Drive Historic District lacks context. Nothing could be further from the case. Other determinative venues have reviewed this question, including the State Historic Resources Commission (twice)5 and the Community Redevelopment Agency.

Alternatives Considered but Omitted

CEQA provides criteria for the elimination of alternatives. Alternatives that do not meet the project objectives (CEQA) or purpose and need (NEPA), and alternatives that are not reasonable or feasible may be eliminated from further consideration. The eliminated alternatives do not include the Page and Turnbull alternative which meets most of the basic project objectives, is feasible, avoids significant environmental impacts, and is practicable.

CEQA: The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, including the “no project” alterative. Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.

While the DEIR puts forward a Matrix6 it fails because the range of alternatives is so limited. Even the dismissed alternatives discussion fails to include the Page & Turnbull alternative nor does it provide factual data why the two dismissed alternatives were put aside and rejected as infeasible.

Failure to Understand the Long Term Preservation Goals of Applicable Plans

One also questions at what point are the developers project objectives so out of synchronicity with the long standing preservation objectives of the community and the need to retain RSO affordable multi- family housing?

The Hoover Redevelopment Plan

What is entirely lacking is an alternative discussed in the context of the Hoover Redevelopment Plan and its requirements:

The redevelopment plan provides further goals and policies to guide projects that might have an impact on historic preservation. These include a series of Redevelopment Plan Goals:

• To encourage the preservation of historical monuments, landmarks and buildings

• To retain by means of rehabilitation residences and businesses where appropriate

5 The CA State Historic Resources Commission determined that Flower Drive met the criteria for a California Register Historic District not once, but twice, on July 25, 2008 and again on November 7, 2008 - which should have put this specious argument to rest.

6 DEIR V. Alternatives, page V-3

• To eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Expanded Project Area in accordance with the Plan

The Southeast Community Plan

The DEIR fails to analyze the project in the context of the SE Community Plan objectives. There is a lack of recognition of the goals of the Southeast Community Plan which includes: (and the DEIR must analyze this) p. I-5. The intrusion of incompatible higher density resident and commercial uses in lower density residential area

The need to preserve and enhance historic resources p. I-7 the historic resources are a valuable asset to this Community They offer significant opportunities for developing neighborhood identity and pride within the Community It is important to retain the currently available inventory of such buildings p. I-9

Inconsistent architectural development, which does not address neighborhood or community themes p. III-2, 1-1.2

Protect existing single family and low-density residential neighborhoods from y encroachment by higher density and other incompatible uses p. III 3, 1-3.1 Seek a high degree of architectural compatibility and landscaping for new infill development to protect the character and scale of existing residential neighborhoods p. III-39 GOAL 18: A COMMUNITY WHICH PRESERVES AND RESTORES THE MONUMENTS, CULTURAL RESOURCES, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND LANDMARKS WHICH HAVE HISTORICAL AND/OR CULTURAL SIGNIRICANCE. p. III-41. Policy 18.4.1 to assist private owners of historic resources to maintain and/or enhance their properties in a manner that will preserve the integrity of such resources in the best possible condition

The DEIR also fails to analyze impacts and alternatives in the context of the newly adopted Southeast Community Plan.

Updated SE Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

The FEIR for the South and Southeast Community Plans adopted on November 22, 2017, also provides guidance to developers concerning preservation goals and objectives, for example:

Goal/Policy Description

Goal LU22: Preserve neighborhoods that are identified and/or appear to be eligible for historic district status by initiating and adopting new Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs) and other neighborhood conservation techniques.

Policy LU22.1 Support Continued District Designations. Promote district designations, as well as maintenance and rehabilitation of historically significant structures in potential and proposed historic districts.

Policy LU22.2 Promote Neighborhood Conservation Techniques. Promote the initiation and adoption of innovative neighborhood conservation techniques such as community plan implementation overlays and community design overlays for areas that retain cohesive character but are not eligible to become an HPOZ.

Goal LU23: A community that capitalizes upon and enhances its existing cultural resources.

Policy LU23.1 Forge Partnerships for Community Preservation. Promote public/private partnerships to create new informational and educational programs, tours and signage programs that highlight the community’s history and architectural legacy.

Policy LU23.2 Protect Community-Identified Cultural Resources. Protect and enhance places and features identified within the community as cultural resources for the City of Los Angeles.

Policy LU23.3 Coordinate Cultural Programs. Encourage the coordination of cultural programs at local schools utilizing resources such as the Cultural Affairs Department and local artists.

Policy LU23.4 Cultural Heritage Tourism. Encourage cultural heritage tourism by capitalizing on existing monuments within the community and supporting efforts to showcase important historic resources and events, such as the Watts Cultural Renaissance Plan.

SOURCE: City of Los Angeles. South and Southeast Los Angeles Community Plans, 2017.

In the light of these acknowledged policies, how can this project be approved in its current form?

Unfounded Assumption that the 3800 block of Flower Drive will remain a District

The impacts discussion in the DEIR fails to consider the severe impact on the northerly section of the Flower Drive Historic District. It contains within a view that somehow Districts are inconsequential and malleable to the aims of a developer. This was confirmed at the NOP scoping meeting of August 10, 2016 wherein the developers’ representative stated to one of our representatives “Well you at least have eleven buildings left in the District.” This weighs heavily on the prejudice with which the developer has treated and misunderstood the significance of the Flower Drive Historic District and how indeed a District is significant in its relationship to all of the properties within a District. When the NOP comments contain so many suggestions by WAHA, NUPCA, ADHOC, the Los Angeles Conservancy and others that Flower Drive be evaluated in its total context. This glaring omission also calls in question the accuracy of the impacts analysis in the DEIR.

The DEIR is so fundamentally flawed and absent any consideration of our community history which includes decades of astute preservation and conservation planning under the CRA and the Southeast Community Plan. The developers have chosen parts of the Community plan and ignored other elements which do not support their argument.

The DEIR – (and the developers) has underestimated and is flagrantly dismissive of the importance of the Flower Drive Historic District and if their proposed project is approved in its current form, would annihilate our history – and for no good reason.

Conclusion

The range of alternatives is unreasonable in the when one realizes there is no discussion of the omitted alternatives: the original 21 story hotel tower version, the Page & Turnbull version. A DEIR should contain a reasonable range of alternatives to foster informed decision making as required by 14 Cal Code Red section 15126.6(a). There is no alternative that offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project and meets project objectives. The DEIR fails to meet the most basic objective of an alternatives discussion and therefore is legally deficient. The DEIR evades then the responsibility and obligation of the proponent to adopt an environmentally superior alternative because it has identified an environmentally superior alternative that does not meet the developer’s expansive list of project objectives.

At what point does the commitment the proponent has made proposing a development that severely impacts such a sensitive historic site, in a very fragile historic environment, become an unwise speculative venture that cannot be permitted in the light of the severe, adverse environmental impacts? The DEIR has engaged in discussion weighted in favor of the project as proposed and without regard for the environmental setting.

The DEIR needs to be revised and recirculated, with additional alternatives that include the Page & Turnbull designs and which are environmentally superior. Also not included is alternative site discussions of the publicly owned property to the south, nor other parcels to the south that may be under ownership of all or some of the project proponents.

Sincerely

Jean Frost Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association c/o 2341 Scarff Street, LA, CA 90007

Jean Frost, Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association Chair, Preservation Committee

THE FLOWER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT

(As seen on the street)

The Flower Drive Historic District, a Los Angeles community of 19 multi-family buildings, determined by the state of California to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, appears to be in danger of having almost half of its structures destroyed. The proposed replacement would be a project composed of four seven story components south of 39th Street as the current site plan indicates. The current historic neighborhood of Mediterranean revival, 2 story 4-plexes, built between 1920-1927, with its unified street scape, reflects the kind of multifamily structures built during LA‘s huge population increase during this period. The loss to the integrity of these blocks by the scope and scale of the proposed project would be both an aesthetic loss and a loss of yet another mature, stable and vibrant community. The residents of the neighborhood are rightfully proud of what they have created over the last 95 years and wondered why the city could support a project like this. Everyone in the community expressed fear for their own possible displacement.

Although split from the neighborhoods to the east by the 110 Freeway and bisected by 39th Street, it still appreciates its location, enjoying the endless resources available at Exposition Park, one block to the west as well as Y&Y’s neighborhood market, the other side 110 freeway bridge, a block walk to the east. Long standing small neighborhood restaurants churches and schools are within walking distances on 39th Street at Grand and Hill Streets. Northerly of the Flower Drive Historic District is the Historic Cultural Monument Zobelien Estate, and Flower Drive is part of the Zobelien tract, a context largely ignored by the developers. Again, standing at this intersection and looking past the line of trees leading to the historic coliseum at Expo Park with its multiple museums certainly, the view adds an appreciation to the special role associated with this neighborhood. It’s difficult to comprehend the loss that would occur if this view toward Expo Park were diminished by a line of four seven-story hulking edifices, with eight buildings in the Historic District gone and eleven remaining forlorn and cut off. Even those residents not negatively impacted by the potential demolition of their housing units, at this time ask why a developer would propose demolishing community affirming, rent stabilized housing that is comprised of an intact row of 1920’s apartments.

The Flower Drive Historic District is 7 blocks from USC. The residents of the District are a unique combination: some students but primarily working class families, many of whom have been at the same address for 30-40 years. This has been a stable home for 3-4 generations of a family. Certainly many residents voiced feeling fortunate that they could find affordable housing that allows them to both live and work in the same neighborhood, not to mention Sunday family trips to Exposition Park. A commonly voiced fear is that, after the developers get out of the apartment business through the Ellis Act and demolish the buildings south of 39th Street, very few of the remaining residents would be able to live in the community that has been their home for many generations. It is also assumed that a majority of these displaced residents would not qualify for these proposed mixed income units under the current formula. (80% of median). The Flower Drive residents are concerned that the developer somehow contends that the 32 housing units that they would demolish would only effect 2.44 residents per unit. These are 3 and 4 bedroom large [1000 square foot] units occupied by multiple members of extended families and would cause huge displacements and suffering for those effected.

The residents of Flower Drive have created the kind of community that makes the Flower Drive Historic District a desirable place to live. If this District is allowed to disappear it would be a great loss for the people who currently call it home and a greater loss to the people of Los Angeles. It would be sad to see the story of yet another people’s historic contribution to this city’s development be bulldozed away. The current proposed development annihilates our history and is contrary to decades of Community Plan and Redevelopment Plan policies and goals.

The evaluation by GPA consultants contained in the DEIR that the Flower Drive Historic District is absent of context is belied by the facts, facts that were not only affirmed by my walking the Disrict multiple times but also officially affirmed by the State Historic Resources Commissioners and SHPO staff, not once but twice.

Roland Souza

President West Adams Heritage Association 1724 Westmoreland Blvd Los Angeles Ca. 90006 [email protected] 323 804 6070 Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Adrienne Kuhre Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:31 AM Subject: North Area Neighborhood Development Council - comments on The Fig project (Case # ENV-2016- 1892-EIR; SCH #2016071049) To: [email protected] Cc: Jean Frost

Hi Milena,

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Please see the attached PDF with comments from the Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Development Council (EC NANDC) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Fig project at 3900 S. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA, 90037. Case # ENV-2016- 1892-EIR; SCH #2016071049.

With appreciation,

Adrienne Kuhre President Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Development Council 310.880.1684 www.nandc.org | www.empowerla.org

www.NANDC.org

Adrienne Kuhre President November 27, 2017

Theresa Cunningham Via Email: [email protected] Vice President

Samantha Burg Milena Zasadzien Secretary Los Angeles Department of City Planning Julie Burg Treasurer 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243 Carolina Perez Area 1 Representative Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project; 3900 S. Figueroa Lizzy Hare Area 1 Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037; Case No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR; SCH No. 2016071049 Representative

Brandon Floyd Dear Ms. Zasadzien, Area 2 Representative The Neighborhood Council system enables civic participation for all Angelenos and serves as a voice for Dennis Braggs Area 2 improving government responsiveness to local communities and their needs. We are an advisory body to the Representative City of Los Angeles, comprised of volunteer stakeholders who are devoted to the mission of improving our Jean Frost Area 3 communities and bringing government to us. Representative

Joanne Russell The Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Development Council (NANDC) considered the Draft Area 3 Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project and found that the proposed demolitions cannot be Representative supported in the context of the goals of the Community Plan and the CRA Hoover Project Area goals. Julianne Burg At Large NANDC strongly objects to the demolition of eight multi-family residence within the Flower Drive Historic Representative District and, by Board motion at its meeting of November 2, 2017, urges the developer to consider an Thryeris Mason At Large alternative that incorporates these buildings into his project design. Representative

Jon Tieuel The eight buildings, of which seven are contributors to the Flower Drive Historic District and the eighth is a At Large Representative 1939 building compatible in massing, scale and materials to the District, offer affordable, rent stabilized housing which is severely needed. A representative of some of the tenants attended our November 2 Board Vacant USC Interest meeting and stated that the tenants want to remain in their current Flower Drive historic housing. This Representative project as presently designed would destroy RSO housing and displace many families, some of whom have Aaron Flournoy Business Interest been at this site for decades. Representative

The demonstrable negative impacts on both housing resources and on the Flower Drive Historic District are not sufficiently analyzed nor are they adequately mitigated. The cumulative impacts on housing and on historic resources are also not adequately recognized nor evaluated. The DEIR consistently states that these negative impacts are unavoidable which is simply not true. A project design that incorporates the Flower Drive Historic District and builds on the non-historic parcels is possible. We also note that the project originally included a 21 story hotel tower which allowed for more flexibility in site planning. Over time and for reasons not explained, the project became flattened to a seven story project consisting of a hotel, a student housing component and a mixed income housing component making a preservation and retaining

www.NANDC.org

RSO housing goal more difficult to achieve and design. These limitations are self-imposed. We believe that an alternative can be devised that preserves the historic and rent controlled housing while meeting most of the project’s objectives. We also urge the developer to make the majority of the parking underground which would also allow for a design that is more flexible and aesthetically pleasing.

We urge that a DEIR be revised and recirculated that considers a true preservation and housing retention alternative. Of the limited alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, only alternative 2 preserves the Flower Drive Historic District and of those limited choices we would urge that the environmentally superior alternative be chosen. But the choices should not be limited to the four contained in the DEIR.

Sincerely,

Adrienne Kuhre, President

Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Development Council

PO Box 18769 Los Angeles, CA 90018 [email protected] | www.NANDC.org

From: Maria Patiño Gutierrez Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:45 PM Subject: Attn: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner, Comments on DEIR for ENV-2016-1892-EIR To: Milena Zasadzien , [email protected] Cc: Cynthia Strathmann , Joe Donlin , Maria Ochoa , Dagan Bayliss

Hello Ms. Zasadzien,

Hope this message finds you well. In response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project,SAJE would like to submit a comment letter. I am also attaching once again the comments of the tenants of the 32 Units that are proposed to be demolished, as we mention them in our letter.

We look forward to any questions anyone from your staff has for us, and hope that you all take into consideration our comments, concerns and questions in regards to this proposed development.

Thank you for your time,

-- Maria Patiño Gutierrez Program Coordinator SAJE-Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 W. 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 D:(213)-745-9961 x225 www.saje.net and facebook.com/strategicactions http://smile.amazon.com/ch/93-1226092

November 27th, 2017

Attn: The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601 Via email [email protected]

Re: ENV 2016-1892-EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Fig Project 3900 S Figueroa Street

Dear Ms. Zasadzien

On behalf of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) and the undersigned, we submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Fig (“The Project”) ENV 2016-1892-EIR.

The Project is proposed to include an approximately 4.4-acre site including a hotel, student housing, and mixed income housing. We have identified numerous flaws in the DEIR for the proposed development, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, we have serious concerns with the Project as a whole. Among these serious concerns is the proposal to displace 32 families and demolish eight existing multi-family buildings, which include 32 housing units covered by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and a historic district designation within the Flower Drive District. These existing buildings not only hold historic and architectural significance, but they are, first and foremost, homes to 32 families, many of whom have lived there for more than 30 years.

Additional concerns described below include the unaffordability of housing among the mixed income apartments in the proposed Project as well as the effects of this major development on the neighboring community.

The DEIR fails to meet CEQA Standards for Public Process and Participation.

The DEIR comment process has failed to meet adequate standards for public participation, harmed most significantly by a short public comment period of only 45 days and a lack of Spanish translation of the DEIR, despite the fact that the majority of

1 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

the residents on the proposed Project site are monolingual Spanish speakers, in addition to the majority of residents who live adjacent to the site and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Reviewing and commenting on the over 1,100-page highly-technical document in 45 days would be a monumental challenge for any person. Yet, thousands of local residents who are non-English speakers do not have that opportunity because the DEIR was provided only in English.

No Mitigation for Direct Displacement of Thirty-Two Families and Demolition of Historic RSO Housing

The Project proposes to demolish eight multi-family buildings consisting of 32 apartment units which are subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) of the City of Los Angeles. They are also protected by a historic designation as part of the Flower Drive Historic District. The DEIR has mentions only once that people live on the proposed Project site. Yet, the Project description incorrectly states the site currently consists of approximately 78 residents. Our survey of tenants has shown that more than 110 residents live in the existing buildings. Many of the current residents have lived in their home for more than 30 years, have raised children and grandchildren in this home and neighborhood and have formed a tight-knit, long-lasting community.

By demolishing these apartment homes, the Project would cause irreparable harm to the families who have no interest in leaving. The Project would not only displace and separate more than 32 families, but it will also change the makeup of the neighborhood and remove children, parents and grandparents from their social networks, schools, jobs, clinics and health centers, churches and other types of community groups.

Attached to this comment letter are written comments and concerns from eight families who currently live in the apartment units that would be demolished. As the comments reveal, current residents cannot even begin to understand where they would go next to live. Many senior citizens have formed their support circles in this community, with neighbors taking care of and looking out for each other. We ask, how are they supposed to continue without the support of their life long neighbors who have become like family to each other?

All families who would be directly displaced have stories to share about how the impact of being removed from their home will have on their family’s livelihood and wellbeing. Although the price of rent currently varies depending on how many years they have been tenants of these units because of the RSO, many families who have been living

2 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

here for more than 30 years are currently paying about $700 per month for their home. Although developers would state that this price is a bargain even if their rent is less than the average current rent in Los Angeles, some tenants are barely able to make ends meet with this cost of rent. With 2-bedroom apartments in the surrounding area averaging well above $2,000 per month, it is inconceivable that these families would be able to remain in their home community. Allowing the removal of these units and displacing the tenants will greatly harm the residents’ financial stability and health.

The Project applicants claim that the demolition of the 32 units of housing would be done in full compliance with the City’s RSO and the Ellis Act. They further request an exemption from requiring replacement units to be subject to the RSO, in accordance with LA Municipal Code Section 151.28 B. And the DEIR further states that “With approval of this request, the Project would be generally consistent with the RSO, the Ellis Act, and any applicable HCID regulations.” Yet, the DEIR mentions no form of mitigation for the harm caused by displacement. Further, there is no mention that the existing tenants would have a guaranteed Right of Return into the replacement affordable units. But, the units to be built as replacement for the 32 units will be far smaller in size than the existing units and will be more expensive than the rents most tenants are currently paying, even though they would be designated as Low-Income affordable housing units. Tripling the cost of housing for the existing residents will place a devastating burden on the families who will be forced to make decisions about how to spend any (if at all) income left over after paying for their housing. Choices between healthy food and medical care are among the impossible choices many displaced families will face. The DEIR fails to mention these material impacts on the tenant’s quality of life, health and financial security.

Further, the DEIR provides no additional discussion on how the use of the Ellis Act has dramatically reduced the RSO or housing stock in Los Angeles, in particular in the South and Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Areas, where the Proposed project would reside. Data collected by the Coalition for Economic Survival cites Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department’s application permits for Ellis Act and demonstrates that in the South and Southeast Los Angeles community plan areas there have been 739 units evicted in South LA and 411 units in Southeast Los Angeles community plan area from January 1, 2001 to November 3, 2017. In total, 1,150 families have been displaced and 1,150 units are no longer subject to rent control (“rent stabilization”). RSO units are one of the few types of affordable housing that residents in Los Angeles have depended on for stable housing. The DEIR fails to contextualize or

3 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

address how the Project would be contributing to this lost asset in the community and neither indicates nor suggests that the displaced residents would necessarily benefit at all from the new development.

The DEIR Does Not Account for Off-site / Indirect Displacement and Lacks Accessible and Affordable Housing

The Project would construct a total of 408 units of housing, plus 298 hotel rooms. The Project Description indicates that out of the 186 mixed income units 82 units are allocated for Low Income households at no more than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the County of Los Angeles. According to the Housing Authority of Los Angeles County 80% AMI is set at $50,500 for a one-person household, $57,700 for two-person household, $64,900 for three people, $72,100 for a four-person household and $77,900 for a five-person household. The median household income for a South LA Household is far below 80% AMI for the County: $37,776. According to data from the USC Census, Census Tract 2311, which is the location of this proposed project the median income is far below this, $25,197. Therefore, the Low Income housing units are likely to be far out of reach for current residents and residents living near the proposed Project site. The DEIR failed to include provision for Very Low Income units or Extremely Low Income units, which reach families at lower incomes than those who can afford Low Income units.

The remaining 104 units in the Mixed-Income Housing Component are proposed to be market rate housing, which would be even further out of reach for existing on-site residents and residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. As mentioned above, the current cost of renting an apartment in this neighborhood is well above $2,000 for a 2- bedroom unit. These brand new apartments would likely be even more than $2,000 per month. As such, these market rate units would clearly target individuals not living in the community. Instead, the Project is primarily designed for people from outside the area who can afford to pay much higher rents. Yet, the DEIR fails to mention how the Project will benefit local residents or mitigate the impacts of rents well above average prices in the area.

According to a recent USC Casden Multifamily Forecast Report, the average rent per multi family unit in 2017 was $2,237 per month for Los Angeles County. The report also demonstrates that rents rose 1.1% from last year and that rents will continue to rise. For

4 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

families who currently live in South Central, $2,237 is far out of reach and would cause local families to spend well above 30% - and often 50% - of their household income on housing. As a result, the proposed Project’s very high rents would lead to indirect displacement of local community members due to the catalytic effect on adjacent property values, rents and the incentives for landlords to displace their existing tenants.

Despite these impacts, the DEIR neglects to provide any mitigation for families living on site or near the proposed Project.

Changes to the neighborhood

The proposed Project follows several other projects in the area recently proposed, which are designed to cater primarily or exclusively to wealthier residents, tourists, and/or students. The DEIR fails to demonstrate how the proposed Project would compound other catalytic development activity in the area. The Project’s proximity to the future Olympics 2028 venues, the new LA Football Club Stadium, the recently-opened USC University Village and to numerous other proposed developments – such as The Reef and 2222 Figueroa – will serve to exacerbate negative impacts from 100% or near-100% market-rate projects and entertainment venues. Among these negative impacts is the changing makeup of the neighborhood that will continue to unfold for years to come. As the city prepares for the Olympics, other developments are likely to be proposed near the Olympic venues slated for Expo Park and USC’s campus.

The construction and opening of thousands of new market-rate housing units, sporting venues too expensive for most local low-income residents and retail that is similarly out of reach for local families will harm the health of local families and tear at the social and cultural fabrics that make South Los Angeles a unique and lovely community for hundreds of thousands of residents. For instance, the construction of the football stadium across the street from this proposed Project has already affected the respiratory health of many residents currently living on the Project’s site and in adjacent areas who have noticed the impact of the construction on their ability to breathe. The proposed Project will worsen traffic already increased by nearby development along Figueroa, 39th Street, MLK and arterial streets causing further harm to local air quality and the residents who breathe this air. Unless, the proposed Project is held to the highest standards of environmental practices and design, and to the highest standards of economic accessibility, local environmental quality will be degraded, thousands of families will face new and worsening health conditions, and displacement of residents will accelerate by this Project and by future projects that seek to match this precedent.

5 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

The project description states that there is a need for student housing, and thus is proposing 222 student housing units, which will be 1,2,3 bedrooms. There has been a proliferation of private developments in the area targeting USC students, in large part because the University has not yet built sufficient on-campus student housing at the rate comparable to other major urban universities in the U.S. The new USC University Village opened new student beds, but the University still has responsibilities to construct more on-campus student required by the approval of its University Park Specific Plan. The DEIR should not give a pass to the Project’s student housing component by describing the need for student housing, when public policy has determined and dictated the better strategy of building on-campus student housing. Thus, the full impact of these market-rate “student” housing units should be accounted for. Yet, the DEIR fails to assess the full environmental, economic and health impacts of the Student Housing Component of the Project.

It is well understood that market-rate and luxury student housing developments attract students who have a very high turnover rate, which has a further destabilizing effect on the local community, which has grown strong and resilient due to its long-time residents whose families have lived here for multiple generations. Construction of housing that purposefully targets tenants who would stay in the units, often, for less than a year, adds to the instability of the local neighborhood and harms the social fabric built over many decades.

The DEIR fails to address the impacts on local businesses.

The proposed Project would include commercial space expected to be rented at market rate. Dozens of businesses in the Project area have experienced displacement or are in the process of being displaced, due to rising commercial rents, demolition of existing commercial spaces and the lack of long-term leases available to community-serving small businesses. The proposed Project does not seek to address any of these severe needs for local community-serving small businesses and, instead, would exacerbate this trend by charging market rate commercial rents and catalyzing increased rents in adjacent areas, The DEIR does not describe necessary mitigations, such as discounted rent for local community-serving small businesses who are more vulnerable to changes in costs, but serve directly the needs of local residents with culturally- and economically- accessible goods and services. When these businesses are displaced, low-income families must travel further from their community to find the goods and services they

6 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

need. This increases the amount of cars on the road (traffic) and greenhouse gas emissions produced by their vehicles. Typically, low-income families are more likely to use public transit, but when public transit is out of reach, they are also more likely to drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. Whether the residents or the small businesses – or both – are displaced by the Project, greenhouse gas emissions will be increased due to this increased vehicular activity.

The DEIR fails to fully address and mitigate impacts to Local Air Quality.

Los Angeles air quality is already extremely poor as a result of the geography of the region, a legacy of non-attainment of air quality standards, the high number of vehicle trips and resultant exhaust emissions. This project’s proximity to the 110- Freeway which is directly adjacent, in addition to the proximity to many high trafficked streets such as Figueroa Blvd and Martin Luther King Blvd are factors that impact the air quality not only for the residents in the proposed Project but also for the people who live nearby. The Project would also attract visitors, during both the construction and operational phases, which will increase traffic and emissions, further impacting the air quality in the area. Students and residents in the market-rate units are more likely to own vehicles, which will certainly result in greater traffic and greater greenhouse gas emissions.

For the construction phase of the project, a range of diesel-fueled construction machinery and vehicles will be utilized during the proposed timeline, estimated to be approximately 18 months. VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) are particularly harmful pollutants, which can produce devastating health effects, both in the short-term and after chronic exposure. Inhalation of VOCs and NOx can cause severe health problems including asthma, skin irritation, respiratory illness, aggravation of respiratory illness, increased susceptibility to infections, cancer, and death. Sensitive receptors near the Project, including young children and the elderly, are more susceptible to the effects of these pollutants, and there is increased risk for asthma and other pulmonary diseases in these populations.

The proposed Project site is located in close proximity to homes, recreational areas, schools, and museums which are visited daily by thousands of school students. In addition, the community in which the Project is proposed is made up mostly of low- income residents of color. Many of these residents already face poor health, high levels of stress, and limited access to adequate, affordable health services. It is critical that the Project incorporates mitigation measures to address the increased pollution and

7 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

emissions at the sensitive receptors surrounding the Project, and in the community at large. Although the DEIR repeatedly refers to the building phase of the Project as “short-term,” construction will take at least 18 months and this can be long enough to cause severe pollution-related health problems.

Across the street from this proposed development is the Los Angeles Football Club which been under construction for at least 16 months, and during a phase of this construction a demolition of the former Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena was required. This caused dust particles that would often prevent those walking or driving by the project from even being able to see, and for pedestrians made it impossible to breathe as they walked by without proper mouth guards. SAJE has heard dozens of residents express concerns about the air quality caused by the ongoing construction in this area, which is frequented by the families who live there and those who exercise in and around Expo Park. Similar to this current example of the LAFC stadium, we are concerned that the construction of such development will impact the air quality not only temporarily but long term for future residents, for long standing community residents, and for thousands of tourists. The DEIR fails to address these impacts to air quality, the local environment and the health of area residents.

While the Project incorporates building features that protect the tenants living in the new buildings, its employees, and visitors to the site, there are few, if any, mitigation measures dedicated to protecting residents of the surrounding area from the increased pollutants expected from Project construction or operation. The mitigation measures for air quality and health risk in the DEIR do not sufficiently address the impacts to the community and area surrounding the Project. The DEIR must fully mitigate potential air quality impacts for both future Project residents and current residents of the surrounding community who would bear the brunt of the air quality and health risks during construction and throughout life of the Project. This is essential given the numerous sensitive receptors located on and adjacent to the proposed Project site.

The DEIR fails to address significant traffic impacts caused by the proposed Project.

Vehicular access to the parking structure is stated to be available via Figueroa Street and additionally via Flower Dry for the parking structure, however the project description does not state if access will only be available to those that are driving Northbound on Figueroa. The vehicular access for 39th street would be limited for valet parking of hotel guest. This intersection of Figueroa and 39th Streets is a highly-transited area as it is

8 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

the intersection of the entrance to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Expo Park and the New Los Angeles Football Club. In addition, 39th street is a highly-transited area due to the connecting freeway entrance to the 110 South Freeway Carpool lane East and Westbound on 39th street. Flower Dr., while a smaller street, is often the go to short cut for cars that wish to avoid the traffic on Hill Street and King Blvd. The current traffic that is in these intersections especially on game days for the Los Angeles Rams USC Football Games most often requires traffic officers to help coordinate the massive vehicle traffic attracted by the sporting events across the street from the proposed Project. With the proposed addition of more than 1,000 cars 24 hours a day, the increased traffic will become a nightmare for residents who live near the Project, wish to live in the Project and for visitors seeking to reach their destinations at Expo Park, USC, South LA or downtown LA. Because the Project will increase traffic and congestion dramatically, the implementation of adequate mitigation measures is critical. The Project should include measures to fully mitigate its impacts on transportation, including traffic relief measures and measures to provide increased access to transit and additional transportation options for residents.

Despite the inclusion of, 586 bicycle parking spaces, the residents who would fill the market-rate housing and student housing apartments or condos are likely to own cars at a rate higher than local residents in the area. The hotel guests living in the 298 hotel rooms also are likely to drive rental cars, especially due to the distance between the proposed Project and major airports. These increased vehicles will add to the expected traffic impacts of the Project and worsen greenhouse gas emissions.

Noise Analysis

Project construction is expected to last at least 18 months. This period includes on site construction and offsite construction that will generate significant noise pollution to the surrounding community during various stages of work from demolition to final construction phases. During this time at least 20 truck trips per hour are expected by large, loud diesel engine trucks delivering materials for construction needs. Although the DEIR finds the effects of the demolition, construction and the overall project’s noise to be less than significant and unavoidable, we believe that noise pollution and air quality impacts of truck traffic are serious issues to take into consideration. During construction – we all can probably relate – residents report loud noises that cause their ears to ring well beyond the time of exposure. For the residents who live nearby this development hearing loss and other noise-inflicted harm will be a huge impact. Furthermore, there

9 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

are many homeless members of the community who live directly beneath the 110 freeway on 39th street, adjacent to the proposed Project site, who will be severely affected by the noise pollution that this project generates, worsened by echoes caused by the freeway overpass and the extremely thin exteriors of the tents and structures they live in.

The Land Use section of the DEIR is severely inadequate and in violation of CEQA.

The following shortcomings of the DEIR Land Use analysis reflect violations of CEQA and must be addressed: ● The DEIR fails to address the Project’s consistency with existing zoning requirements and City plans and regulations. ● The DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s inconsistency with relevant general plan policies. ● The DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the City’s Industrial Land Use Preservation Policy (ILUP) and the community benefits requirements in the ILUP. ● The DEIR does not adequately evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Draft South LA or Southeast LA Community Plans, nor the recently adopted South LA and Southeast LA Community Plans.

The recently-adopted Community Plans of South LA and Southeast LA include numerous provisions and regulations integrated from the community-driven People’s Plan proposal. We recommend that the DEIR be recirculated with new consideration of the Community Plans, which reflect significantly greater community input and community approval.

The Project also requests a conditional use permit for a total of six alcohol licenses for the sale of and dispensing of alcoholic beverages for the hotel, restaurants including indoor and outdoor areas. This significant increase in alcohol sales in the neighborhood would worsen the traffic effects discussed above and increase the number of traffic accidents harming and killing people living and walking near the Project site. The DEIR fails to address and mitigate these harmful environmental and health impacts on the community.

10 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

Additional concerns

Overall the Project description on the impact of the development on population is flawed and needs further analysis.

Some sections of the DEIR stated the Project construction is estimated to be approximately 18 months while in other sections the estimate is 36 months. This discrepancy demonstrates a lack of internal consistency in the DEIR.

Once again, we would like to reiterate our disappointment with the lack of transparency of the proposed Project, and the absence of a Spanish translation of the DEIR. This directly affects the majority Spanish-speaking population who currently live on the proposed Project site and adjacent to the Project area. SAJE and other community organizations, were able to translate some elements of the DEIR and explain the contents of the Draft EIR to a small portion of impacted residents. Yet, these efforts are meant to be complementary to what we would expect to be a full and comprehensive outreach and public participation process led by the City and Applicants. Yet, the narrow distribution and lack of accessibility of the DEIR reveals a process that is inconsistent with CEQA guidelines and with the spirit of public process.

Conclusion

On the whole, the DEIR suffers from incomplete and inaccurate assessments and findings. The public comment period and process was marred by inaccessible documents and severely limited outreach. The residents who currently live on the proposed Project site are nearly invisible in the DEIR. Significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, housing, demographic and neighborhood change, land use and population are overlooked or grossly understated. The affordability of the Mixed-Income Component is overstated and fails to meet the needs of the site’s existing residents or those of the population living near the site. No protections or guarantees are provided for the 32 families proposed to be displaced to allow for demolition of the existing buildings. For all of these reasons, the DEIR should be redrafted, recirculated and amended to address these and other matters.

Concerning the Alternative Project options provided in the DEIR, residents of the existing buildings have expressed to us their clear and adamant desire to stay where they live currently. If that were the only consideration – and as stated above, we name several others – the only two Alternatives that would allow for residents to remain in

11 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

their current homes are Alternative 1, “No Project Alternative” and Alternative 2, “Community Plan Update Compliant/Historical Preservation Alternative.”

To make clear the serious nature of the matter barely discussed in the DEIR, prior to the close of the DEIR public comment period, consultants hired by the Applicants have approached existing residents to discuss relocation. It is clear that the Applicants would prefer to displace all current tenants prior to the end of the Project’s environmental review and approval process in order to minimize challenges to the Project and to be able to claim that no one is being displaced. The City has a responsibility to support the tenants to remain in their homes and communities and should not allow for Applicant representatives to encourage or pressure tenants to leave.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments and welcome dialogue to further clarify the concerns we have raised.

On behalf of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE),

Maria Patiño Gutierrez Program Coordinator SAJE

Sources:

Coalition for Economic Survival (CES). “Map of Ellis Act Evictions in Los Angeles”. http://www.cesinaction.org/MapofEllisActEvictions.aspx

Curbed LA- “Downtown LA High Vacancy Rate” https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/15/16316040/downtown-la-high-vacancy-rate-rent

Demographics & Statistics - Employment, Education, Income Averages, Crime in South L.A. - Point2 Homes https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/Los-Angeles/South-LA- Demographics.html

Housing Authority of County of LA Estimates “Am I Eligible” https://www.hacola.org/public-housing/am-i-eligible

12 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

LA Housing and Community Investment Department. Public Records. https://hcidapp.lacity.org/CPRA/Home/PublicAccess?id=MTcyMTk=

“Rental Affordability Crisis: Where Is Cost Burden Worst?” Apartment List Rentonomics, 21 Nov. 2017, www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/cost-burdened-renters-2017/.

US Census Explorer Median Household Income by Census Tract https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html

13 Strategic Actions for a Just Economy 152 West 32nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Phone: 213.745.9961

Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberian ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: Agriculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recursos \-tf. v\'\ {\~(f J Air Quality I Cali dad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agencia 0 Organizacion: Biological Resources I Recursos Biologicos S ' - ~ Cu ltural Resources I Recursos Culturales

Geology and Soils I Geologia Address I Direccion: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~c1 ~ \ [luvAl' ~ . Hazards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y sustancias daninas City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: Hydrolog/Water Quality I Hydrologia/ Calidad del agua Land Use and Planning I Uso del terreno Mineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please oise I Ruido print clearly) ~opul at i o n and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) ublic Services I Servicios Publicos L\~. ~ 504· (p jC Recreation I Recreaciones 1 raffic/Transportation I Trafico/ Transportacion Note: Any identifying information Utilities/Service Systems I Utilidades/ Sistema de provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to Servicios any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad EmaillCorreo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No.1 Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV -20 16-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

l "le IJltl &1- i') ~ , tr>vl I ""'q?l'VcJ- / ~ ~ CJc I/t h'h Lt-J, "l '>-

~fiV( 11 ~ ~ ~ 1\.' ~ S Ic/(t •. ,-jJ~ ~ " 5 ~vll(

/w,.e kt.J b t~ h /~ · JL~r-e~.f()c~vhVyv?t Also/f~'1 r ro j~f

vvi/ ( VI of DJ f0..e prj H S·.~'t,.-h · ~ C... l.fV}ol7l/···s.-1}-~--J / Pf crvJ.v.- ,h tit n<'V'-V, ~ /11= >vS -/1- " ~" ~i.b "'- s, ~ (. L"""" I " lJV1.[ C ".1<'/ f.Q. - {~J>~ , (~~ [:- ' ~ ~J -i I.U12 l~~ o>1€ ~ /cLlIJ ~ c YL( I t,c-"~",,tL -t,'vv'"') _ i e ~ vtc-n>/ -' lc L_f-.--,,',,,.J ~.~J.. e h - f-J '':1

ba-'- ~ J.x ~ lb !J ,1 I ±0::

Wt. l\,ltt /'Lt-'f. 1-0 J..,.J ¥ ~ & ~(. ~~jJ iss,,,"s (k5 jrldIw(f: I.e, I"Gvpc~d hitfc/ ~\~J>hu+do~., ~

Smcerely ~ ~.~ (OS, J1~ NA.L 15 ~ &1 "va " ~vt.SSI'n.VJ1 ~ :~~\lU. 1 NamefNombh' Address/ Direccion . Phone #/Nume.·o de Telefono Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: Ag rrcu lture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recursos tU/vlAAlL

Representing Agency or Organization I ~ ir Quality I Calidad del aire Agencia 0 Organizacion: iological Resources I Recursos Biologicos 7~}~ Cultural Resources I Recursos Culturales ~b) ~

eology and Soils I Geologia Address I Direccion: Greenhouse Gas Emissions J Hazards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y sustancias daniiias City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/C6digo Postal: Hydrology/Water Quality I Hydrologial Calidad del agua and Use and Planning I Uso del terreno 9 UJ 57 t---I'= • Mineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please oise I Ruido print clearly) Population and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) ublic Services I Servicios Publicos creation I Recreaciones raffic/Transportation I Traficol Transportacion Note: Any identifying information Utilities/Service Systems I Utilidadesl Sistema de Servicios provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informaci6n esc rita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizaci6n del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad Email/Correo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No. I Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV-2016-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

Sincerely. Name/Nombre Addressl Direccion Phone #/Numero de Telefono

r M { \(\,Mr" Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: Ag riculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recurs os forestales ~ C1 u;l Air Quality I Calidad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agencia oOrganizacion: iological Resources I Recursos Biologicos Cu ltural Resources I Recursos Culturales 4W/5 Geology and Soils I Geologia Address I Direccion: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y ~ 11 3 ~ 1/ <-- 1-[/ sustancias daninas City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: Hydrology/Water Quality I Hydrologial Calidad del agua and Use and Planning I Uso del terreno L- ft cA- 1UJ )7 Mineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please oise I Ruido· print clearly) opulation and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) Public Services I Servicios Publicos ecreation I Recreaciones affic/Transportation Traficol Transportacion I Note: Any identifying information ilities/Service Systems I Utilidadesl Sistema de Servicios provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion esc rita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad Email/Correo Electronico: [email protected]

Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location Ilocalizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No. I Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV-2016-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049 Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Nam~ Ag riculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recurs os ~4 forestales ir Quality I Calidad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agencia 0 Organizacion: Biological Resources I Recursos Biologicos Cultural Resources I Recursos Culturales Geology and Soils I Geologia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y sustancias daniiias City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: Hydrology/Water Quality I Hydrologial Calidad del agua and Use and Planning I Uso del terreno Mineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please oise I Ruido print clearly) Population and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) blic Services I Servicios Publicos ecreation I Recreaciones raffic/Transportation I Traficol Transportacion Note: Any identifying information Utilities/Service Systems I Utilidadesl Sistema de Servicios provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad Email/Correo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No.1 Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV-2016-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

\v I Vl 0

Sincerely. Name/Nombre Address/ Direccion Phone #/Numero de Telefono Environmentallssues .lmpacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: Ag riculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recurs os ~t7I y \ ~ VGtl--..k do.

" Ai r Quality I Calidad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agencia 0 Organizacion: Biological Resources I Recursos Biologicos 7J.<;E ultural Resources I Recursos Culturales

Geology and Soils I Geologia Address I Direccion: ·?qOI FI~ Dj.-· Greenhouse Gas Emissions azards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y sustancias daninas City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: . yd rology/Water Quality I Hydrologial Calidad del agua and Use and Planning I Uso del terreno Lt:4 .4y~ ~( CA qw~7 ineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional. please oise I Ruido print clearly) opulation and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) ublic Services I Servicios Publicos ecreation I Recreaciones raffic/Transportation I Trafico/ Transportacion Note: Any identifying information tilities/Service Systems I Utilidadesl Sistema de Servicios provided will become part of the public record and, as such. must be released to any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad Email/Correo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No.1 Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV-2016-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

~ T 1/ , I qvca I J evo /U(\A aV1 d 4~u WI' b~d (., fv/vC k f/1ICRv aJtl 7"'~ ii.1KS '" ,,,,vIC Yi 7 ~ \ qUo"s flu <;+>-<-e+ v.N~ T ~ lM "- dCi\'·l .... ·,f;

~y\dl ~(Ay~' Jt;( ~q o1 f {tWev ~v, LA- fA 1fff.l7«-_'2_ (_7 -_2-_()_-our-r__ Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: Ag riculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recursos

ir Quality I Calidad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agen~ nizacion: ological Resources I Recursos Biologicos Itural Resources I Recursos Culturales ology and Soils Geologia I Address I Direccion: 3tUJ7 F/aJv f!r .

City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: ydrolog/Water Quality I Hydrologia/ Calidad del agua nd Use and Planning I Uso del terreno JAr rA / 1t<0 7 I ral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please print clearly) ulation and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible)

c/Transportation I Trafico/ Transportacion Note: Any identifying information ilities/Service Systems I Utilidades/ Sistema de provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to Servicios any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad EmaillCorreo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No.1 Planificaci6n Departamento Numero de Caso ENV -20 16-1 892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No.1 Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

?;7 1

teate.

Sincerely, NamelNombre Address/ Direccion Phone #IN umero de Telefono ~Ht{00 \hb'lci~ Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Name I Nombre: griculture & Forest Resources I Agricultura y recursos ' f41~V V&'t~~Cl q

Air Quality I Calidad del aire Representing Agency or Organization I Agencia 0 Organizacion: iological Resources I Recursos Biologicos ultural Resources I Recursos Culturales 7MiE

eology and Soils I Geologia Address I Direccion: . reenhouse Gas Emissions 1Qu7 t(UAttr ~v . Hazards and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y sustancias daninas City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/Codigo Postal: Hydrolog/Water Quality I Hydrologia/ Calidad del agua and Use and Planning I Uso del terreno /.1h bre&J ( C) qtIC?7 ineral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please oise I Ruido print clearly) opulation and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) ublic Services I Servicios Publicos ecreation I Recreaciones raffic/Transportation I Trafico/ Transportacion Note: Any identifying information t ilities/Service Systems I Utilidades/ Sistema de provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to Servicios any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informacion escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizacion del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atencion: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de 1a Ciudad EmaiVCorreo Electronico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizacion del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No. I Planificacion Departamento Numero de Caso ENV -20 16-1892-EIR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

1'kD. !W& S!4 ~V\cll ':J Clve'l ( s CitCl hJI ~'1 avrd bra", J.e ,/ ,i

j~ NI4tbc~ /tu)J ht{) k(~ /¥/Vf( ifi VJIGeI- CtMci J Ci;;/-. 1itJt-e ,/ vk OCW5j +lNL ~~f ~JJ--e ~ .(JX c.Qr~/PL j e:tl l .

1'1-11 S [cI-v1~C\"'1 -k ) Is I/f'-'--/ -+(j ~.f- aVl d hell!{' J(vrf""'1 ~fJ1(~ c.ftLH- ?- 1cC{ Jo. ~~'>R fAA; ~ /' 1~ reaJC//> 3, w.y

Sincerely, NamelNombre Address/ Direccion Phone #/Numero de Telefono Environmental Issues Impacts Ilmpactos Ambientales

What key issues or potential impacts of concern should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report? Que tipos de problemas deberfan ser analizados en el reporte de Impacto Ambiental?

Representing Agency or Organization I

lological Resources I Recursos Biologicos Agenc5~ n~acion: ul ural Resources I Recursos Culturales

Address I Direccion: :gUZ [/uUr ~~~ aza rds and Hazardous Materials I Materiales y Pr·

su~~mcias daniiias City/State/Zip I Cuidad/Estado/C6digo Postal: ~y q rolo g/ W at er Quality I Hydrologia/ Calidad del agua nd Use and Planning I Uso del terreno tAr (/I-( 9v~ 7 'I neral Resources I Recursos Minerales Contact Information (Optional, please print clearly) oQulation and Housing I Poblacion y Viviendas Datos personales (Opcional, por favor escriba legible) ub ic Services I Servicios Publicos ec eation I Recreaciones ic/Transportation I Trafico/ Transportacion Note: Any identifying information tilities/Service Systems I Utilidades/ Sistema de provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to Servicios any individual upon request.

Nota: Cualquier informaci6n escrita sera parte de record publico, y se necesitara de una autorizaci6n del individuo para ser publicada. Written Comment Form I Formulario para rellenar

Attention I Atenci6n: Milena Zasadzien, City Planner I Planificador de la Ciudad Email/Correo Electr6nico: [email protected] Project Name I Nombre del Proyecto The Fig Project

Project Location I Localizaci6n del Proyecto 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Council District I Consejo de distrito CD 9, Curren D. Price, Jr.

Planning Dept Case No. 1Planificaci6n Departamento Numero de Caso ENV-2016-1892-ElR

State Clearinghouse No. I Numero Clearinghouse Estado: 2016071049

1v1l/ VlOffv{2 I~ J(k~~ CfVj j Je lk~efq oG.-:7 //leA- l!V1 tJ '1 hCVlA€ . 1 0((( W1 . 1~

CI~ 7 ,/

Sincerely, NaQIe/Nombre Addressl Direccion Phone #/Numero de Telefono Jth~I4J Vc{~!tCtq ~qU7 t~ft· t,4r) 9f4fl__ ?f1_ -2_{y_-C2V7------'-__ From: Sarah Evans Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 Subject: Flower Drive Historic District To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"

RE: The Fig Project CASE No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR SCH No. 2016071049 Project Address: 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

I urge you please, to protect, not demolish, ANY PART of this California Register Historic District. Development of the Fig Project is the antithesis of preservation.

Issues:

 The project description references the “removal” of eight multi-family buildings but fails to mention that seven of them are designated historic structures – why wouldn’t staff want the public to know this?  Staff is refusing to allow this DEIR and project to be placed on the Cultural Heritage Commission’s agenda for discussion and potential comment by the Commission (the Commissioners are not allowed to comment without it being on an agenda, and thus Brown Act compliant).  A seven-story parking structure would replace most of the demolished historic buildings, even though it is now City policy (supported by an ordinance) to not allow above-ground parking structures and instead promote underground parking.  Project proponents (laughably) claim that this project would “preserve community character, scale and architectural diversity” despite the demolition of the community’s designated historic character buildings simply because the tall buildings would be constructed against the freeway and the new development “would result in a more cohesive and vibrant street environment” facing Figueroa – which may be a laudable result but could be achieved without the demolition of the character buildings on Flower Drive.  The Project is NOT COMPLIANT with the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan, which has a stated goal: “A community which preserves and restores the monuments, cultural resources, neighborhoods, and landmarks which have historical and/or cultural significance.” It also states: “The historic resources are a valuable asset to this Community. They offer significant opportunities for developing neighborhood identity and pride within the Community. It is important to retain the currently available inventory of such buildings.”

Thank you for your dedication to preserving Los Angeles history and beauty.

Sarah Evans 90016

1 From: Brigid Brannagh Lyons Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 Subject: The Fig project. ENV-2016-1892-EIR To: [email protected]

SCH no 2016071049

> > I am writing in to make know my opposition to what is being proposed on flower drive. It is important that we preserve our history. We are losing rich history everyday in Los Angeles with the amount of demolition going on. The Flower drive historic district is supposed to be protected. If something protected can't be saved than how are our representatives representing us at all ? > Sincerely, Brigid Lyons

1 From: Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 Subject: Disappointed in Los Angeles To: [email protected]

Hello Milena RE: Case ENV-2016-1892 EIR #2016071049

Regarding the demo of 3900 Flower Drive, the city is so greedy, "pave paradise and put up high rises"...... that is what LA has become. The crane is our new "bird"!

The homes on Flower Drive are part of the history of Los Angeles and it seems to me that LA had no want to preserve our history of any kind. Just tear it down and put up something new! West Adams Heritage wants to preserve parts of LA and the greedy developers and city want to tear them down, shame on all. I am voicing my objection to this project. I have lived in LA for almost 40 years, my husband for 81 years and his grandparents settled here in 1919...... build the project someplace else, but not in our historic districts!

Carmen Price

[email protected]

1 From: Art Curtis Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:47 PM Subject: Flower Drive Historic District: Developers proposes to demolish 42% of the District To: [email protected] Cc: shelley adler

To Councilman Curran Price, Milena Zasadzien with the Los Angeles Department of City Planning.

I am seriously concerned about this action and the mayor’s small lot subdivision ordinance which does not take into consideration historic housing and the existing neighborhoods such as the example of The Flower Drive Historic District. This destruction of stable pockets of decent neighborhoods and replacing them with commercial parking and large parking structures only worsens the lack of affordable rentals and in the long run reduces the opportunity for low income families to live and work in the local community.

One house after another is being demolished in the West Adams / USC area both South of the campus and North of USC. What replaces the destroyed older family homes are cold invasive barracks only meant to make lots of money for the developers who rent their modern, tasteless boxes to USC student and charge astronomical rents inflated by the lack of decent affordable older historic units and single family housing. If the older structures are well maintained there is no excuse for them to be demolished.

I believe that the city council is responsible for the neighborhood destroying projects like this one in the need to increase their tax base and destroy stable communities that may not be as prestigious as West L.A. but are more affordable and more accessible to middle and low income families.

Sincerely,

Art Curtis Chairman of the North University Park Design Review Board since 2010 and a residence of this community since 1978.

1 From: Steven Rowe Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 Subject: Re: Flower Drive Project To: [email protected]

Dear, Ms. Zasadzien, Please support the protection of Flower Drive Historic District!! Please do not allow developers to destroy an important part of the history of Los Angeles! Our architectural history/treasures should not be destroyed for the benefit of any developer, ever!! Thank you, Regards, Steven Rowe, MS-LMFT 3458 3rd Avenue Los Angeles, CA. 90018 Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Lauren Schlau Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:59 AM Subject: OPPOSE Fig Project - CASE No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected]

November 27, 2017

To: Milena Zasadzien Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3243 Copy: Hon. Curren Price; Lakisha Hull, Deputy; Ken Bernstein, L A Conservancy; West Adams Heritage Assn. (WAHA) RE: The Fig Project CASE No. ENV-2016-1892-EIR SCH No. 2016071049 Project Address: 3900 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

I understand that the City is about to approve demolition of the Flower Drive Historic District in order to develop the Fig Project at 3900 S. Figueroa. Let me add – THE OFFICIALLY HISTORICALLY DESINGATED Flower Drive District. Question is, why designate a California Register Historic District if the City and developers can ignore the designation? The proposed hotel/housing/retail development across from Exposition Park would destroy the entire southerly portion of the designated Flower Drive District.

For background, I am a 30+ year homeowner resident of the West Adams area, as well as past President of WAHA. In fact during my tenure, by working WITH council members, we affected the types of meaningful economic development coupled with preservation that was a win-win for everyone.

Professionally I am a market research consultant with a specialty in tourism and economic development who has conducted various hotel and related development feasibility studies. I truly understand and appreciate the need for such a project in this area, but why is it preserve or destroy? Why not preserve and develop?

As you are likely aware, WAHA and others proposed a reasonable feasible alternative as required by CEQA. The developers hired architectural consulting firm Page & Turnbull with whom WAHA worked, resulting in the “Preservation Alternative” including preservation that would accomplish the development goals while also saving the Flower Drive Historic District.

According to WAHA, the DEIR (October 12), WAHA’s review indicates that City officials apparently are not only supporting the proposed project which will demolish seven historic buildings (together comprising 42% of the designated Flower Drive California Register Historic District), but staff has now also imposed conditions that would virtually require its demolition.

1  Project proponents claim that this project would “preserve community character, scale and architectural diversity” despite the demolition of the community’s designated historic character buildings simply because the tall buildings would be constructed against the freeway and the new development “would result in a more cohesive and vibrant street environment” facing Figueroa – which may be a laudable result but could be achieved without the demolition of the character buildings on Flower Drive.  The Project is NOT COMPLIANT with the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan, which has a stated goal: “A community which preserves and restores the monuments, cultural resources, neighborhoods, and landmarks which have historical and/or cultural significance.” It also states: “The historic resources are a valuable asset to this Community. They offer significant opportunities for developing neighborhood identity and pride within the Community. It is important to retain the currently available inventory of such buildings.”

I fervently oppose the development project as proposed and urge you to do the same. Please review the facts, and especially the impacts on this neighborhood, one of the area’s last remaining historic residential developments. As you know what makes a city great are its unique historic structures lending to the culture of all the residents and fabric of the area before it. We do ourselves proud to retain these unique historic structures; losing them is forever and will forever detract from the uniqueness of this area and all of Los Angeles.

What will it take for you to see what irreversible and detrimental impact this will have? What will it take for you to oppose this project as proposed?

Thank you for your positive consideration.

Warm regards, Lauren

Celebrating our 25th year, February, 2017 Market Research for Strategic Decisions Note Address & Phone as of 1/1/17 (Industrious co-working) 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles CA 90017 Ph: 323-407-8577 [email protected] www.lsconsult.com wbe certified – City of LA