III. Responses to Comments
III. Responses to Comments A. Introduction
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments that were received during the notice comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this section of the Final EIR provides responses to each of the written comments received regarding the Draft EIR. Topical responses have been prepared to address commonly raised topics. These topical responses are provided in Section III.B, Topical Responses, of this section of the Final EIR and include the following:
Topical Response 1: Project Objectives and Selection of Alternatives
Topical Response 2: Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives
Topical Response 3: Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Resident Retention Plan
Topical Response 4: Relationship of Density to Environmental Impacts
Topical Response 5: Open Space
Topical Response 6: Summary of Traffic Impacts, Project Features, Mitigation Measures, and Area Improvements
Topical Response 7: Circulation
Topical Response 8: Summary of Construction Impacts
A matrix providing an overview of the environmental topics raised by each commentor is provided in Table FEIR III-2 on page III-67 in Section III.C, Comments Matrix, of this section of the Final EIR. This matrix is followed by responses to each of the written comments received.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-1 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
1. Project Objectives and Selection of Alternatives
Several comments on the Draft EIR raise concerns regarding the adequacy of project objectives under CEQA, claiming that the project objectives are “narrowly defined” to “favor demolition” rather than preservation of the existing Wyvernwood community. These comments misconstrue the purpose of the project objectives, as defined by CEQA, and the way the objectives relate to each of the alternatives to the proposed project. This topical response provides an explanation of the requirements for the selection of project objectives under CEQA, a description of the process by which the alternatives were properly identified and analyzed under CEQA, and a summary of the findings of the Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis, including the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives.
Identification of Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) states that the project description shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” As stated on page II-12 of the Draft EIR, the underlying purpose of the proposed project is to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of new, upgraded, and modernized housing stock integrated with retail, office, and neighborhood- oriented uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development, with no net loss of rental housing, and no involuntary displacement of existing residents. Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR includes the complete list of the project’s specific objectives. The objectives of the project are listed within the following categories: (a) Development and Site Design Objectives; (b) Community Objectives; and (c) Economic Objectives. The Development and Site Design Objectives are further grouped into the following subcategories: (1) Housing; (2) Civic Uses and Open Space/Recreational Uses; (3) Design, Parking, and Circulation; and (4) Infrastructure and Energy Efficiency. In accordance with CEQA, the project objectives include specific goals that would enable the proposed project to achieve its underlying purpose as stated above.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-2 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Some comments indicate a concern that in order to reject rehabilitation alternatives, page V-88 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR misstates the project’s objective as seeking to create “substantial amount of new housing stock.” The use of the word “new” in this context was intended to indicate “additional housing” as compared to “new construction.”
Purpose of Project Objectives and Relationship to Project Alternatives
The primary purpose of the project objectives is to help the Lead Agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary (CEQA Guidelines §15124(b)). As discussed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a project is a fundamental aspect of the environmental review process under CEQA. Public Resources Code §21002.1(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an EIR by stating that in addition to determining a project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is... to identify alternatives to the project.”
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed program, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” The Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a) 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 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.”
In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives must pass a test of feasibility. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) states that:
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-3 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site....”
It should be noted that when assessing feasibility in connection with the alternatives analysis in the EIR, the initial question is whether the alternative is potentially feasible. A number of factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are listed in CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1). Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives “are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.” (No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256, 242 Cal.Rptr. 760; accord, Native Sun/Lyon Communities v. City of Escondido (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 892, 908, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 344, questioned on another point in Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 698, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 149, 23 P.3d 43.) When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible. (Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 308; Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(3).)
As indicated above, the intent of the alternatives analysis is to reduce the significant impacts of a project. As summarized in Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable short- term construction impacts with regard to air quality (for both regional and local emissions) and noise. Implementation of the project would also result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational impacts with regard to aesthetics/visual quality (due to the removal of an identified historic resource from the project site), air quality (regional emissions only), historic resources, traffic (at six study intersections and intrusion into nearby neighborhoods (to the extent the neighborhoods are unable to reach consensus on the required mitigation plan), and solid waste generation.
Based on the significant environmental impacts of the project, the objectives established for the project, input from the community, and consideration of the General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the project site, Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR analyzes a total of six alternatives to the project. The analyzed alternatives include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. The following discussion summarizes each of the analyzed alternatives and the basis for its selection:
Alternative A: No Project/No Build. The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that the project would not be approved and no new development would
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-4 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
occur within the project site. Thus, the physical conditions of the site would remain as they are today. None of the existing structures would be removed, and no new buildings would be constructed. This Alternative was evaluated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e), which required the evaluation of a “No Project” alternative to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
Alternative B: No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Under the No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative, all existing on- site uses would be retained, and extensive rehabilitation work would be conducted to improve identified substandard conditions on the project site. No new development or land uses would be introduced, and no improvements would be implemented other than those identified to address existing conditions. This Alternative was evaluated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B), which states that the No Project Alternative may discuss “predictable actions by others, such as some other project if disapproval of the project under consideration were to occur.” The No Project/Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative represents reasonably foreseeable development of the project site given the need to improve existing on-site deficiencies and the project site’s value as a historic resource.
Alternative C: Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility. The Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would retain approximately 50 percent of the existing historic district on the project site and redevelop the remaining portion. This Alternative was evaluated primarily for its potential to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant impact to historic resources. The level of development was structured to represent the greatest amount of new construction that could be accommodated on the site without creating an adverse impact to aesthetics (due to the loss of an historic resource) or cultural resources (due to the loss of National Register Eligibility).
Alternative D: West End Preservation Alternative 2. The West End Preservation Alternative 2 would retain a small portion of the existing Wyvernwood Historic District in the northwestern portion of the project site. This Alternative was evaluated primarily for its potential to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant impact to historic resources.
Alternative E: Reduced Intensity Alternative—Specific Plan Equivalent to RAS3 with Density Bonus. The Reduced Intensity Alternative—Specific Plan Equivalent to RAS3 with Density Bonus would remove all existing uses from the project site and develop a reduced density version of the project that includes 2,709 residential units, which is equivalent to the residential density allowed
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-5 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
under the City’s RAS3 (Residential/Accessory) Zone on the net site area (not counting open space and streets) with a density bonus of 584 units. This Alternative was evaluated for its potential to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant impacts to air quality during construction and operation, noise during construction, traffic during operation, and solid waste during operation.
Alternative F: Reduced Height Alternative. The Reduced Height Alternative would remove all existing uses from the project site and construct a development that is substantially similar to the proposed project, but with the 210-foot and 260-foot height zones that are shown in the proposed project’s height district map eliminated (see Figure II-9 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). The analysis in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR determined that impacts to visual character would be less than significant. However, the evaluation of aesthetics is inherently influenced by a degree of subjectivity, as individuals respond differently to changes in the visual environment. To reflect the potential for differences of opinion as to aesthetic impacts, the Reduced Height Alternative was evaluated.
Findings of the Draft EIR Alternatives Analysis
In order to foster informed decisionmaking, the analysis in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, evaluates each alternative based on its: (1) ability to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts, (2) ability to attain most of the basic project objectives, and (3) feasibility.
The Draft EIR determined that Alternative A (No Project/No Build), which is required to be analyzed by CEQA, would avoid all of the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts except for the potential future impact to historic resources, which would be less than the project’s, but which could result in the deterioration of the on-site historic resources over time. However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not attain any of the project objectives. Furthermore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not address any of the existing problems and deficiencies that pose substantial challenges to the continued use of the project site. See pages V-27 through V-30 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR found that while Alternative B (No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative) and Alternative C (Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility) would avoid the proposed project’s significant impact to historic resources, as well as other impacts, both alternatives: (1) would not attain the majority of the project objectives, including the objective to remove existing on-site buildings and improvements that currently encroach upon public easements for water and storm drain utilities; and (2) would not be financially
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-6 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments feasible to implement. See pages V-54 through V-58 and pages V-88 through V-93 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The basis for this conclusion is also discussed in detail in Topical Response No. 2, Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives.
The Draft EIR found that Alternative D (West End Preservation Alternative 2) would achieve most of the project objectives that support the project’s underlying purpose, albeit to a lesser extent than the proposed project. While the West End Preservation Alternative 2 would fully or partially achieve most of the project objectives, it would not avoid any of the project’s significant environmental impacts, although the project’s impacts to historic resources, traffic, and solid waste would be reduced. This Alternative would also result in a new significant and unavoidable impact with respect to housing displacement, as well as greater impacts to aesthetics/visual quality. As discussed on page V-98 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the abrupt transition between the preserved portion and the new development would create a sense of visual contrast and incompatibility that would result in greater impacts to visual character and quality than under the proposed project. While impacts related to historic resources would be reduced as compared to the proposed project, the West End Preservation Alternative 2 would not avoid the project’s significant adverse impact to historic resources. As historic resources are also considered visual resources by the City for purposes of CEQA, this Alternative also would not avoid the project’s significant impact to visual resources. Thus, not only would the West End Preservation Alternative 2 incur the project’s significant impact to visual resources, but it also would result in greater impacts with regard to visual quality and character due to the juxtaposition of two dissimilar development components. See Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. Furthermore, the Financial Feasibility Report that was prepared for the project Alternatives (included in Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR) determined that the cost of implementing the West End Preservation Alternative 2 would not be financially feasible to implement. See pages V-120 through V-123 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. See also Topical Response No. 2, Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives.
The Draft EIR found that Alternative E (the Reduced Intensity Alternative—Specific Plan Equivalent to RAS3 with Density Bonus) would meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose and it would fully or partially achieve the majority of the project objectives that support this underlying purpose, albeit to a lesser extent than the proposed project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative—Specific Plan Equivalent to RAS3 with Density Bonus would likely avoid the project’s regionally significant operational air quality impact for CO, but would not avoid the regionally significant operational emissions for other pollutants. Additionally, this Alternative would not avoid the project’s other significant environmental impacts, although the project’s impacts to air quality (during operation), traffic, and solid waste would be reduced. This Alternative would also result in a new significant and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-7 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments unavoidable impact related to housing displacement since this Alternative would accommodate a phasing plan that allows current tenants to be temporarily relocated on-site during construction, and there are insufficient new affordable units to permanently accommodate the current tenants in the new development once complete. See Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. Furthermore, the Financial Feasibility Report that was prepared for the project Alternatives (included in Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR) determined that the cost of implementing the West End Preservation Alternative 2 would not be financially feasible to implement. See pages V-148 through V-151 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR found that Alternative F (Reduced Height Alternative) would achieve all of the project objectives that support this underlying purpose to the same extent as the project, with one exception. The Reduced Height Alternative would not meet the proposed project’s objective to introduce new building heights in order to create opportunities for scenic long-range views (e.g., of downtown Los Angeles and distant mountain ranges). This objective would be achieved to a lesser extent under the Reduced Height Alternative due to the elimination of the high-rise zones, which would result in fewer new building heights. While the Reduced Height Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, it would not worsen any of the project’s environmental impacts or result in new significant impacts. In terms of feasibility, the Reduced Height Alternative is considered feasible to implement. See page V-172 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
Conclusions
As discussed above, the project objectives were appropriately stated in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15124(b). The alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, were appropriately selected and analyzed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(B) and CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c). Of the four preservation alternatives considered, the Draft EIR found that:
Both of the full preservation alternatives and one of the partial preservation alternatives would fail to attain the majority of the project objectives, including the objective to remove existing on-site buildings and improvements that currently encroach upon public easements for water and storm drain utilities (see Topical Response No. 2); and
All of the preservation alternatives would be financially infeasible for the Applicant to implement.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-8 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The selected alternatives highlight the environmental and policy trade-off between the project objectives and impacts of the project. Because the project involves demolition of an historic resource, preservation alternatives were reviewed to determine whether there was an alternative that could eliminate or reduce impacts to historic resources. However, one of the key objectives of the project is that it be implemented with no involuntary displacement of existing tenants. The analysis determined that alternatives capable of reducing preservation impacts would also require that rents be increased for those units to recover the investment in the preservation development cost, and would reduce the number of new affordable units. Even assuming that somehow the rents could be increased above 10 percent for a renovation project notwithstanding the applicable RSO provisions, because the existing tenants cannot afford significant rent increases, the passing of the renovation costs to tenants would essentially cause their economic displacement. Taken together, these results would conflict with the project’s no displacement objective.
A basic premise underlying the project is that there would be an increase in permitted density so that the market rate units create sufficient value to allow as many units as are necessary to accommodate existing tenants who choose to remain on-site (at a rent no greater than they would have paid in their existing unit) and to allow for 15 percent of the total number of units to be set aside for rent by very low- and low-income households, while still permitting the Applicant to earn a market-responsive return on its investment to develop the project. The alternative analysis, therefore, focuses on whether there are feasible alternatives to the project that could achieve the articulated objectives of the project, including accommodating existing tenants who choose to remain on-site, while also avoiding the identified significant environmental impacts of the project.
Thus, the Alternatives analysis clearly shows that demolition is necessary in order to construct a financially feasible project while meeting the majority of the project objectives.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-9 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
2. Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives
This topical response addresses comments related to the sufficiency of the analysis of the preservation alternatives and questions regarding the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the preservation alternatives are “infeasible,” within the meaning of CEQA. As discussed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1), “[a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations.” (emphasis added) The degree to which the project alternatives are “feasible” is discussed in detail in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR and in the Financial Feasibility Report, which was prepared for the project alternatives and is included as Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR. The issue of whether historic preservation and rehabilitation can be implemented on a phased basis and without displacement of existing residents is covered in Topical Response No. 3, which discusses the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and the Resident Retention Plan. This topical response specifically addresses the feasibility of a partial or full historic preservation alternative.
Comments stated that: (1) the alternatives analysis lacked sufficient rationale for rejecting Alternative B (the No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative) and Alternative C (the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility) as infeasible because the $124,146 per-unit rehabilitation cost assumed in the financial feasibility analysis of project alternatives was more than two times the $53,000 per-unit cost for historic rehabilitation of a similar sized garden apartment complex at the Lincoln Place Apartments; (2) the project objectives had been misstated to require that the project consist of “new” housing stock as compared to rehabilitated units; (3) site improvements, such as enhanced emergency access, could be achieved by adding new signage, lighting, and widening existing pathways, as compared to demolishing and replacing the historic resources; (4) there is no need to eliminate the infrastructure conflicts, as stated throughout the Draft EIR, and no easements and encroachments or illustrations of the encroachments have been included in the Draft EIR, so the encroachments cannot be included as a factor in determining the feasibility of the preservation alternatives (or conversely, that a preservation alternative that eliminated the infrastructure conflict should have been considered); (5) “[m]ore housing and civic amenities could be incorporated in residential towers greater than the 7-story buildings City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-10 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments proposed in the partial preservation alternative, particularly along Olympic Boulevard” or with other infill construction replacing surface parking lots currently on the site; (6) other projects, such as the Lincoln Place Apartments in Venice, California, the Mayfair Mansions Apartments in Washington, DC, the Colonial Village Apartments in Arlington, Virginia, and Village Green near Baldwin Hills, California offer evidence that rehabilitation is feasible; and (7) an economic analysis within a Draft EIR is not considered “paramount under CEQA.” In addition, an architectural studio class at Cal Poly Pomona prepared designs for several other alternatives that retained at least 50 percent of the existing Wyvernwood historic district.
The Project Objectives Do Not Assume New Construction
Some comments contend that in order to reject rehabilitation alternatives (see page V-88 of Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR), the analysis of the alternatives misstates the project’s objective to create a “substantial amount of new housing stock” (emphasis in the original Comment No. 17-18). The use of the word “new” in this context was intended to indicate “additional housing” as compared to “new construction.” The quoted phrase included in this and similar comments was taken out of the context of a discussion of the ability of the partial preservation option to meet the project objective to have an “attractive, cohesive, planned development.”
Page V-88 of the Draft EIR states that in order to protect the historic integrity of the rehabilitated district, the preservation component of the project would be visually separate and independent from the new construction. Accordingly, the resulting urban form of the development under the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would not be as cohesive as the proposed project. On page V-89 of the Draft EIR, the project’s objectives with respect to increasing the amount and quality of housing stock and providing a variety of housing types, including rental and ownership, is discussed. As discussed therein, the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would only partially achieve the project’s objectives to: substantially increase the amount and quality of the housing stock and provide a variety of housing types, sizes, and styles, including both rental and ownership units, to help accommodate the range of housing needs within the City and the region; create housing stock in compliance with current building and safety codes and requirements; and alleviate overcrowded conditions that currently exist on-site. The Draft EIR concludes that the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility does not achieve these objectives as compared to the project “due to the reduced amount of new housing and the fact that this alternative would result in the displacement of the current residents.” It is clear from the discussion that the use of the phrase “new housing” is intended to refer to an increase in the overall amount of housing and is not a prejudgment that any housing should be “new” as compared to rehabilitated.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-11 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Infrastructure Conflicts Impede the Feasibility of Rehabilitation
With respect to the comments regarding the encroachments caused by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and City of Los Angeles easements, the encroachments are discussed on page IV.L-25 of Section IV.L.1, Utilities and Service Systems—Water Supply, of the Draft EIR and pages V-7 and V-30 of Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Appendix FEIR-2 of this Final EIR shows the extent of the encroachments and the impacted structures and documents the locations of the easements, which have as many as 35 buildings on top of them.
Even assuming that MWD and/or the City of Los Angeles would agree to permit extensive rehabilitation of the buildings encroaching into the easements, it would be extremely difficult to secure financing for those improvements given that the holder of the easement (i.e., MWD and/or the City) could enforce the right to demolish the structure in the event the holder needed to access the underlying improvements. Over time, the pipelines and storm drains in the encroaching easements would become older and could require on-going maintenance. Therefore, the risk that those easements would need to be accessed increases over time, and makes the project financing even more difficult. Moreover, lenders typically require assurances that any financed improvements can be rebuilt in the case of casualty. If any encroaching units were lost to a casualty, or required to be removed to effectuate repairs, there is no evidence that permits would be issued for improvements that are in conflict with major utility easements, further impeding the ability to finance rehabilitation improvements. Lastly, from a policy standpoint, standard practice is to locate major infrastructure in open space or right-of-way to maximize access, increase the ease of maintenance and repairs, and avoid disruption to residents who live in the encroaching units. Avoiding conflicts with infrastructure is a policy consideration that supports a finding of infeasibility. Courts have noted that the concept of “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses “desirability” to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social and technological factors, and an alternative that is “impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint” may be rejected as infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, at 1001.)
The commenters have offered no substantiation to suggest that either financing would be available or that the holders of the easements would willingly relinquish their rights, which would be required to allow the significant investment in the rehabilitation construction with respect to encroaching structures. In addition, there were no materials offered by the commenters to suggest why perpetuating the existing infrastructure conflicts would be desirable from the perspective of the utility providers.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-12 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The Lead Agency is Obligated under CEQA to Assess the Actual Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Contrary to assertions in the comments that a financial analysis under CEQA is not relevant, in making a decision about whether to approve the project, a decision making body must evaluate whether the alternatives are actually feasible (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, at 999, emphasis in the original). A determination of infeasibility may be based upon “economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations”. Thus, a financial analysis is critical to the decisionmaker’s actions.
To provide adequate information regarding the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives, the Financial Feasibility Report was prepared for the project alternatives and is included as Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. As indicated in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the Financial Feasibility Report concluded that neither the No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative nor the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility is feasible on a financial basis (see pages V-57 to V-58 and V-92 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, respectively).
Even Assuming the Same Per-Unit Rehabilitation Costs as the Lincoln Place Apartments, the Preservation Alternatives are Financially Infeasible
Commenters point out that the rehabilitation costs used on a per-unit basis for the proposed project are more than two times those assumed for the Lincoln Place Apartments based upon materials submitted with respect to a Mills Act contract for the Lincoln Place Apartments in Venice for the Cultural Heritage Commission hearing on October 6, 2011. As indicated in the comments and confirmed in the Mills Act staff report, the per-unit cost for the Lincoln Place Apartments was approximately $53,000 for minimally rehabilitated units and $70,763 for more extensively renovated units including Americans with Disability Act upgrades and modernized kitchens. These figures are compared in some comments with the $124,146 per-unit construction cost estimated for historic preservation rehabilitation in the project alternatives.
It should be noted that median home prices and median rents are both lower in the Boyle Heights Area than in the City of Los Angeles Subregion as a whole. Specifically, as shown in Table IV.I-12 on page IV.I-33 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the median monthly rent in the Boyle Heights Area in 2000 was $576, while the median monthly rent in the Subregion in 2000 was $656.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-13 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
It is difficult to understand from the comments and from the Mills Act contract document referenced above, which was independently obtained by the Applicant, but was not included with the comments, whether the costs provided in the comments represent an “apples to apples” comparison without knowing more about the nature of the rehabilitation at the Lincoln Place Apartments. For example, the historic preservation construction cost estimates used in the Draft EIR analysis, which were prepared by the BenchMark Contractors Inc./Morley Builders construction company (“BenchMark”), include approximately $22,400 per unit for both exterior and interior structural upgrades and their respective architectural costs. The mechanical, electrical and plumbing scope for the project alternatives also assumes that all existing mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems would be removed and reinstalled with new plumbing lines, mechanical ductwork, electrical distributions and fixtures. However, the cost estimate included in the Lincoln Place Mills Act documentation shows that no structural upgrades were included and the plumbing and electrical work appears to be limited. In many cases, the cost included in the Lincoln Place Apartments Mills Act documentation is based upon an allowance for an estimated percentage of units requiring repair, as compared to the BenchMark estimates, which assume all units receive complete rehabilitation.
One of the objectives of the project is to upgrade and modernize the available housing stock on-site by allowing for upgraded sewer, electrical, and telecommunications systems, as well as updated building materials, floor plans, and amenities to respond to the requirements of modern lifestyles and improve efficiency. Without knowing more about the physical condition of the existing structures, the suggestions of commenters that upgrades could occur without the installation of new mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems would be similar to Alternative A (No Project/No Build) analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that the project would not be approved and no new development would occur within the project site. General on-going maintenance would continue to occur consistent with current operations. However, no new floor area would be constructed, the existing deficiencies on- site that result from the existing site design and configuration would not be addressed, and no improvements would be made to the existing open space or pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems.
Without knowing more about the physical condition of Lincoln Place as compared to existing conditions at Wyvernwood, it is impossible to make a determination as to why any specific construction costs at the Lincoln Place Apartments may be lower than those estimated for rehabilitation of the Wyvernwood units. One of the guiding principles in specifying the alternatives was to define a post-rehabilitation finished product that would be comparable in quality and amenities to the new construction proposed under the project, so that the alternative would meet the project’s objectives to the maximum extent possible (i.e., to render the alternative in its most favorable, but reasonable, light).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-14 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
However, to address the comments stating that the construction costs were unreasonably high, the feasibility model was re-run assuming, arguendo: (1) the construction costs reported for the Lincoln Place Apartments, and (2) that the rehabilitated project complies with the limitation on rent increases imposed under RSO (i.e., generally, the rent following rehabilitation cannot exceed 10 percent of the pre-rehabilitation rent, as discussed in Topical Response No. 3). The results are presented in a supplementary letter included as Appendix FEIR-5 of this Final EIR from HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A), which prepared the Financial Feasibility Report for the project alternatives that is included as Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. In preparing that analysis (including review of the Mills Act contract documentation for the Lincoln Place Apartments, as noted above), HR&A found that the $53,000 per-unit historic preservation construction value mentioned in the comments needed to be adjusted to $43,786 because the Lincoln Place Apartments figures included site work, whereas the Wyvernwood rehabilitation figures prepared by BenchMark did not. The analysis demonstrates that even using the lower Lincoln Place Apartments rehabilitation construction cost value per unit, the resulting gross margin metric for the alternative as a whole is insufficient to meet the threshold of financial feasibility (i.e., 0.22 percent versus the minimum acceptable threshold of 8.0 percent). Even if the 10 percent limit on rent increases allowed by the RSO could be overridden, the rent level that would allow the project (even with the reduced estimate of rehabilitation costs) to be feasible would need to be in the range of $2,700 per month, which is well beyond the overall weighted average rent at the project site today (i.e., $936 per month) and well above market rate rents for the Boyle Heights area ($1,734 per month), even after adjustments for inflation over time to the first post-rehabilitation year of occupancy.
Market rents in the Lincoln Place neighborhood are considerably higher than rents in the Boyle Heights neighborhood. Therefore, the total money available to repay the rehabilitation costs is greater for the Lincoln Place Apartments project compared to the proposed project. Moreover, it should be noted that the Lincoln Place Apartments project received an exemption from rent stabilization, which allowed the base rent post- rehabilitation to be set by the owner to market levels. Also, at the time rehabilitation took place, and unlike Wyvernwood, the units subject to the RSO were more than 90 percent vacant,1 so there was no need to pay relocation cost and no need to accommodate displaced tenants on the site. In contrast, the proposed project provides an explicit mechanism and a set of binding commitments for all existing tenants who want to remain at Wyvernwood to be accommodated with both temporary and permanent on-site housing at rents no higher than would have been payable under the RSO, as described in the Resident Retention Plan included as Appendix J.4 to the Draft EIR.
1 Lincoln Place Apartments Property Class Regulation, Adopted by the Rent Adjustment Commission 2/4/10. See Appendix FEIR-6 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-15 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
In specifying the alternatives for analysis, historic rehabilitation construction was assumed to be undertaken in one phase in all alternatives to achieve reasonable construction cost efficiencies. As indicated above, even assuming construction costs that are equivalent to what has reportedly been achieved at the Lincoln Place Apartments (where there was no need to phase the rehabilitation because the units were 90 percent vacant), financial feasibility modeling still shows that rehabilitation does not achieve minimum threshold returns. Based upon communications from BenchMark, phasing the rehabilitation construction increases construction costs, so it can be assumed that if the rehabilitation were to be phased, the costs would not be less than what were assumed at the Lincoln Place Apartments. Therefore, even assuming phased rehabilitation and construction costs similar to the Lincoln Place Apartments, the rehabilitation and partial rehabilitation options for Wyvernwood are not financially feasible. As discussed in the supplementary letter included as Appendix FEIR-5, the results of the financial feasibility model that was re-run show that by using the lower adjusted Lincoln Place per-unit cost for the rehabbed units, and the associated limits on rents for those units if these costs were to be recovered under the RSO, this alternative would still be financially infeasible. This is because the results do not meet the minimum acceptable feasibility thresholds for both gross margin and Internal Rate of Return, as presented in Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, partial rehabilitation consists of repairing damaged facilities and meeting contemporary living standards. Specifically, building improvements would include: repair of cracked and damaged entry stairs, slabs, and exterior wall cladding; new electrical wiring; removal of water heaters from closets; and the remodeling of kitchens and bathrooms including plumbing upgrades. Landscaping improvements would include the repair of damaged footpaths and stairs, tree stumps, significant erosion, dead or dying landscape areas, and non-functioning drainage areas. The existing parking facilities would also be improved, although it would not be possible to add the number of additional parking spaces required to fully satisfy the parking demand associated with the retained units.
Considering Additional Preservation Alternatives or Adding Additional Civic and Commercial Uses Does not Alter the Conclusions Regarding Feasibility
The proposed alternatives prepared by the Cal Poly student class demonstrate urban design variants of Alternative C (the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility), namely a partial preservation option where new construction is added and approximately 50 percent (or more) of the existing historic district is demolished. As shown in Table V-1 on page V-4 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would preserve 648 existing units and construct 1,710 new residential units for a total of 2,358 dwelling units upon build-out. Comments suggested that additional development could be accommodated in a preservation alternative. However, in each of the student designs, the total number of new units is less than what was considered in the Partial Preservation City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-16 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility analysis in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. One student submission preserves 648 units, demolishes 539 units, and constructs 1,200 units for a total of 1,848 units; another submission preserves 849 units, demolishes 338 units, and constructs 695 units, for a total of 1,544 units; another submission featured infill development, senior homes, senior center, etc. for an overall preservation of 75 percent of the existing units, without a specific breakdown of the number of total units; and another submission preserves 603 units, demolishes 584 units, and constructs 1,183 units for a total of 1,786 units.
To the extent the student-generated alternatives create less housing than what was analyzed in the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility, it is clear from the results of the Financial Feasibility Report included as Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR that these alternatives would not be financially feasible, because there would be an insufficient number of new market rate units and commercial space in the Cal Poly student class variants of Alternative C (the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility) to generate the financial value that would be required to offset the cost of historic rehabilitation. The student submissions provide alternative land use plans for the incorporation of new development, but they were not accompanied by any economic analysis of the feasibility of the proposed revised designs.
The Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility was designed to maximize both the potential feasibility of the alternative and the alternative’s ability to meet the fundamental project objectives. In specifying the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Historic Resources Group (HRG), a recognized expert in historic preservation, was asked to determine the amount of area and number of buildings that could be demolished while still maintaining the project’s integrity as a historic district. HRG also determined how much new construction could be added while still allowing the district to comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. The assertion of some comments that additional, new development could be added in excess of seven stories is contrary to the expert determinations of HRG.
As discussed on page 16 of the Historic Resources Impact Analysis included as Appendix N.1 of the Draft EIR, the implementation of new development adjacent to the existing historic district could potentially have an adverse effect on the remaining historic district. To avoid adverse impacts, which is necessary to maintain the eligibility of the historic district that includes the central core, a buffer area equal to the width of Glenn Avenue would be needed between the remaining district and any new construction. The height of new buildings bordering the buffer zone would need to be stepped down so that the pedestrians standing at the edge of the remaining historic area would perceive adjacent new buildings to be no more than twice the height of the existing Wyvernwood buildings. Thus, design concepts or alternatives which would permit heights in excess of these limits
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-17 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments would be inconsistent with the purpose of the selected historic preservation alternatives, whose primary goal was to avoid or eliminate the project impact to historic resources. Moreover, increases in height beyond seven stories would only increase construction costs without increasing revenues, further reducing financial feasibility.
To the extent the comments suggest that there needs to be a broader range of preservation alternatives considered in the Draft EIR, it should be noted that the No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative and the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility were created as “bookends” to determine the overall feasibility of a rehabilitation consistent with the goals of preservation. The Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility saves and rehabilitates the minimum amount of existing area and buildings to permit Wyvernwood to retain its designation as an historic district. The amount of new construction under this alternative is maximized to add significant new revenue sources and consider the application of historic preservation tax credits and the Mills Act property tax reduction, as stated on page V-60 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
The new development assumed in the alternatives is primarily residential in nature to be consistent with the project’s goal of upgrading existing housing and creating substantial additional housing, including covenanted affordable housing. To the extent that additional commercial uses were assumed to be part of new development, it would of necessity reduce the number of affordable units and overall housing units, thereby making this alternative less likely to conform with the project’s objectives.
The Feasibility of Preservation at Other Garden Apartment Complexes Does not Demonstrate the Feasibility of Preservation for the Project Alternatives
The fact that other projects with characteristics generally similar to Wyvernwood may have been able to achieve successful rehabilitations does not provide substantial evidence that the same results would be applicable to the proposed project. Based upon the limited information cited by commenters about other rehabilitation projects, it is not clear whether government support was involved, whether the projects were vacant at the time the rehabilitation was undertaken, whether the results generated a market-responsive return to their investors, or any other of the multiple factors that would go into determining specific feasibility in this case.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-18 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The Mills Act application for the Lincoln Place Apartments indicates that the project was at least 90 percent vacant at the time rehabilitation work began.2 Accordingly, the project developer did not have to budget for significant relocation assistance costs for tenants of the project as required by §152.05 A of the RSO. Moreover, the project developer was not limited by RSO §151.07 A to the maximum 10 percent increase in what it could charge for the majority of the rehabilitated units following rehabilitation and was expressly authorized to increase rents to market rates on an accelerated basis. Market rents at the Lincoln Place Apartments are significantly higher than at Wyvernwood. Unlike the Lincoln Place Apartments, which was more than 90 percent vacant,3 Wyvernwood is nearly fully occupied and cannot easily accommodate all tenants who want to remain on- site. See Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s RSO and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
The Mayfair Mansions Apartments project, which is mentioned in some comments, is also inapposite to Wyvernwood, because its financing structure was supported by heavy local and federal government subsidies.4 In particular, the Mayfair Mansions Apartments project relied on substantial backing from long-term subsidies from the Washington D.C. Department of Housing. In addition, the Mayfair Mansions Apartments project was envisioned as a condominium development and was supported by a $24.4 million loan from Washington D.C.’s Housing Production Trust Fund, plus bond financing from the D.C. Housing Finance Agency.5 These or other similar financial incentives are not available to the developers of the proposed project. It is also unclear from generally available documentation whether the Mayfair Mansions Apartments project resulted in the displacement of existing tenants.
The Colonial Village Apartments project, which is also mentioned in some comments, is not supportive to the commenters’ case because it provided a lesser commitment to affordable housing than the proposed project. When Mobil Land Development Corporation purchased Colonial Village in 1979, it committed to Arlington County that 100 units (10 percent of the total units) would not be renovated and thereby
2 Lincoln Place Apartments Property Class Regulation, Adopted by the Rent Adjustment Commission 2/4/10. See Appendix FEIR-6 of this Final EIR. 3 Ibid. 4 The Washington Post [Washington D.C.] October 2, 2008, Every Edition, Extras: DZ02. See Appendix FEIR-7 of this Final EIR. 5 “DHCD and Partners Earn Award for Affordable Housing Project.” State News Service [Washington, D.C.] 4 June 2009. See Appendix FEIR-7 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-19 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments preserved for low-income residents.6 By contrast, 15 percent of the newly constructed residential units to be constructed at the proposed project would be voluntarily covenanted as rental units that are affordable to very low- and low-income households for a period of 30 years, and the Applicant has committed to allow existing tenants to relocate into the new project and at rents no higher than what they would have been under RSO.
For CEQA purposes, as noted above and in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, a threshold in the analysis of project alternatives is determining whether there are social, economic, legal or other factors that would render the proposed alternative infeasible. For example, in the case of Village Green, contemporaneous newspaper reports indicate that when the complex was converted to condominiums over a six-year period in the 1970s, only approximately 50 percent of the current tenants at that time chose to buy into the newly renovated unit when the project was converted from a rental to a for- sale product.7 In contrast, the primary objective of the proposed project is to achieve the upgraded housing and the additional supply of housing adjacent to areas of employment without displacing current tenants who want to remain on-site.
Similarly, based upon materials submitted with respect to a Mills Act contract for Village Green referenced in some comments, the scope of the current renovations planned at Village Green are far more modest (approximately $19.3 million over a ten-year period) and involve mostly painting, landscaping, sewer replacement, maintenance and repair of walls and will not require any occupants to be displaced. Moreover, the homeowners of Village Green are bearing the costs of the rehabilitation. In contrast, the rehabilitation costs for a preservation alternative are significantly higher than $19 million, even assuming the lower Lincoln Place Apartments costs, and the occupants at Wyvernwood are tenants, not owners. The requirements of the RSO limit the costs that can be recovered through future rent increases. See Topical Response No. 3 for more information regarding the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Therefore, the Village Green project is not applicable to the feasibility of preservation at Wyvernwood.
In summary, the factors that render infeasible the preservation alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR and in the comments on the Draft EIR include: (1) the inability to recover the cost of rehabilitation due to the applicable restrictions of the
6 ARLnow.com, County Panel to Consider Colonial Village Renovations, September 7, 2010, www.arlnow. com/2010/09/07/county-panel-to-consider-colonial-village-renovations/, Accessed May 1, 2012. See Appendix FEIR-8 of this Final EIR. 7 “Village Green Passes Half-Way Mark in Sales.” Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] Feb 20, 1977, pg. G11. See Appendix FEIR-9 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-20 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
RSO (i.e., caps on post-rehabilitation rents); (2) even assuming rent stabilization did not apply and assuming rehabilitation costs consistent with the Lincoln Place Apartments project, the inability to achieve an acceptable level of return because the rent levels required to achieve the minimum acceptable return would be almost three times higher than current rents and significantly higher than current market rents; (3) the fact that under any scenario a large percentage of the current tenants would need to be permanently displaced; (4) the fact that infrastructure easement conflicts are not resolved; (5) the fact that none of the rehabilitation or preservation scenarios meets the project objective for generating a significant amount of additional housing; (6) the fact that only the proposed project provides covenanted affordable housing and below market housing to accommodate existing tenants; and (7) the fact that the alternatives involving preservation rehabilitation do not achieve the circulation goals articulated in the project objectives. See Topical Response No. 7 for more information regarding the existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems. As discussed therein, vehicular circulation is limited in the existing site. For example, access for first responders (i.e., police, fire, and ambulance) is limited because vehicles cannot penetrate the core of the project site. Under the proposed project, a grid-like vehicular circulation network would provide convenient access to the greater Boyle Heights community. Due to the current configuration of the project site, including the placement of buildings, streets, and walkways, creating a grid-like pedestrian circulation system would not be feasible without removing existing structures. These above factors were taken into account in making the determination that implementation of the preservation alternatives is not feasible.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-21 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
3. Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Resident Retention Plan
Several comments questioned the conclusion in the Draft EIR that the current tenant population would be displaced by a rehabilitation alternative, and that the rehabilitation would require payment of relocation payments to existing tenants. Others suggested that the project is unnecessary because the existing complex is a large garden-style complex which already provides low-cost housing to many city residents, which they suggest is “protected in perpetuity by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.” One comment states that “the replacement of existing affordable units is required under current city codes….” Another states that the Applicant’s commitments with respect to housing are unenforceable.
Implicit within these comments is the assumption that allowing existing tenants to remain in their current rent-stabilized units, subject to the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), would be a superior alternative in terms of preserving existing affordable housing stock. However, as discussed on pages IV.I-47 through IV.I-48 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR and pages V-76 through V-77 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the proposed Resident Retention Plan included as Appendix J.4 of the Draft EIR is significantly more beneficial to existing tenants than the City’s RSO, and the proposed project actually creates more affordable housing stock than either exists in the current condition or would exist under a rehabilitation alternative. Moreover, because rents for rehabilitated units would of necessity need to be higher than current rents to allow the Applicant to recover costs and earn a market-responsive return on the investment, rehabilitation would ultimately result in displacement of tenants who could not afford these higher rents. However, as discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide an increase in the supply of modernized housing, do so without raising the rent of current tenants beyond what they would pay in the future under the RSO, and if the tenant qualifies for the affordable units, his or her rent could be reduced.
Currently, Wyvernwood is a private, market-rate apartment community that does not include any covenanted affordable housing with long-term restricted rents. In fact, as stated on page IV.I-35 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, rent levels at only
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-22 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments between 221 (per the Los Angeles Housing Department schedule) and 439 (per State data) of 1,187 units have rents that would qualify as “affordable” under City standards. The 439 units are comprised of 197 units paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “very low-income” households and 242 units paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “low- income” households. While these rents are considered “affordable” because they are lower than current market rents, these units are not true “affordable housing” as defined by applicable laws and regulations. Affordable rental housing, unlike rent stabilized housing, is housing with below-market rents that are based on below-market income levels for a particular area, and that remain at below-market levels even after a tenant moves out. Rent stabilized housing is below-market housing that remains at below-market rents even after a tenant moves out. Under the RSO, “affordable” rents are not protected in perpetuity. Once a tenant moves out, the rents are reset to market. Accordingly, under current conditions, as tenancies turnover, the rents at Wyvernwood do and will continue to rise and become less affordable over time. In contrast, the project voluntarily offers the potential for up to 660 covenanted units that will be affordable to households with low and very low income for the next thirty years. In addition, through the proposed Resident Retention Plan included as Appendix J.4 of the Draft EIR, the Applicant has committed to make as much additional rental housing available, at rents equal to what a relocated tenant would have paid under the RSO for its existing unit, as is necessary to ensure that tenants who want to remain on site may do so. Current residents who qualify for covenanted affordable housing will have “first-in-line” priority access to the affordable units. Thus, the proposed project actually creates a larger supply of affordable housing and rent stabilized housing than under existing conditions.
The proposed Resident Retention Plan essentially offers two options to residents. The first option permits tenants to accept a relocation payment and permanently relocate offsite. Under the second option, tenants may choose to temporarily relocate on-site during construction of the project to an available existing unit on-site, but outside of the construction area. If a tenant elects to remain on-site during construction, the tenant would be provided with a temporary replacement unit, which would be a comparable apartment located elsewhere within the project site. The tenant may then: (a) rent an apartment within the project at a rent no more than the rent stabilized amount he or she would pay based upon his or her current lease; (b) apply his or her relocation payment toward the purchase of a condominium within the project; or (c) relocate off-site (in the event the tenant changes his or her mind after selecting either of the options above). Tenants who choose to rent an apartment within the new project would have the opportunity to rent either a designated Affordable Unit (if they can document that they meet the requirements for low-income tenancy) or a market rate apartment at a rent no more than the rent stabilized amount (i.e., the rent as adjusted annually by rent control) they would pay based upon their current lease.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-23 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
To understand the constraints of rehabilitating units without displacement, it is important to understand the RSO regulations with respect to recovering costs of improvements. There are four categories of work/improvements where the costs of such are permitted to be passed along to the tenants. The categories are: (1) “capital improvements”; (2) “rehabilitation work”; (3) “seismic work” (not applicable in this case); and (4) “primary renovation work.” The category dictates whether the cost increase is temporary or permanent, and the percentage of the cost that may be passed on. (§151.07 of the RSO.)
“Rehabilitation work” is work done to comply with an order issued by the Department of Building and Safety, the Health Department, or the Fire Department due to changes in the housing code, or to repair damage resulting from fire, earthquake or other natural disaster. A “capital improvement” is composed of improvements such as roofing, carpeting, draperies, stuccoing the outside of a building, air conditioning, security gates, swimming pool, sauna or hot tub, fencing, garbage disposal, washing machine or clothes dryer, dishwasher, children’s play equipment permanently installed on the premises, the complete exterior painting of a building, and other similar improvements. Capital improvements are not the same as “Primary Renovation Work” which includes improvements such as replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical system. The planned improvements under the preservation alternatives are more akin to a “Primary Renovation Work” described below. But even assuming it qualified as a capital improvement, completing “capital improvements” does not guarantee that the cost of the improvement can be recovered, as it only entitles a landlord to a temporary monthly rent increase of 1/60 of 50 percent of the average capital improvement cost per unit. This cost shall not exceed $55 per month for 6 years. The 6-year period may be extended until the allowable costs are recovered. Assuming recovery of $55/month x 6 years x 1,187 current units, this would yield an annual increase of about $4.7 million. Even assuming the reduced per-unit costs (which some commenters suggest were used at the Lincoln Place Apartments), the cost to renovate the units, not including bonding, site work, general contractor’s fee, insurance and other costs would be approximately $63 million. By way of example, the $4.7 million represents less than 3 percent of the estimated $175 million in “hard” construction costs to rehabilitate all existing units to the Secretary of Interior’s standards, as presented in the Financial Feasibility Report prepared for the project alternatives included as Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. Even if the lower Lincoln Place construction cost numbers are assumed, the $4.7 million only represents about 9 percent of the “hard” construction costs (i.e., building renovation and garage renovations) using a rehab per-unit value that some commentators attribute to the Lincoln Place Apartments development after adjusting for equivalent cost components, but not including in either comparison bonding, site work, general contractor’s fee, insurance and other associated costs of rehabilitation. These figures do not include
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-24 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments any return on the dollars that were required to be invested upfront. Thus, these RSO provisions do not allow for a financially feasible rehabilitation of the units.
The contemplated rehabilitation and partial rehabilitation alternatives would involve completion of “Primary Renovation Work” in conformance with a “Tenant Habitability Plan.” Under the RSO, such improvements generally entitle a landlord to a rent increase not to exceed 10 percent of the existing rent, per Section 151.06.5(1)(d) of the RSO. In addition, under the RSO, if the amount of time necessary for the units to be vacant to complete the renovation work exceeds 30 days, then tenants are entitled to receive relocation benefits or at their election choose to have the landlord relocate them into a comparable temporary unit, and then back into the rehabilitated unit. The RSO requires that a landlord pay for all temporary housing accommodation costs and any costs related to relocating the tenant to temporary housing accommodations, regardless of whether those costs exceed rent paid by the tenant. However, the RSO precludes the rent on a rehabilitated unit, where the tenant moves back in, from increasing by more than 10 percent. Accordingly, under the RSO there are significant constraints on the landlord’s ability to recover costs, and it can be assumed that a landlord will not invest money for renovation if it cannot recover the investment in those costs and earn a market-responsive return on the investment. Under the project, with the economic value generated by creating a new supply of market-rate housing, the Applicant can, in essence, subsidize the creation of enough affordable and below-market-rate housing to accommodate existing tenants who want to stay.
The RSO also provides that when a landlord elects to demolish rental units subject to the RSO, or otherwise withdraws the units from rental housing use, the landlord must provide the tenants specified relocation benefits. Furthermore, the RSO provides that if a landlord demolishes residential property subject to the City’s RSO, and subsequently builds new residential rental units on the same property within five years, then the newly constructed units are also subject to the RSO. However, if the demolished rental units are replaced by an equal number of new affordable rental units (not to exceed 20 percent of the total number of newly constructed rental units, which would be 240 units in the case of Wyvernwood), then the owner may apply to the Los Angeles Housing Department to exempt such new units from the RSO. Even though under the RSO the project would be allowed an exemption from future rent control, the Applicant is nonetheless exceeding the requirements of the RSO by not evicting current tenants and giving them the option of relocating on-site during construction and eventually moving into the new project. Moreover, the proposed Resident Retention Plan included as Appendix J.4 of the Draft EIR commits the Applicant to charge initial rents in the newly constructed apartments that are lower than market rents in some cases, despite the project owner’s legal right to apply to exempt new units from the RSO. Existing households who do not qualify for low-income units may elect to relocate into market rate apartments or condominiums, but with the assurance that their rents would not increase beyond then-applicable RSO amounts.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-25 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Economic feasibility issues related to a phased rehabilitation (as discussed in Topical Response No. 2) also lead to physical project constraints that preclude a full, on-site relocation of existing tenants. Even assuming that somehow the rents could be increased above 10 percent for a renovation project notwithstanding the applicable RSO provisions, because the existing tenants cannot afford significant rent increases, the passing through of the renovation costs in the form of increased rents for the renovated units will essentially cause their displacement. Even if rehabilitation were to take place 100 units at a time, the availability of vacant unrehabilitated units into which existing tenants could be relocated on-site would only allow for the temporary prevention of displacement. As the rehabilitation activities are completed, the supply of unrehabilitated units to move existing tenants into diminishes so that accommodation of all tenants who want to remain on site is not possible. Moreover, to allow cost recovery and a market rate return on the rehabilitation investment, the rents for the rehabilitated units must be significantly higher than current rents, resulting in rents for the rehabilitated units that would be too expensive for existing tenants to bear. That is, tenants cannot be relocated into rehabilitated units because the rents required to allow the recovery of renovation costs would price current tenants out of the market, as analyzed in Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, as the units are rehabilitated the existing tenants would be displaced over time.
Some commenters have cited examples of other projects that purportedly used phased rehabilitation to successfully renovate large apartment communities with site plan characteristics similar to Wyvernwood Apartments and without significant displacement of existing tenants. However, these examples are inapposite to Wyvernwood, as these other developments did not have to solve the issue of how to temporarily relocate a large existing tenant population or account for the project costs of doing so, including the constraints of the RSO. For example, the Lincoln Place Apartments project was at least 90 percent vacant at the time rehabilitation work began at the project.8 Accordingly, the project developer did not have to consider the logistics of temporary housing on-site, or budget for significant relocation assistance costs for tenants of the project as required by §152.05 A of the RSO. Moreover, the project developer was not limited by RSO §151.07 A to the 10 percent increase in what it could charge for the majority of the rehabilitated units, and was expressly authorized to escalate rents to market rates on an accelerated basis. The Village Green project in Baldwin Hills similarly benefitted from large-scale displacement of tenants. Media reports contemporary with the Village Green condominium conversion renovation report that somewhere in the vicinity of 50 percent of the residents chose not to
8 Lincoln Place Apartments Property Class Regulation 2000.00 adopted by the Los Angeles Rent Adjustment Commission on February 4, 2010. See Appendix FEIR-6 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-26 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments buy a refurbished condominium within the project, so there was significant dislocation (roughly 50 percent) of existing tenants associated with that project.9
Some comments also cite Colonial Village, but this project actually offered a lesser commitment to affordable housing than Wyvernwood. To commit to lower rents, the developer of that project agreed not to renovate units. When Mobil Land Development Corporation purchased Colonial Village in 1979, it committed to Arlington County that 100 units (10 percent of the total units) would not be renovated and thereby preserved for low-income residents. By contrast, 15 percent of the newly constructed residential units at Wyvernwood would be covenanted as rental units that are affordable to very low- and low- income households for a period of 30 years.
In summary, to recover renovation costs, rents on rehabilitated units will necessarily be significantly higher than current rents. Tenants who are unable to pay the increased rents will be displaced. There are insufficient units to accommodate existing tenants on-site if renovation were to be phased. In contrast, upon implementation, the project significantly increases the available supply of housing and provides a supply of covenanted affordable housing that does not currently exist for decades into the future, whereas no such guarantee is possible under the RSO. In addition, the project maintains the supply of rent stabilized housing for current tenants who wish to remain in the project. The project will exceed the requirements of RSO and allow for the provision of upgraded housing and environs without the need for rent increases that effectively displace tenants.
9 “Honored Housing Project Now Becoming Condominiums.” Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 7 April 1974. See Appendix FEIR-9 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-27 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
4. Relationship of Density to Environmental Impacts
Several comments regarding the Draft EIR are concerned with the impacts associated with the density of the proposed project. Due to the size of the proposed project (i.e., a net increase of 3,213 residential units and up to 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office and civic uses) comments assert that significant environmental impacts should be anticipated to result from the proposed project. However, the increase in total units or the addition of new commercial development does not necessarily result in adverse impacts. Because features of the proposed project would reduce existing negative impacts, such as overcrowding and limited connectivity to the street grid, the project’s impacts are less than what the total unit counts might suggest. The project would also generate numerous beneficial impacts. As described in more detail below, such beneficial impacts include relief of overcrowding; environmental sustainability; infrastructure upgrades; improved drainage; improved surface water quality; improved security; improved access, circulation, and parking; improved open space and recreational facilities; improved bicycle, pedestrian and transit amenities; and electrical and communication upgrades.
Relief of Overcrowding
As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Housing, and Section IV.I.3, Population, of the Draft EIR, the current development on the site is characterized by a much higher than typical number of people per unit. As stated on page IV.I-34 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, using data for Census tract 2051.10, which encompasses most, but not quite all of the project site, the average occupancy at the project site is 5.18 residents per unit, compared with 4.35 residents per unit in medium-density housing in the general Boyle Heights area and 2.83 residents per unit in the Los Angeles area. Approximately 405 of the units are single or one-bedroom apartments. Census data show that 49 percent of the units are severely overcrowded by census definition (i.e., 1.5 or more persons per room). As discussed in Topical Response No. 3, the project would implement a Resident Retention Plan to ensure that current tenants and residents have a variety of choices for securing new housing, and to encourage tenants and residents to continue living on-site. A
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-28 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments basic premise underlying the proposed project is that there would be an increase in density so that the market rate units create sufficient value to allow as many units as are necessary to accommodate existing tenants who choose to remain on-site (at a rent no greater than they would have paid in their existing unit) and to allow for 15 percent of the total number of units to be set aside for rent by very low- and low-income households (thus reducing overcrowding), while still permitting the Applicant to earn a market-responsive return on its investment to develop the project so that the project is feasible.
It is anticipated that by providing a larger pool of housing affordable to low income tenants, and allowing existing tenants with below market rents to move into the new project at rents no higher than would have been payable under the RSO, the current overcrowded conditions can be alleviated. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to current overcrowding conditions. The Draft EIR fully supports the conclusion that although there would be a significant increase in total units, the population increase would be far more modest. There would not be a tripling of population on the project site as is suggested in several comments. Rather, the project would result in a population that is approximately 1.6 times the existing population of the project site, as the project is estimated to have a population of 10,127 persons and the existing population of the project site is 6,145 persons.
Environmental Sustainability
As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability, as evidenced in its mixed-use nature, the site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit, and the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses. The project site is within 1.25 miles of two station stops on the MetroRail Gold Line extension, which was recently completed, and 2 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Additionally, eight bus lines operate in the immediate vicinity of the project site. By increasing the number of residential uses on the project site, the project would fulfill established regional and City planning directives to develop higher density uses near public transit and locate jobs near housing to reduce commute times and related environmental impacts.
The design of new buildings would also incorporate LEED® features so as to be capable of achieving Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-H® or LEED-NC® Rating System as of January 1, 2011. Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the proposed project received a 2012 “Charter Award,” by the Congress for the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-29 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
New Urbanism. The Congress for the New Urbanism is an organization that promotes walkable, mixed-use neighborhood development, sustainable communities, and healthier living conditions.10 This prestigious national design award is given to projects that most closely follow the principles of the Charter of the New Urbanism. Furthermore, a number of studies have documented that the “greenest” cities in the nation tend to be the densest, the most walkable, and the most functionally diverse.11
Improved Functionality of Wastewater Infrastructure
As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the quantity of wastewater effluent created on-site sometimes exceeds the design capacity of the existing sewer lines, resulting in main line backups and disruption of service. As discussed in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, this is largely due to existing downstream constraints on the Camulos sewer line, which is connected to 934 of the 1,187 existing dwelling units. The remaining 253 units dwelling drain to Sewer Pump Plant No. 606 at Dacotah and Eighth Streets. It is anticipated that upon project completion, wastewater flow from the project site to the Camulos trunk sewer would be less than the current flow because the project would construct new infrastructure that would direct the majority of the project site’s wastewater flow to Sewer Pump Plant No. 606. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to wastewater infrastructure issues that occur under existing conditions.
Drainage and Water Quality Improvements
Under current conditions, during periods of substantial rainfall the common open space areas of the site are prone to flooding, as discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, stormwater is not currently treated on-site. As discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, under the project, all site water would be collected on-site in catch basins. In addition, the existing drainage channel running through the site from west to east (generally corresponding to The Mall) would be maintained and improved with a series of urban bioswales designed to collect surface water and provide first flush treatment prior to discharge to the local storm drain system. In addition, the Arroyo Walk would provide a stormwater management system of bioswales, biofiltration, and infiltration. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to drainage and water quality issues that occur under existing conditions.
10 Congress of the New Urbanism, What is CNU?, www.cnu.org/who_we_are, accessed April 9, 2012. 11 See, for example, Center for American Progress, “It’s Easy Being Green” series, www.americanprogress. org/issues/2009/02/green_transit.html, accessed April 20, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-30 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Secure Site Design
Various existing design elements of the project site make it difficult to patrol and secure the site, and hinder visibility throughout the site. Furthermore, the garden style design of the existing Wyvernwood community does not provide for a separation between private and public spaces, which can result in criminal activity because there is a reduced sense that the spaces are being watched. The proposed project would provide a number of design features that would promote safety and security on the project site. As discussed on pages IV.J-10 through IV.J-12 of the Draft EIR, the project design features reflect recommendations included in the Los Angeles Police Department’s Design Out Crime Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to promoting safety through site design.
Improved Access and Circulation
As discussed in Topical Response No. 7, access for first responders (i.e., police, fire, ambulance) is limited because vehicles cannot penetrate the core of the project site. The project would include a new roadway system that would link the various areas of the site, improve connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood and the regional roadway network, and provide improved access for public safety vehicles and enhanced traffic flow generally. The traffic improvements and enhanced circulation allow the density to be increased without general degradation of traffic, as suggested in some comments. While there are six intersections that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, in general, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to access and circulation issues that occur under existing conditions. In addition, as discussed in Topical Response No. 6, the project would fund the improvement of several key transit lines that serve the project site to enhance the overall transit system serving the study area, improve connectivity between the project site and the surrounding Boyle Heights neighborhood and activity centers such as Downtown Los Angeles and County/USC Medical Center, and reduce vehicular traffic on arterial roadways and freeway corridors that parallel the transit routes.
Provision of Adequate Parking
As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the number of parking spaces and garages is inadequate and the subject of frequent complaints from residents. Under the proposed project, parking would be provided to meet the project’s peak parking demand based on a shared parking approach. As discussed in Topical Response No. 6, peak parking demand for the project is expected to be lower than the proposed parking supply. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to the provision of adequate parking.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-31 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Character and Quality of Open Space
As discussed in Topical Response No. 5, the existing project site’s open space is awkwardly configured and unevenly graded, which limits its usefulness and makes it difficult to provide high quality passive and active recreational opportunities for the residents of the existing site and the surrounding community. Under the proposed project, the size and configuration of the new open space would create a cohesive and interconnected open space environment that would provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities that accommodate a wide variety of users. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to improving the character and quality of open space within the project site.
Pedestrian, Bicyclist, and Transit Amenities
As discussed in Topical Response No. 7, the existing pedestrian circulation system is circuitous and indirect, which makes access to bus transit along the perimeter of the site slower and more inconvenient. As discussed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the project would greatly increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the implementation of internal roadway improvements such as wide sidewalks and narrow streets. The project would also provide improvements to existing bus stops on the perimeter of the project site as a project feature. The internal street network would be designed to maximize connectivity and enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities to encourage walking, biking, and transit. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity compared to the amenities available under existing conditions.
In-Unit Electrical and Communication Infrastructure Upgrades
The existing units do not have cable installed for television or internet access, as discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. An average of just over one underground lead telephone line per unit is provided, and the lines are not wrapped in conduit and are consequently in poor condition. The individual units also do not have electrical systems sufficient to run common household appliances, including modern televisions, stereo equipment, coffee makers, toaster ovens, microwave ovens, plug-in electrical heaters, air conditioners, and hair dryers. In addition to upgrading the telephone and electrical lines, the project would include internet access, on-premises washers/dryers, and air conditioning in the new units. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a beneficial impact with respect to electrical and telecommunication issues that occur in the existing residential units.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-32 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
5. Open Space
Several comments claim that the Draft EIR’s calculation of existing and proposed open space is inconsistent and/or inaccurate. For instance, some comments suggest that the fact that Figure II-4 on page II-8 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR states there is 39.98 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood is inconsistent with page II-35 [sic] in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR where it states there is 36.43 acres of open space. Some comments note that Figure II-15 on page II-35 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR states there will be 37.25 acres of proposed open space, yet on page II-34, the narrative adds up to 42.2 acres of proposed open space. Page IV.J-101 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR states, “In total, the project’s public and semi-private open space/recreational areas would be approximately 21.5 acres,” while page IV.A-19 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/ Views, of the Draft EIR states that “...semi-private and private courtyards, plazas, and open spaces would comprise an additional 13.5 acres of open space amenities for a total of approximately 24 acres of useable open space.” Other comments assert that there is in fact 50 acres of existing open space at the project site.
These comments indicate a misunderstanding of the different types of open space that characterize the existing and proposed project site and how these types of open spaces relate to the various analyses in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR attempts to provide an “apples to apples” comparison both qualitatively and quantitatively of the current ground level open space and recreational areas. In addition, the Draft EIR provides an analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with applicable code requirements to provide open space and recreational opportunities for new residents. The code analysis includes vertical open spaces such as balconies as well as indoor recreation rooms and facilities. Thus, depending on what is being calculated and described, the totals presented in the Draft EIR vary. This is not a flaw in the analysis but an outgrowth of the effort to be as accurate as possible. This topical response provides clarification on this issue and also discusses the quality and usability of open space before and after implementation of the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-33 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Existing and Proposed Ground-Level Open Space
The Draft EIR provides a calculation of the amount of existing and proposed open space at the ground level. In some cases, commenters may be relying on old maps to determine the amount of available open space. For example, spaces that read as open in the original site plans were in fact filled in with building in the 1960s. In addition, 3.55 acres of open space, which appears as common open space on site maps, has in fact been enclosed by tenants with fencing and is only accessible to the adjacent unit. As stated on page II-11 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, these fenced yard spaces were originally either interstitial open space or common open space that have been claimed by individual units as private open space through the use of fencing. Thus, the Draft EIR further categorizes the ground-level open space into two categories: enclosed ground-level open space (e.g., fenced yard space) and non-enclosed ground-level open space (e.g., publicly accessible open space). This distinction provides the reader with a better understanding of the accessibility of the open space, the aesthetic and recreational benefits associated with the open space, and the manner in which the open space contributes to the overall public perception of the project site. These factors are particularly relevant to the Project Description (see Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR) and the analysis of aesthetic impacts (see Section, A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR). The difference between the 39.98 acres of open space shown on Figure II-4 on page II-8 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and the description on page II-35 [sic] in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR where it states there is 36.43 acres of open space depends on whether the 3.55 acres of privately claimed open space is being included. In that discussion, the 36.43 acres is compared to 37.25 acres in the proposed project. The 37.25 acres in the proposed project do not include spaces that are accessible only to individual units, so the 3.55 acres were excluded to provide a closer comparison.
Figure II-4 on page II-8 of Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR, provides an illustrative breakdown of the types of existing ground-level spaces on the project site, while Figure II-15 on page II-35 provides a comparable breakdown for the proposed ground-level spaces. It should be noted that there are alternate ways of categorizing the existing and proposed open space other than the categories provided in the Draft EIR. The categories used in the Draft EIR are not intended to provide a value judgment regarding the quality of this open space. On the contrary, the categories are provided to describe these spaces as accurately as possible. Other means of categorization for the existing and proposed open space could be used and would represent an equally accurate evaluation. Ultimately, regardless of how the ground level open space is labeled or characterized, if the privately fenced areas are not counted, there are 36.43 acres of existing ground level open space and 37.25 acres of ground level open space in the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-34 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-1 on page III-36 provides a tabular comparison of the existing and proposed inventories of ground-level open space based on the breakdowns provided in Figure II-4 and Figure II-15.
As shown in Figure II-4 in the Draft EIR and Table FEIR III-1, the existing ground- level spaces include exterior streets (6.4 acres), interior streets (7.8 acres), surface parking (8.2 acres), building footprints (12.82 acres), fenced yard space (3.55 acres), unfenced yard space (17.25 acres), interstitial open space (9.71 acres), and publicly accessible open space (9.47 acres). Of these types of spaces, the fenced yard space, unfenced yard space, interstitial open space, and publicly accessible open space form a total of 39.98 acres of ground-level open space on the project site. To achieve the aggregate of 50 acres of open space that some comments assert exist on the current site, one would need to count the publicly accessible open space (9.47 acres), the interstitial open space (9.71 acres), the unfenced yard space (17.25 acres), the fenced yard space (3.55 acres), and the surface parking (8.2 acres) for a total of 48.18 acres (leaving out only streets and building footprints). It is difficult at best to justify how the 3.55 acres of privately claimed open space and the surface parking lots qualify as usable open space available to project residents. It may be that these comments are relying on original site plans that do not reflect the buildings that were inserted into open spaces in the 1960s or the privately claimed open space. In any event, the claim that there are 50 acres of existing open space on the project site is not supported by the evidence in the record.
As shown in Figure II-15 in the Draft EIR and Table FEIR III-1 on page III-36, the proposed ground-level spaces include exterior streets (6.4 acres), interior streets (6.25 acres), building footprints (25.3 acres), courtyard space (7.45 acres), paseos (1.11 acres), streetscape space (10.37 acres), unfenced yard space (7.84 acres), and publicly accessible open space (10.48 acres). Of these types of spaces, the courtyard space, paseos, streetscape space, unfenced yard space, and publicly accessible open space form a total of 37.25 acres of ground-level open space on the project site. Unlike the existing ground-level open space, the proposed ground-level open space does not include fenced yard space or any other type of fully enclosed space. Therefore, the Draft EIR accurately states that upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level, including publicly accessible open space, unfenced yards, streetscape, interstitial spaces, paseos, and courtyards would be 37.25 acres, compared to 36.43 acres of comparable (i.e., non-enclosed) space that currently exists on the project site (see, for example, Draft EIR pages II-34 and IV.J-102).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-35 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-1 Existing and Proposed Inventories of Ground-Level Open Space
Existing Amount Proposed Amount Type of Space (acres) (acres) Non-Enclosed Ground-Level Open Space Unfenced Yard Space 17.25 7.84 Interstitial Open Space 9.71 0 Publicly Accessible Open Space 9.47 10.48 Courtyard Space 0a 7.45 Paseos 0 1.11 Streetscape Space 0b 10.37 Subtotal Non-Enclosed Open Space 36.43 37.25 Enclosed Ground-Level Open Space Fenced Yard Space 3.55 0 Total Ground-Level Open Space 39.98 37.25
a Included in Yard Space and Interstitial Space since the boundaries are not clearly defined. b Included in Yard Space and Interstitial Space since the current project site does not have defined sidewalks.
Existing and Proposed Open Space as Defined by Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.21
Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR provides a calculation of “useable open space” that would serve the recreational needs of project residents to determine whether the project’s open space provision satisfies the requirements of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.21. As stated on page IV.J-96 of the Draft EIR, Section 12.21 of the LAMC requires that all residential developments containing six or more dwelling units on a lot provide, at a minimum, the following usable open space area per dwelling unit: 100 square feet for each unit having less than three habitable rooms, 125 square feet for each unit having three habitable rooms, and 175 square feet for each unit having more than three habitable rooms.12 Section 12.21 of the LAMC also identifies what areas of a project qualify as usable open space for the purposes of meeting the project’s open space requirements. Usable open space is defined as areas designed and intended to be used for active or passive recreation and may consist of private and/or common areas as further defined and regulated in Section 12.21. The calculation of usable
12 Per LAMC Section 12.03, for the purpose of applying the open space requirements of Section 12.21 G, a kitchen shall not be considered a habitable room.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-36 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments open space is different than the calculation of ground-level open space described above because usable open space includes additional types of open space other than ground- level spaces, including spaces that may be vertical or internal to a building (e.g., recreation rooms, private balconies, roof gardens, etc.).
As shown in Table IV.J-13 on page IV.J-106 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide approximately 24 acres of usable open space within the project site comprised of approximately 10.5 acres of common open space (e.g., central park, neighborhood parks, neighborhood playgrounds, plazas, etc.), 11 acres of semi-private open space (e.g., recreation rooms, yards, patios, courtyards, paseos, roof gardens, etc., which may be inside a building), and approximately 2.5 acres of private open space (i.e., private balconies). This would exceed the requirements set forth in Section 12.21 of the LAMC. Based on these calculations, the project would provide approximately 21.5 acres of public and semi-private open space/recreational areas (10.5 acres of common open space plus 11 acres of semi-private open space), as stated in some places in the Draft EIR (see, for example, page IV.J-101 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation). Also, the project would provide approximately 13.5 acres of semi-private and private recreational amenities (11 acres of semi-private open space plus 2.5 acres of private open space), as stated in some places in the Draft EIR (see, for example, page II-1 in Section II, Project Description, and page IV.A-19 in Section, A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views). These statements in the Draft EIR are accurate and consistent with the calculations provided in Table IV.J-13 on page IV.J-106. The difference between the 21.5 acres and the 24 acres of open space cited in the comments is the 2.5 acres devoted to private open space. When discussing the commonly available open space and recreational opportunities, the Draft EIR cites the 21.5-acre figure; when discussing the total amount of open space and recreational areas, the Draft EIR cites the 24-acre figure. The 42.2 acres of total open space provided includes both the ground-level and interior recreational areas, such as recreational rooms, and private open spaces, such as balconies.
Character and Quality of Existing and Proposed Open Space
Several comments dispute statements in the Draft EIR that the proposed project would improve the quality and usability of on-site open space (see, for example, page II-34 in Section II, Project Description, and page IV.J-102 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation). As discussed below, the Lead Agency has determined that this is an appropriate conclusion based on substantial evidence provided in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-37 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Existing Site Conditions
As discussed on page IV.J-85 of Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, while the existing project site’s open space is relatively significant in size, its awkward configuration and uneven grade limit its usefulness and make it difficult to provide high quality passive and active recreational opportunities for the residents of the existing site and the surrounding community. The existing open space is irregular in shape and characterized by narrow fingers that protrude into developed areas of the site. The lawn and planted areas are in varying states of disrepair. The functionality, attractiveness and use of the existing space is further diminished by the multiple asphalt pedestrian pathways running throughout the open space as well as the fact that some existing residents have fenced or walled in portions of the public open space so as to create private yards for themselves, as discussed above.
As shown in Table FEIR III-1 on page III-36, the existing ground-level open space includes 9.71 acres of “interstitial open space,” which is composed of bits and pieces of open space formed by the gaps between buildings or courtyards within buildings. It should be noted that there are alternate ways of categorizing the existing and proposed open space other than the categories provided in the Draft EIR. The categories used in the Draft EIR are not intended to provide a value judgment regarding the quality of this open space. On the contrary, the categories are provided to describe these spaces as accurately as possible. Other means of categorization for the existing and proposed open space could be used and would represent an equally accurate evaluation. Ultimately, regardless of how the ground level open space is labeled or characterized, if the privately fenced areas are not counted, there are 36.43 acres of existing ground level open space and 37.25 acres of ground level open space in the proposed project.
Photographs depicting the character and location of the existing interstitial open space are provided in Figure IV.J-7 on page IV.J-87 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR. In some cases these spaces have grass or plantings, and in some cases theses spaces are comprised of dirt surfaces. While some of these areas are grassy, because they are small, irregularly shaped, and often tightly sandwiched between buildings, roads, and parking lots, they do not significantly contribute to the open space at the project site. As shown in Table FEIR III-1, there are another approximately 17.25 acres of unfenced “yard space” which are composed of the areas between the façades of each building and the adjacent asphalt pathways. Photographs depicting the character and location of the existing unfenced yard space are provided in Figure IV.J-8 on page IV.J-88 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR. As discussed above, there are another 3.55 acres of private yards that were originally either interstitial open space or common open space that have been claimed by individual units as private open space through the use of fencing. Photographs depicting the character and location of the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-38 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments existing fenced yard space are provided in Figure IV.J-9 on page IV.J-89 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR. Existing “courtyard” spaces, which in many cases consist of the yard space in the middle of a U-shaped building or the space in between two U-shaped buildings facing each other, are included in either the “interstitial open space” or unfenced “yard space” categories. Photographs depicting the character and locations of the existing courtyard spaces are provided in Figure IV.J-10 on page IV.J-90 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR. There are also an additional 8.2 acres of asphalt-covered surface parking lots.
The largest expanse of open space at the project site, known as the Mall, is approximately 80 feet wide and approximately one-third of a mile in length. This lawn area functions as an open space/drainage channel running from west to east, surrounded by pedestrian pathways, and with a perpendicular section bisecting the channel from north to south. Running the length of the Mall is a 40 foot wide surface drainage channel over which the City of Los Angeles has an easement that was granted in 1939. Overtime, the extensive tree root systems compounded by settlement of compacted subsurface conditions provide poor water penetration into the soil, resulting in pooling and standing water within the City’s drainage easement area and parts of the Mall are prone to flooding where it does not drain adequately. Over time, this condition has caused site erosion, particularly through the center of the site within the Mall and along adjacent build entryways and porches. View 3 in Figure II-5 on page II-10 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a photograph illustrating this condition. The resulting erosion has worn away the finished ground surface in areas such that the site’s open space is rutted and uneven in grade and the erosion of the top soil has exposed underground pipes in places, thus rendering the open space less functionally usable for recreation. Nonetheless, the Mall and the interstitial open space areas are used for passive recreation. In addition, there is a small area of the Mall that includes recreational equipment for children. Two other playground areas are respectively located on the west and east ends of the project site. Each playground typically has three to four pieces of equipment with no seating areas.
In summary, because of the configuration of the site on six superblocks and the organization of the residential buildings around the Mall, access and sight lines through the open space areas are limited. The configuration of the existing buildings means that much of the contiguous open space, specifically the Mall, cannot be directly accessed physically or visually from the residential units. In most cases, building entrances are on the other side of the units from the green spaces. The inability of residents to monitor these areas from the existing buildings is a security concern and is particularly noticeable at the Mall. There is also a lack of connectivity between the various fingers of open space, and a lack of direct access from existing buildings to existing open space. The interstitial spaces are often perceived as neither public nor private and hence are underutilized, neglected, and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-39 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments often unsafe. See Response to Comment No. 15-32 for further discussion of site design as it relates to crime and security. In addition, over the years occupants of individual units have claimed some common open space areas for private use through the erection of fences and walls, leaving such areas unavailable for the enjoyment of the community. Figures IV.J-5 through IV.J-9 on pages IV.J-84 through IV.J-89 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR provide photographs that illustrate these existing site conditions.
Proposed Site Conditions
The project would include a substantial amount of landscaped open space and recreational areas of different scales and styles. The goals of these open space areas are to: (1) provide safe recreational opportunities in an under-served community; (2) make available a mix of active and passive recreational uses; (3) ensure open sight lines; (4) facilitate access by a variety of users; (5) promote a high level of connectivity throughout the neighborhood; and (6) provide clearly delineated public and private boundaries to ensure a safe environment for residents, park users, and businesses.
The size and configuration of the new open space will create a cohesive and interconnected open space environment that will provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities that accommodate a wide variety of users. Specifically, the project would include a civic plaza, an expansive central park, active parks with recreational facilities, neighborhood greens, neighborhood playgrounds, and landscaped courtyards and pathways. All of the various parks will provide either active or passive recreational opportunities to the community. The passive areas within the neighborhood parks will offer shade trees, shade trellises, benches, small plaza spaces and places to sit and relax. Playground equipment, appropriate to a variety of age groups, will be constructed, as well as adequate shade and seating for supervising adults. Open space and recreational areas would be spread throughout the site, with the most expansive open space element centrally located and adjoining other nearby open space amenities, as shown in Figure II-6 on page II-18 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
The surface drainage channel within the existing Mall would be replaced in the project with a state-of-the-art stormwater management system comprised of bio-swales, biofiltration and infiltration, native plantings and oaks. Known as the Arroyo Walk, this modern stormwater management system would move stormwater across the site through the bio-swales for infiltration, incorporating pedestrian pathways and natural plantings. This central park would serve as the central public gathering area for the project and include a linear water feature and a paved civic plaza space which will function as an outdoor community patio.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-40 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Three neighborhood and/or civic parks to be located along the northern boundary of the project site at Eighth Street are significant design features of the new open space. The project would redistribute the open space so that it is accessible and inviting to the surrounding neighborhood. The two tot-lots that would be improved as part of the project would provide a direct linkage between the project and the adjacent schools of Christopher Dena Elementary School located on Dacotah Street to the east of the site and the Garza Primary Center located on E. Hostetter Street to the west of the site. The tot-lots would provide active recreational opportunities as well as increase pedestrian participation in the development.
As discussed above, the project’s provision of public and semi-private open space/recreational areas would be approximately 21.5 acres, which is comprised of 10.5 acres of common open space plus 11 acres of semi-private open space. This includes approximately 10.5 acres of publicly available, privately funded and maintained, usable open space. This space would include a civic plaza, an expansive central park, active parks, neighborhood greens, and neighborhood playgrounds. Recreational areas would include amenities such as play equipment, athletic courts, seating, and open play areas. A public use easement would ensure access for the greater general public from dawn until dusk. In addition, approximately 11 acres of semi-private open space would be provided for each individual development within the site. Semi-private open space includes facilities such as pools, recreational rooms within residential buildings, roof decks, and courtyards. Such facilities would be available to the residents of each building/complex within which each facility is located. Approximately 2.5 acres of private open space in the form of residential balconies accessible from individual dwelling units may also be provided. Such private spaces would be in addition to the open space requirements set forth in the Specific Plan and would provide for a total of approximately 24 acres of public, semi-private, and private recreational and open space on-site.
Up to 25,000 square feet of civic uses would also be provided as part of the project. These uses would be located in the central northern portion of the site and would consist of community-serving or public facilities, potentially including a public library and community room.
Upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level, including publicly accessible open space, unfenced yards, streetscape, interstitial spaces, paseos, and courtyards would be 37.25 acres, compared to 36.43 acres of comparable (i.e., non-enclosed) space that currently exists on the project site, as discussed above. Upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level, including 10.48 acres of publicly accessible open space, 7.84 acres of unfenced yards, 10.37 acres of streetscape, 1.11 acres of paseos, and 7.45 acres of courtyards, would be 37.25 acres. The 36.43 acres of existing open space at the ground level includes
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-41 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
17.25 acres of unfenced yard space, 9.71 acres of interstitial open space, and 9.47 acres of publicly accessible open space. More importantly, the proposed project would improve the quality and usability of on-site open space by reorganizing the hierarchy of ground-level spaces on the project site. As shown in Table FEIR III-1 on page III-36, the project would eliminate 8.2 acres of surface parking lots and much of the existing interstitial open space and yard space, and replace these areas with enhanced streetscapes, a reorganized and improved park system, and courtyard spaces for each of the proposed new buildings.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-42 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
6. Summary of Traffic Impacts, Project Features, Mitigation Measures, and Area Improvements
Several comments focused generally on the amount of traffic the project might be expected to generate. In many cases the comments focused on tangential information such as the number of anticipated parking spaces in the new project, or total number of additional daily trips expected to be generated. However, the City of Los Angeles provides specific, detailed methodologies and thresholds for the evaluation and identification of potential traffic/transportation impacts in CEQA documents, as set forth in the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, December 2010 and August 2011) and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006). Pages IV.K-44 through IV.K-49 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR provide an explanation of how the general CEQA guidelines addressing transportation/traffic impacts are interpreted by the City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project. A comprehensive Traffic Study, included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR, was conducted in accordance with these guidelines and criteria. The analysis accounted for the trips expected to be generated by the proposed project. The following sections summarize the results of the various transportation impact analyses conducted.
To address potential project-related transportation impacts, as well as to improve circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and motorists within the project site and the overall study area,13 the project would fund a variety of transportation project features, area-wide mobility improvements, and mitigation measures that are included in the Draft EIR, and are summarized below.
13 As stated in the Draft EIR, the study area selected for the project impact analysis in the Traffic Study is approximately 4.5 miles in diameter and includes the project site as well as 94 study intersections located in multiple jurisdictions.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-43 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Trip-Generation Analysis
Trip-generation estimates were prepared for the project, reflecting the proposed land uses of the project, and the expected travel characteristics (use of transit, internal trips, etc.). Standard credits and deductions were applied based upon the mix of uses and characteristics of those uses. For example, a pass-by trip reduction of 30 percent was applied to the Shopping Center use, and a 10 percent pass-by trip-reduction credit was applied for the Medical Office uses. Both of these trip reductions are the standard percentages recommended by LADOT to apply to these uses, reflecting that these uses would attract motorists to stop in as they pass by on their way somewhere else. Thus, the trips would have already occurred on the street, so would not reflect new trips generated by the uses of the project site. Internally captured trip reductions were also estimated, reflecting that some percentage of the residents of the project site would visit the retail uses of the project site, for example, so as to not generate new external trips. Internal capture percentages were estimated based on empirical research conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as detailed in the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition (ITE, 2004).
However, in some cases the standard assumptions reflect cautious suppositions. The Draft EIR analysis is intended to present a “worst case” traffic analysis so that impacts are not understated. Accordingly, the trip-generation estimates in the Draft EIR are intentionally conservative, and actual trip generation is likely to be less than assumed for a number of reasons, including the following:
A 20 percent trip credit was applied to account for external transit, walk and bike trips. Review of US Census 2000 data (which was the only available Census data at the time the Draft EIR was prepared), showed 28 percent of current residents of the Census Tract where the project site is located take transit to work, 8 percent walk or bike, and 28 percent carpool. Thus in practice, 36 percent of commute trips (or almost twice the number of trips assumed in the traffic analysis) are made using non-auto modes (walk, bike, transit), and 64 percent of trips are either non-auto, or are carpools. Only 36 percent of commute trips are currently being made in single occupancy vehicles, indicating the transit-dependent nature of the Boyle Heights area. Thus the 20 percent reduction that was used in the traffic study is a conservative assessment of the type of reduction that would be expected, given these existing commute patterns, as the modal patterns of the commutes for existing residents could readily justify a greater reduction.
A credit for the existing uses to be removed was applied using trip-generation rates from ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition, for the Apartment land use category (#220) based on the existing number of apartment units (1,187 dwelling units). However, as discussed in the Draft EIR, average occupancy in the existing
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-44 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
project is 5.18 residents per unit, compared with 4.35 residents per unit in medium-density housing in Boyle Heights generally and 2.83 in the Los Angeles area. Thus, the existing project site has nearly 20 percent more persons per dwelling unit than the average for Boyle Heights and over 80 percent more persons per unit than Los Angeles in general. Given this greater population density, it is reasonable to assume that in the current condition, more person trips are being generated per dwelling unit than would be expected using typical trip-generation rates. Therefore, while the magnitude of the growth in additional units is 3,212 units, the net new trips associated with those additional units are likely to be less than would typically be expected, as the population per unit is expected to decline with the implementation of the project. However, to maintain a conservative set of assumptions for the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR, the trip- generation credit for the existing uses to be removed was not adjusted to reflect the actual level of population density currently found at the existing project site.
All of the proposed dwelling units have been analyzed using the ITE trip- generation rate for Apartments (Land Use #220). The project would provide, at a minimum, a one-for-one replacement of the 1,187 rental units in the project, but the remainder of the dwelling units, up to the 4,400 unit maximum, could be for- sale condominiums. It is expected that a wide-range of product types would be constructed and that there would be a considerable number of condominiums constructed. The ITE trip-generation rate for Residential Condominium/ Townhouse (Land Use #230), has a lower average trip-generation rate than the Apartment land use (0.44 trip per condominium unit during the A.M. peak hour, compared with 0.51 trip per apartment unit; 0.52 trip per condominium unit during the P.M. peak hour, compared with 0.62 trip per apartment unit.) Thus, the conservative assumption of analyzing all units of the project as apartments means that the net new trip generation for the project is likely to be lower than was analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Applying the conservative set of assumptions detailed above, the project was estimated in the Draft EIR to generate 1,507 net new A.M. peak-hour trips and 1,934 net new P.M. peak-hour trips. The conservative assumptions detailed above ensure that the project trip-generation estimates contained in the Draft EIR are likely to be overestimates of the actual trips that would be generated by the project in the future. Indeed, the actual trips could be more than 30 percent less than predicted depending on how closely the actual circumstances match the trip-generation assumptions.
Signalized Intersection Impact Assessment
A total of 75 signalized intersections were analyzed to determine the potential for project traffic impacts. The intersections were selected in consultation with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). The intersections were selected based on a qualitative assessment by LADOT and the consultant team of the signalized
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-45 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments intersections where there would be the greatest potential for project impacts to be found. Most study intersections are on primary travel routes (Olympic Boulevard, Soto Street, etc.) that provide access to the project site. Per LADOT’s policy, only unsignalized intersections critical to site access were analyzed in the Draft EIR. Existing traffic counts were collected, and level of service was calculated at the study intersections. The impact study looked at impacts as compared to two baselines. Existing traffic conditions was one of two baselines used to assess the potential for project impacts. In addition, any known potential development projects proposed in the area at the time of the issuance of the Draft EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) were analyzed, along with the application of ambient growth to reflect growth in regional traffic to develop Future Base traffic volumes for the forecast year (2030), when the project is expected to be built out. Level of service was calculated for future base conditions, which was also used as a baseline to assess the potential for project traffic impacts. The project has committed to a long-term phasing plan to minimize disruption to existing residents, so the 2030 forecast is considered a better predictor of actual impacts, but the comparison to existing conditions is provided for informational purposes.
Based on criteria established by the City of Los Angeles, a total of 14 study intersections (19 percent of the analyzed intersections) would be significantly impacted by the project under Existing plus Project conditions, and a total of 22 study intersections (30 percent of the study intersections) would be impacted under Future with Project conditions.
The project site is located adjacent to several freeways (I-5, I-10, US 101, SR 60, I-710). Once project trips would pass through the local street network and freeway ramps, they no longer would have the potential to impact local intersections. Given the dispersion of project trips onto the robust freeway system, the number of impacted intersections is lower than it otherwise would be if the project were located in a site that didn’t have as direct access to such an extensive freeway network. Also, the additional access points and new internal roadways proposed as project features help to disperse project traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site, which helps to reduce the level of impact that would otherwise be expected if the project were to maintain the current limited number of existing points of access.
The project would provide parking sufficient to meet parking demand from the uses contained within each phase of the project. While the project would provide a large increase in the number of parking stalls available on the project site, the increase in parking stalls would not be proportionate to the increase in project trips. The existing project site is currently under parked, i.e., there is more demand for parking from the residents than can be accommodated in the parking facilities in the project site. Thus, a substantial portion of the increase in parking stalls would go towards satisfying the existing parking deficiency,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-46 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments thus reducing the number of residents who would park their vehicles outside the project site. Additionally, parking demand for the project would be estimated using a shared parking approach—recognizing that parking demand for particular land uses don’t always correspond with each other. For example, parking demand for a fine restaurant is lower during the day, while parking demand for an office is high. In the evening, the pattern is reversed. Because uses experience peaks at different times of day, the provision of a parking space does not correspond with the generation of a vehicle trip within a given time period. Per the Specific Plan, parking would be provided to meet demand based on a shared parking approach. Additionally, while residents may own vehicles, given the project’s proximity to high service transit, they may utilize their car at off-peak hours or choose to commute to work via public transit, and only use their vehicles on the weekends. Thus the provision of a parking space does not correspond with a trip occurring during a peak hour for that parking space.
Freeway System Impact Analysis
The City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project, adopted the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology and impact criteria specifically for CEQA purposes, as set forth in the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006). The Traffic Study for the Draft EIR was properly prepared in accordance with the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, requires that the CMP regional transportation impact analysis (TIA) methodology and criteria be used for the evaluation of project impacts on the regional freeway system for any project for which an environmental impact report is being prepared and states that “TIA requirements should be fulfilled within the existing environmental review process, extending local traffic impact studies to include impacts to the regional system” (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Appendix D Guidelines for CMP Transportation Analysis, page D-1).
A comprehensive evaluation of the freeway regional freeway system was conducted in accordance with these guidelines to determine the potential for project impacts to the freeway system. All freeway segments between the following boundaries were analyzed:
I-5 between Stadium Way and Atlantic Boulevard
I-10 between the I-110 junction and the I-5 junction
US 101 between the I-110 junction and the I-5/SR 60 junction
SR 60 between the I-5 junction and the I-710 junction
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-47 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
I-710 between the I-5 junction and the I-105 junction
Existing freeway traffic volumes were obtained primarily from the California Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Traffic volumes for the Future Base scenario were forecast using the same approach as detailed above under the signalized intersection impact analysis. Project volumes were assigned to the Existing and Future Base traffic volumes using the travel demand model to develop Existing plus Project and Future with Project traffic volumes on the freeway system. The project-related incremental increase in V/C was analyzed, and assessed using the impact criteria from the CMP. According to CMP impact criteria, a freeway impact would be expected if project trips result in a volume increase of 0.02 when a freeway mainline segment is projected to operate at LOS F.
Based on this analysis, the project would not cause any significant traffic impacts to the freeway system, and no mitigation would be required.
Neighborhood Intrusion Impact Analysis
The potential for project-related traffic intrusion impacts into residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project, were conducted in accordance with City of Los Angeles criteria. Based on those criteria, the minimum threshold for triggering a significant impact on a local street would by 120 trips. To determine which local streets might have the potential for this level of traffic intrusion, an evaluation of congested arterial corridors with parallel local streets was conducted to determine where the potential for a project- related neighborhood traffic intrusion impact could occur.
Based on this analysis, it was determined that there would be the potential for project-related significant neighborhood traffic intrusion impacts at the following locations:
Mott Street between 8th Street and Garnett Street
Garnett Street between Mott Street and Euclid Avenue
Atlantic Street between Euclid Avenue and Lorena Street
Parking Impact Analysis
Based on City of Los Angeles criteria, a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact on parking if it provides less parking than needed as determined by an analysis of demand from the project. A parking demand analysis was conducted for the project using the Shared Parking model. As discussed above, the number of parking spaces does not correspond with the number of peak-hour trips that would be generated by
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-48 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the project. Based on observed parking occupancy, the existing project site has less parking available than is needed to serve the existing residents.
Peak parking demand for the project is expected to be lower than the proposed parking supply. Therefore, at full buildout, no significant parking impact would be expected to occur. Per the Specific Plan, shared parking analyses will be conducted before the commencement of construction for each phase of the project, which will determine the parking supply required to serve the needs of the land uses contained in that phase. With the provision of parking supply sufficient (through new construction or by utilizing excess supply from other project phases) to meet demand for each phase of the project, impacts to parking would be less than significant. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR for the revisions to the discussion of potential parking impacts in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
Summary of Project Features, Mitigation Measures, and Area Improvements
A comprehensive mitigation package has been proposed to alleviate, to the extent feasible, the project’s impact at any significantly impacted location. The project is located in an extensively urbanized area, with an especially high rate of transit utilization, as typified by the 2000 US Census data that showed 28 percent of residents of the Census Tract where the project site is located take transit to work. Accordingly, mitigation measures focused on reducing total automobile trips and increasing the attractiveness and availability of transit have been deemed to be the most beneficial. The following includes a summary of the extensive package of transportation project features, mitigation measures, and area improvements that the project proposes to improve mobility throughout the study area and address traffic impacts that could potentially be caused by the project, which are summarized above.
Transportation Project Features
Several improvements are planned as project features to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation and access within the project site, including:
Construct a grid-like network of sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and streets to facilitate convenient and direct mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists who would live, work, or visit the uses of the project site, as well as to improve access for first-responders. The current curvilinear roadway network provides limited, indirect access through the project site due the configuration of the roadways, and the large “super blocks” with limited access.
Increase the number of streets that access the project site, from 7 to 13 access points, to improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-49 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Streets would be designed to be narrow so that they could safely accommodate shared vehicular and bicycle traffic, equivalent to the City of Los Angeles’ Class III bike route designation
Sidewalks would be designed to be wide, and would be constructed on all internal roadways. Portions of existing internal streets provide sidewalks only one side of the street.
Street trees & landscaped pathways would be provided between buildings, with improved street and pedestrian lighting
New bus shelters, lighting and landscaping would be provided along to the perimeter of the project site.
Area-Wide Transportation Mobility Improvements
The project would fund several area-wide transportation mobility improvements that would partially mitigate the project’s potential traffic impacts, and would contribute towards reducing traffic congestion on arterials and freeways that provide access to the project site.
Transit
The project would fund the improvement of several key transit lines that serve the project site to enhance the overall transit system serving the study area, improve connectivity between the project and the surrounding Boyle Heights neighborhood and activity centers such as Downtown Los Angeles and County/USC Medical Center, and reduce vehicular traffic on arterial roadways and freeway corridors that parallel the transit routes. The project would fund the purchase of an additional bus for each of these lines, and would subsidize the operations and maintenance expenses so Metro can operate additional buses during peak periods, thereby increasing the frequency of transit service.
The project would fund the upgrade of the following lines:
Metro Line 62—Travels along Olympic Boulevard, Boyle Avenue, and 7th Street in the vicinity of the project site, providing service between Downtown Los Angeles and Hawaiian Gardens. Along its route, Line 62 provides service that parallels portions of the I-605 and I-5 freeway corridors.
Metro Line 66—Travels along 8th Street and Olympic Boulevard in the immediate vicinity of the project site, providing service between Downtown Los Angeles and Montebello. Along its route, Line 66 provides service that parallels portions of the I-10 and SR 60 freeways.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-50 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Metro Line 251—Travels along Soto Street in the vicinity of the project site, providing service between Cypress Park and Lynwood. Along its route, Line 251 provides service that parallels portions of the I-5 and SR-110 freeways.
The upgrade of these transit lines is targeted at removing vehicular trips from specific corridors where project trips would impact study intersections by improving transit service, thus making it more attractive and efficient for project residents who would otherwise drive, as well as other residents who live along the targeted study corridors who would otherwise drive. This mitigation measure would reduce vehicular trips by improving transit service. This mitigation measure is not intended to mitigate an impact to the transit system because no adverse impact to the transit system was identified, as it was determined that there is available capacity in the transit system to accommodate additional riders generated by the project. As detailed on pages IV.K-86 through IV.K-87 of the Draft EIR and in Table IV.K-17 on page IV.K-87 of the Draft EIR, transit capacity was estimated by determining the number of buses operating in the study area during each peak hour and multiplying that by the person capacity for the type of bus operating on each line. The lines operating in the study area at the time of the analysis had seated capacity for 40 persons. An additional ten persons were included in the capacity to account for standing room capacity. Making transit service more attractive to area residents, including future residents of the project, would shift additional riders from auto uses to transit, thereby further reducing vehicle trips along the particular transit corridor.
By improving transit service through improving the frequency of service (reducing headways), the project would reduce the number of vehicle trips it would generate, because it would provide a higher quality transit service that would entice some motorists to take transit rather than drive, thereby partially mitigating its traffic impacts. However, the benefits of these service upgrades would run for the entire length of each of the bus transit lines, with improved service attracting riders and reducing vehicular trips on the arterials and freeways that parallel the bus transit lines. Parallel freeways include I-5, I-605, I-10, SR 60, SR 110.
Additionally, the project would fund the upgrade of all bus stops that line the perimeter of the project site. Upgrades would include new bus shelters, landscaping, lighting, street furniture, and other amenities, which would further improve access to transit within the study area.
Combined, the transit service and bus stop amenities would partially mitigate intersections that are expected to have project-related traffic impacts, as well as provide study-area wide transportation mobility improvements.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-51 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Signal System Upgrades
The project would fund the upgrade of 20 traffic signals within the Boyle Heights study area, upgrading the signals to provide advanced Type 2070 controllers and vehicle detection loops, that would allow LADOT to monitor and provide instant adjustments to the signal’s timing parameters to maximize efficiency and vehicle flow. Included in these intersections are three freeway ramp terminal intersections, where the advanced controllers can improve vehicular flow on the ramps, which can benefit both arterial operations, as well as freeway mainline operations on the SR 60 and I-5 freeways. The following is the list of signalized intersections that would be upgraded by the project:
8. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp & 4th Street
10. I-5 Northbound Ramp & 4th Street
13. Euclid Avenue & 4th Street
17. Lorena Street & SR 60 Westbound Ramps
18. Lorena Street & SR 60 Eastbound Ramps
28. Boyle Avenue & 7th Street
32. Boyle Avenue & 8th Street
34. I-5 Southbound On-Ramp & 8th Street
35. Marietta Street & 8th Street
37. Lorena Street & 8th Street
38. San Pedro St & Olympic Boulevard
40. Hooper Avenue & Olympic Boulevard
41. Alameda Street & Olympic Boulevard
45. Boyle Avenue & Olympic Boulevard
48. Lorena Street & Olympic Boulevard
49. 8th Street & Olympic Boulevard
51. Central Avenue & 14th Street
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-52 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
52. Alameda Street & 14th Street
53. Lorena Street/Union Pacific Avenue & Grande Vista Avenue
54. Alameda Street & Washington Boulevard
The project would also provide closed-circuit television cameras at the following four intersections, which would allow LADOT to monitor and address congestion and traffic incidents as needed, thereby reducing incident based traffic congestion:
21. Soto Street & Whittier Boulevard
38. San Pedro St & Olympic Boulevard
44. Santa Fe Avenue & Olympic Boulevard
55. Soto Street & Washington Boulevard
Travel Demand Management Program
A robust travel demand management (TDM) program would be prepared and implemented to reduce project-generated trips, and partially mitigate potential project- related traffic impacts. The TDM program includes several project features that would reduce trips, including:
Site Design—The internal street network would be designed to maximize connectivity and enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities to encourage walking, biking, and transit by providing wide sidewalks, narrow streets designed to accommodate bicyclists, pedestrian lighting, pedestrian oriented landscaping and other amenities.
Shared Parking—Parking would be provided to meet the project’s peak parking demand based on a shared parking approach, which would maximize the efficiency of the parking provided, and would discourage excessive vehicle trips by providing an overabundance of parking.
Other TDM measures would be included in the program, such as:
Provision of a Mobility Hub—The project would install a Mobility Hub on the project site in participation with a program being developed by LADOT. The Mobility Hub would offer secured bike parking, bike sharing (allows bikes to be rented for a single trip and returned at other locations), “fold-n-go” bike leasing program, single use automobile rental, integrated transit pass purchase with City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-53 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
mobility hub service, centralized web-based trip planning and reservation system, on-line usage reporting, routing and transit schedule information, carpool coordination, guaranteed ride home, and other transportation information to encourage project residents, employees, and customers to use alternative transportation modes
Unbundled Parking—Unbundling parking typically separates the cost of purchasing or renting parking spaces from the cost of the purchasing or renting a dwelling unit. Saving money on a dwelling unit by forgoing a parking space acts as an incentive that minimizes auto ownership.
Rideshare Programs—Rideshare programs typically include the provision of an on-site transit and rideshare information center that provides assistance to help people form carpools or access transit alternatives. Rideshare programs often also include priority parking for carpools.
Transit Pass Discount Program—Transit pass discount programs typically negotiate with transit service providers to purchase transit passes in bulk, and, therefore, at a discounted rate. Discounted passes are then sold to interested residents or employees, helping them obtain price discounts through the economies of scale of bulk purchasing.
Localized Intersection Improvements
In addition to the study area-wide mobility improvements and the travel demand management program, local intersection improvements (physical mitigation measures, installation of traffic signals, signal phase modifications) are also proposed to partially mitigate the potential for localized project-related traffic impacts. These mitigation measures would improve the operation of intersections located near the project site. Intersection improvements include:
32. Boyle Avenue & 8th Street—The proposed mitigation measure would add a protected southbound left-turn only signal phase and a westbound right-turn overlap phase, which would run concurrently.
33. Soto Street & 8th Street—The proposed mitigation measure would add an eastbound left-turn only lane so that the 8th Street eastbound approach would have a left-turn only lane, one through lane, and one through/right lane.
39. Central Avenue & Olympic Boulevard—The proposed mitigation measure would add a westbound left-turn only lane so that the Olympic Boulevard westbound approach would have two left-turn only lanes, one through lane, and one through/right lane.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-54 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
44. Santa Fe Avenue & Olympic Boulevard—The proposed mitigation measure would add a westbound right-turn only lane so that the Olympic Boulevard westbound approach would have one left-turn only lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn only lane.
55. Soto Street & Washington Boulevard—The proposed mitigation measure would add an eastbound left-turn only lane so that the Washington Boulevard eastbound approach would have two left-turn only lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn only lane.
59. Downey Road & Bandini Boulevard—The proposed mitigation measure would add an eastbound left-turn only lane so that the Bandini Boulevard eastbound approach would have two left-turn only lanes, one through lanes, and one through/right lane.
The project would also fund the installation of traffic signals at the following three intersections that are currently unsignalized:
M. Euclid Avenue & 8th Street
P. Camulos Street & Olympic Boulevard
Q. Evergreen Avenue & Olympic Boulevard
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
To mitigate the potential for significant neighborhood traffic intrusion impacts, the project would fund the development and implementation of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) that would identify measures to make local routes less attractive to ‘through’ traffic. Specifically, the project would fund the preparation and implementation of a NTMP to minimize neighborhood traffic intrusion impacts caused by the project in the following neighborhoods:
Neighborhood A—I-5 freeway to the north, 8th Street to the south, Grande Vista Street to the east, and Mott Street to the west
Neighborhood B—Atlantic Street between Euclid Avenue and Lorena Street
The implementation of the NTMP requires the involvement of each of the potentially affected communities to help develop and approve the NTMP’s recommendations to help control the intrusion of traffic into their neighborhood. The residents would experience
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-55 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments traffic calming devices (e.g., speed humps) on a daily basis and so must have the choice as to whether they would like physical measures installed on their street.
Neighborhood intrusion is a quality of life concern more than an impact on travel times or an indication of congestion. Solutions which may alleviate intrusion may not be palatable to the impacted neighbors, because it could make access to their community less convenient For example, traffic calming measures that block through traffic on certain streets (e.g., turn prohibitions or partial street closures) can impede residents as well as through traffic. The project proponents do not want to implement measures that are not wanted by the impacted neighborhood. Therefore, if a neighborhood decides it does not want to implement neighborhood traffic mitigation, the NTMP would not be adopted, and under the applicable thresholds of significance, a significant and unavoidable neighborhood intrusion impact would remain. That conclusion is reflected on page IV.K-108 of the Draft EIR.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
The array of mitigation measures proposed by the project would fully mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance at 16 of the 22 impacted intersections, and the remaining six intersections would be partially mitigated. Because the mitigation program would not fully mitigate all of the identified traffic impacts, significant impacts would remain at these six intersections, as stated on page IV.K-106 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-56 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
7. Internal Circulation
Several comments suggest that the current configuration of the site is optimal from a traffic circulation perspective and changes to the current configuration of circulation improvements are not desirable. However, the site as currently developed has only three streets that are usable by motor vehicles and access to internal buildings is difficult. The project’s objectives are detailed on pages II-12 through II-16 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. As stated therein, several objectives related to pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the project site include:
To provide new landscaping along key roadways, thus enhancing the local streetscape, improving the pedestrian linkages, and helping to revitalize the community;
To provide improvements that support and encourage the use of nearby public transit lines and promote the use of bicycles as well as walking;
To improve the relationship between residential uses, the circulation system and the service system facilities (streets, highways, schools, parks, fire, police, utilities) (Community Plan, Residential Objective 3);
To provide for a circulation system coordinated with land uses and densities in order to accommodate the movement of people and goods and minimize the conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic (Community Plan, Circulation Objectives 1 and 3); and
To encourage alternate modes of travel and provide an integrated transportation system that is coordinated with land uses and which can accommodate the total travel needs of the Community (Community Plan, Public Transportation Objective 2).
The project site is currently developed with a limited curvilinear roadway network with four points of vehicular/pedestrian access along the 8th Street frontage of the project site and three points of vehicular/pedestrian access along the Olympic Boulevard frontage.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-57 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
A limited number of additional pedestrian access points in the form of walkways are provided along both frontages. The project would provide six additional access points for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists for a total of 13 access points.
Pedestrian circulation through the project site is currently provided via a network of pedestrian walkways between buildings and through green space and along the portions of the internal roadways that have sidewalks. Currently, a pedestrian walking north to south through the project site to gain access to transit providers or adjacent neighborhoods must follow a circuitous path along paved walkways through green space (some of which is prone to flooding, and much of which cannot be patrolled or observed by motor vehicles) before being able to exit the project site. In some cases, the most direct route is through parking areas or even on the internal streets within the project site because significant portions of internal streets do not have sidewalks on both sides of the street. The circuitous and indirect nature of the existing pedestrian circulation system makes access to bus transit along the perimeter slower and more inconvenient. Developing a grid-like pedestrian circulation system, as proposed under the project, would maximize efficiency and convenience for pedestrians. A grid-like pedestrian circulation system would provide the most choices for a relatively direct path of travel for pedestrians walking from their homes to the transit options along the perimeter of the project site and the immediate neighborhood. Due to the current configuration of the project site (which includes the placement of buildings, streets, and walkways), creating a grid-like pedestrian circulation system would not be feasible without removing existing structures. Providing a more robust grid-like pedestrian circulation system would also improve night time safety and perceptions of security because the wider green spaces in the existing project site, which serve pedestrian circulation functions, are more difficult to light than a grid-like network of streets and pedestrian walkways. Circulation for bicycles is even more limited, because bicycles cannot easily traverse the narrow pathways and green spaces in the core of the existing project site. As a result, cyclists are either relegated to walking their bikes through portions of the center of the project site or biking along interior roadways that do not provide direct paths of travel. Thus, the existing site, as it is currently configured, does not meet the project’s objectives for improving pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Vehicular circulation, like pedestrian circulation, is limited in the existing project site. Limiting vehicular access, as detailed on page II-7 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, was by design when the Wyvernwood community was constructed, as a way of minimizing through traffic. While the existing site design minimizes through traffic, it comes at the expense of access. For example, access for first responders (i.e., police, fire, and ambulance) is limited because vehicles are not able to penetrate the core of the project site. It is also difficult for first responders to locate individual addresses because many of the existing units do not front streets. The existing circulation network also limits access to the project site from the surrounding community. The green space and neighborhood
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-58 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments serving retail and office uses planned for the project would be open to members of the community that live outside of the project site. Therefore, a grid-like vehicular circulation network is needed to provide convenient access to the greater Boyle Heights community. Thus, the existing site, as it is currently configured, does not meet the project’s objectives related to the vehicular circulation system.
Additionally, the existing circulation system, as it is currently configured, does not meet the project’s objective related to improving the relationship between residential uses and the circulation system/service system facilities because the internal circulation system is limited for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. In summary, the project would contribute towards improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation both within the project site and in the surrounding Boyle Heights area. The details of these circulation enhancements are included throughout the Draft EIR and are summarized in Topical Response No. 6.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-59 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses
8. Summary of Construction Impacts
Several comments on the Draft EIR raise concerns regarding the project-related impacts during construction. Most of these comments are related to air quality, noise, and traffic that could affect schools in the project vicinity and neighborhoods adjacent to the project site. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including those that could occur during demolition and construction, and prescribes mitigation measures when significant impacts are identified. In addition, in particular instances, the Draft EIR also identifies measures that are not necessary to reduce or avoid a potential impact, but are nevertheless recommended as project conditions to further reduce potential impacts. The potential impacts that could be caused during the demolition and construction phases of the proposed project are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR. This topical response provides a general summary the potential project-related impacts during construction that were identified as those of the greatest concern expressed in the comments on the Draft EIR, as discussed throughout Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR.
Construction-Related Visual Quality/Views Impacts
As analyzed in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, during construction activities, the visual appearance of the project site would be altered due to the removal of existing buildings, surface parking areas, and/or landscaping. Other construction activities including site preparation and grading; the staging of construction equipment and materials (i.e., bulldozers, portable toilets, and offices); and the construction of foundations, new buildings, parking structures, and outdoor open space areas would also alter the visual quality of the specific development site(s). Overall, while affecting the visual character of the area on a short-term basis, project construction activities would not substantially alter or degrade the existing visual character of the site, or generate substantial long-term contrast with the visual character of the surrounding area, for the following reasons: (1) views of construction activity would be limited in time duration and location; (2) the site appearance would be typical of construction sites in urban areas; (3) construction would occur within an urban setting with a high level of human activity and development; and (4) impacts would be reduced through standard best management practices implemented during the construction period, including the use of construction City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-60 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments fencing that would be placed along the periphery of the development site to screen much of the construction activity from view at the street level. Therefore, visual quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Although not required, Mitigation Measure A.1-1 on page IV.A-78 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/ Views, of the Draft EIR, which would require the use of temporary fencing around the perimeter of the project site to buffer views, is proposed to reflect existing City requirements and further reduce such impacts during the construction phase.
Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts
As analyzed in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy- duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and construction activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily nitrogen oxides (NOX), would result from the use of construction equipment such as dozers, loaders, and cranes. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings (i.e., paints) and other building materials would release volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Construction-related daily localized pollutant concentrations would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily significance thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) but would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold for daily and annual respirable particulate matter (PM10) and daily and annual nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The proposed project would implement a number of mitigation measures (e.g., compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust control [Mitigation Measure B.1-1 on pages IV.B-64 through IV.B-65 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR] and phasing construction activities to avoid emissions peaks and discontinue activities during second-stage smog alerts [Mitigation Measure B.1-7]) and project design features (e.g., new buildings shall incorporate LEED® features so as to be capable of achieving Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-H® or LEED-NC® Rating System [Project Design Feature B.1-3]) that would reduce construction emissions for all pollutants. See Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of Mitigation Measures B.1-1 through B.1-9 and Project Design Features B.1-1 through B.1-3. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR for a discussion of Mitigation Measures B.1-10 through B.1-12. However, localized construction emissions resulting from the proposed project would continue to result in a significant and unavoidable short-term impact.
Construction-related daily maximum regional construction emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily significance thresholds for CO, sulfur oxides, PM10, and PM2.5. However, maximum regional emissions City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-61 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for VOC and NOX during periods of heavy use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Implementation of the mitigation measures and project design features listed above in the discussion of localized construction emissions would reduce construction emissions for all pollutants. However, regional construction emissions resulting from the proposed project would continue to result in a significant short-term impact. Cumulative construction air quality impacts would also be significant.
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. Because the construction schedule estimates that the phases which require the most heavy-duty diesel vehicle usage, such as site grading and excavation, would last for a much shorter duration (e.g., an average of seven months for each phase), construction of the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)14 substantial source of TAC emissions. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.
During the construction of the project, activities associated with the operation of construction equipment, the application of asphalt, the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes, and roofing may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Although these odors could be a source of nuisance to adjacent uses, they are temporary and intermittent in nature. In addition, as construction-related emissions dissipate away from the construction area, the odors associated with these emissions would also decrease and would be quickly diluted. This is particularly true since large portions of the project site are located more than 500 feet away from off-site sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors during project construction would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Noise Impacts
As analyzed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, noise impacts from construction activities occurring within the project site would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the equipment location, the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities, and the relative distance to noise-sensitive receptors. Construction of the project is expected to occur in five phases commencing in 2015 and ending by 2030. During each of the phases, sensitive receptors would experience
14 “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-62 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments construction noise levels in exceedance of the project’s significance threshold. The proposed project would implement a number of project design features and mitigation measures that would reduce construction noise (e.g., construction of a sound barrier [Mitigation Measure H-1] and limiting exterior noise generating construction activities to Monday through Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and national holidays per Section 41.40 of the LAMC [Mitigation Measure H-2]). See Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of Project Design Features H-1 and H-2 and Mitigation Measures H-1 through H-5. However, construction noise impacts related to on-site construction activities would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
In addition to on-site construction noise, delivery/haul trucks (trucks) and construction workers would require access to the project site during various construction stages. The project’s haul trucks would generate a noise level of approximately 68 dBA15 (hourly Equivalent Sound Level [Leq]) along the haul route between the project site and the Pomona Freeway. The haul trucks noise would be consistent with the existing daytime ambient noise environment along Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street of 69 dBA (location R3). In addition, there are no noise-sensitive uses, such as residential uses, along the haul truck route to the freeway. Specifically, as shown in the aerial map provided in Figure II-3 on page II-5 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and as discussed on pages IV.G-3 through IV.G-4 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, immediately south of the project site along Olympic Boulevard are commercial and light industrial uses, a government service building, two schools and a pre-school, associated park/recreation facilities, and a senior center. To the west along Soto Street are commercial uses (retail stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and an auto repair shop) as well as industrial uses, with industrial uses to the southwest and extending west to the Los Angeles River and further west to the downtown core. In summary, the estimated noise level due to haul truck movements would not exceed the project significance threshold. Therefore, significant noise impacts would not be expected from off-site construction traffic.
Vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch per second (peak particle velocity [PPV]) at 25 feet from the equipment. At 50 feet (this is the distance between the closest on-site residence and the project construction boundary) from the source of activity, vibration velocities would be reduced to 0.001 to 0.031 inch per second
15 The decibel (dB) is a conventional unit for measuring the amplitude of sound as it accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude and reflects the way people perceive changes in sound amplitude. The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human frequency-dependent response, the A-weighted system is used to adjust measured sound levels (dBA).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-63 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
(PPV). At the nearest off-site buildings (approximately 75 feet), the vibration velocities would be reduced to 0.001 to 0.017 inch per second (PPV). Each of these values are below the 0.2 and 0.12 inch per second (PPV) Federal Transit Administration vibration criteria for residential and historical structures, respectively. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Police Protection Impacts
As analyzed in Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, construction- related traffic on adjacent streets could potentially affect emergency access to and near the project site on a temporary basis. Additionally, construction activities may involve temporary lane closures for utility improvements (generally one-lane closures so as to maintain through access on all roadways). Construction activities could increase response times for emergency vehicles travelling to the site and nearby uses along surrounding streets. During construction of the proposed project, a construction traffic management program would be implemented to ensure that adequate and safe access and parking remains available within the project site during construction activities. As discussed below under the summary of construction-related fire protection impacts, Mitigation Measures J.2-1 and J.2-2 would be implemented to provide adequate emergency access along adjacent roadways consistent with Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) requirements. Further, the Los Angeles Police Department would be notified of the days, times, and locations of any lane closures, and appropriate detour signage would be employed as necessary to ensure emergency access is maintained to the project site and that traffic flow is maintained on adjacent street rights-of-way. With implementation of these measures, emergency access impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. Since emergency access to the site would remain clear and unhindered during construction of the project, impacts related to emergency response or any emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
During construction, equipment and building materials could be temporarily stored on-site, which could result in theft. This could potentially necessitate police involvement unless adequate safety and security measures are implemented to secure the site. Mitigation Measure J.1-1, which would require the Applicant to implement security measures including security fencing, lighting, locked entry, and security patrol on the site, has been included to reduce this potentially significant impact during construction to a less than significant level.
Construction-Related Impacts to Schools
As analyzed in Section IV.J.2, Schools, of the Draft EIR, construction vehicles may require travel along streets internal to the project site that pass near Garza PC and/or Dena City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-64 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Elementary School in order to gain access to/from Olympic Boulevard. Although construction staging and parking would be prohibited on streets adjacent to the schools, to the extent that construction traffic, including construction worker travel, hauling activities, and the delivery of construction materials, travel along designated pedestrian routes during school hours, both schools could potentially be impacted during project construction. However, as discussed below under the summary of construction-related traffic impacts, Mitigation Measure K-1 would require the implementation of a construction traffic management program during construction and Mitigation Measure K-2 would require the preparation of a Construction Period Pedestrian Routing Plan prior to commencement of construction that identifies safe walking routes to the schools along construction affected streets within and adjacent to the project site. In addition to Mitigation Measures K-1 and K-2, Mitigation Measures J.3-1 through J.3-10 would ensure that project construction activities would not have significant impacts on school-related access, traffic/transportation safety, and pedestrian routes for Garza PC and Dena Elementary School. With implementation of Mitigation Measures K-1, K-2, and J.3-1 through J.3-10, construction- related impacts on schools would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The project’s construction traffic impacts affecting roadway operations and access, although limited in intensity and duration, are conservatively assumed to be potentially significant. However, implementation of the recommended traffic mitigation measures, discussed below under the summary of construction-related traffic impacts and detailed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, would reduce such short-term impacts to a less than significant level.
As discussed in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, even with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, potential localized air quality impacts associated with construction of the project, specifically emissions of PM10 and NO2, would significantly affect Garza PC and Dena Elementary School. As discussed above under the summary of construction-related noise impacts, noise impacts to the schools would also remain significant following implementation of mitigation. Such impacts would not occur at each school during all construction phases and thus would be limited in duration. However, they would nonetheless be significant and unavoidable.
Construction-Related Traffic, Access, and Parking Impacts
As analyzed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the impact on the transportation system from construction activities would be temporary in nature and would cause an intermittent reduction in street and intersection operating capacity and access to adjacent uses near the project site. Impacts on traffic conditions associated with construction of projects are typically considered temporary, short-term adverse impacts. It is not expected that the project would: (1) cause “substantial” delays
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-65 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments and disruption of existing traffic flow; (2) require substantial roadway and/or sidewalk closures to the extent that a “hazard” to roadway travelers and/or pedestrians would occur; or (3) result in the substantial loss of on-site and/or off-site parking such that the parking needs of the project area would not be met.
With regard to causing a substantial inconvenience to auto travelers, bus riders or parkers, delays from additional construction traffic and/or construction activities at other locations are not expected to be substantial. Construction traffic impacts on roadway operations would be potentially short-term adverse impacts, prior to mitigation. But with the imposition of Mitigation Measures K-1, which would require the implementation of a construction traffic management program during construction; Mitigation Measure K-2, which would require the preparation of a Construction Period Pedestrian Routing Plan prior to commencement of construction that identifies safe walking routes to the schools along construction affected streets within and adjacent to the project site; and Mitigation Measure K-3, which requires the Applicant to contact the Los Angeles Unified School District Transportation Branch prior to construction regarding potential impact to school bus routes and operations. With implementation of Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-3, construction-related impacts on traffic would be less than significant. However, cumulative construction-related traffic impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.
With regard to potential hazardous conditions, project construction is not expected to create hazards for roadway travelers, so long as commonly practiced safety procedures for construction are followed. Such procedures have been incorporated into the mitigation measures for construction impacts.
During construction, an adequate number of parking spaces would be available at all times (on-site and/or off-site parking spaces). Therefore, project construction would result in a less than significant impact with regard to the availability of on-site and off-site parking spaces.
Conclusion
The Draft EIR discloses the significant impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts where feasible. See Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, which includes a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project. As discussed therein, and summarized above, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable construction-related impacts to air quality and noise.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-66 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments C. Comments Matrix
Table FEIR III-2 Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES NERGY ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P S F M N P P S T W U P A E G P H C A H G CEQA C F L P W L NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A
STATE AGENCIES 1 Dianna Watson IGR/CEQA Branch Chief Department of Transportation District 7, Regional Planning X X X X IGR/CEQA Branch 100 Main St., MS #16 Los Angeles, CA 90012
2 Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission X 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814
REGIONAL AGENCIES 3 Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources South Coast Air Quality Management District X X 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 4 Jacob Lieb Manager Environmental Assessment Services Southern California Association of Governments X X X X X 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-67 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L LOCAL AGENCIES 5 Ali Poosti Acting Division Manager Wastewater Engineering Services Division Bureau of Sanitation X X X City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Correspondence
6 Jose Huizar Councilmember, 14th District 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 465 X X X X X X X X X X Los Angeles, CA 90012 7 Michael J. LoGrande Director of City Planning 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 525 X Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801 8 Toan Dong Land Development Division Los Angeles County Department of Public Works X X X 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803 9 Scott Hartwell CEQA Review Coordinator, Long Range Planning MTA CEQA Review Coordination X X One Gateway Plaza MS 99-23-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 10 Michael Mercado Environmental Planning and Assessment Los Angeles Department of Water and Power X X X [email protected]
ORGANIZATIONS AND HOME OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS 11 Ken & Nancy Shifren, Owners A.A. Surplus Sales Co., Inc. 2940 East Olympic Blvd. X Los Angeles, CA 90023
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-68 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 12 Cesar Armendariz President Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce X [email protected] 13 Isela C. Gracian Associate Director East LA Community Corporation X X X X X X X X X 530 South Boyle Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90033 14 Leonardo Lopez Co-Founder and President X El Comite de la Esperanza
15 Linda Kite Executive Director, In Solidarity with El Comite de la Esperanza Healthy Homes Collaborative X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2601 Pasadena Ave., Ste. G Los Angeles, CA 90031 16 Fr. Richard Estrada, Founder and Board President Jovenes, Inc. 1208 Pleasant Ave. X Los Angeles, CA 90033 17 Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy Los Angeles Conservancy X X X X X X X X X X 523 W. Sixth St., Ste. 826 Los Angeles, CA 90014
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-69 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 18 Brian R. Turner Senior Field Officer/Attorney, National Trust for Historic Preservation Foundation Jennifer Gates Field Services Director, California Preservation California Preservation Foundation X X X X X X San Francisco Field Office 5 Third Street Suite 707 San Francisco, CA 94103 19 Village Green Homeowner’s Association Board of Directors 3500 Rodeo Road X X X X Los Angeles, CA 90016
INDIVIDUALS 20 Matthew A. [email protected] X 21 Ali Abdul Cal Poly Pomona Architecture—2013 3801 W. Temple Ave. X X Pomona, CA 91768 [email protected] 22 Florence Arafiles Cal Poly Pomona 3801 W. Temple Ave. X Pomona, CA 91768 [email protected] 23 DeArmond Bebo [email protected] X 24 Joe Benites 8941 Haskell Avenue X North Hills, Ca 91343 25 Fred A. Berk [email protected] X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-70 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 26 Monica Bider [email protected] X
27 Theresa Bidner [email protected] X X X 28 Sherry Breskin Principal, Ramona Opportunity High School (retired) X [email protected]
29 Barbara Broide 2001 Malcolm Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 X X X X [email protected]
30 Bridget Brookman [email protected] X
31 Ray Busmann 1670 Griffith Park Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90026 X X [email protected]
32 Estefania Caceres [email protected] X X X X
33 Terry Carter [email protected] X 34 Carol Cetrone [email protected] X X
35 Sally Charette Acton, CA Los Angeles Conservancy member X [email protected]
36 Cathy S. Cleveland, Ph.D. [email protected] X X X
37 Cynthia [email protected] X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-71 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 38 Tom Davies Los Angeles X [email protected]
39 Vera del Pozo 3135 Malabar Street Los Angeles, CA 90063 X [email protected]
40 Joyce Dillard P.O. Box 31377 Los Angeles, CA 90031 X X [email protected]
41 Cynthia Friedlob [email protected] X
42 Wendy Gish [email protected] X X
43 Marguerite Greiner [email protected] X X X 44 Evelyn H. [email protected] X 45 Hector [email protected] X
46 Soledad Hernandez X 47 Dean Hill [email protected] X X
48 Katie E. Horak Associate Architectural Resources Group, Inc. Architects Planners Conservators X X 65 N. Raymond Ave., Ste. 220 Pasadena, CA 91103 [email protected]
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-72 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 49 Toby Horn 146 S. Fuller Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036 X [email protected] 50 Jessica Hough 3167 Rowena Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 X X X [email protected] 51 Jody Hummer [email protected] X 52 William H. Johnston [email protected] X X X 53 Catherine Jurca [email protected] X X X
54 Andrew Lyndon Knighton Joseph A. Bailey II, M.D., Endowed Chair of American Communities Director, CSULA/NEH American Communities Program Associate Professor of English X California State University, Los Angeles 5151 State University Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90032 [email protected]
55 Marla Koosed [email protected] X X 56 Diane Levine & Dr. Lawrence Levine [email protected] X 57 Edber Macedo Resident of Boyle Heights for over 20 years X X X X [email protected] 58 Arthur Martinez [email protected] X X X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-73 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 59 Joyceline B. Martinez 557 N. Kenmore Ave. #9 X X X Los Angeles, CA 90004 60 Keyur Maru, Student Cal Poly Pomona, Architecture Program X X X 61 Tina McKenzie [email protected] X X 62 Irma Mejia Valley Village, CA X X [email protected] 63 Thomas R. Miller EVP Marketing City National Bank X [email protected]
64 Daniel L. Millner Manager UCLA Department of World Arts and Cultures/Dance School of the Arts and Architecture Mailcode 160806 X X Kaufman Hall, Ste. 150 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1608 [email protected]
65 Tracy Moore 966 Third Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90019 X [email protected] 66 Susan Nakamura 1429 Marcella Lane X Santa Ana, CA 92706 67 Carol Ng 960 Edgecliffe Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90026 X X [email protected]
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-74 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 68 Pamela Palmer, ASLA Landscape Architect Howard Rosen, Architect ARTECHO Architecture and Landscape Architecture 1639 Electric Ave., Ste. A X X Venice, CA 90291 [email protected]
69 Ceasar Quinonez [email protected] X 70 Marissa Rodrigues [email protected] X X 71 Scott A. Ross [email protected] X 72 Michael Rotcher [email protected] X X 73 Mike R. Sanders [email protected] X X 74 Gailyn and Aram Saroyan 5482 Village Green Los Angeles, CA 90016 X X [email protected] 75 Gailyn and Aram Saroyan 5482 Village Green Los Angeles, CA 90016 X X [email protected] 76 Deborah Schankler [email protected] X 77 Flo Selfman [email protected] X X X 78 Nicholas Shambro [email protected] X 79 Denise Smith [email protected] X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-75 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 80 Joshua Steele 11641 Valley Spring Ln., Apt. 108 Studio City, CA 91604 X [email protected]
81 Marcia Thelemaque [email protected] X
82 Kay Tornborg [email protected] X X X
83 TW [email protected] X X X 84 Staci Valadez [email protected] X X 85 Olivia Vences E. Eighth St. X Los Angeles, CA 90023 86 Robert Vogt [email protected] X 87 Shelley Wagers [email protected] X X 88 Warren Wigh Cal Poly Pomona Architecture 2013 X X [email protected]
89 Monica Zermeno X X 90 Arlene Carlin Zimmer [email protected] X 91 Maria Garcia 3121 Wynglen Ln., Apt. 1 X Los Angeles, CA 90023
92 Zaila Guerrero X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-76 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 93 Cristina J. 2843 Wynwood Ln. X Los Angeles, CA 90023 94 Jose Luis Lomeli 2938 The Mall St. X Los Angeles, CA 90023 95 Magdalena 3109 Wynwood Ln., Apt. 5 X Los Angeles, CA 90023 96 Ascencion Montiel 3052 Wynwood Ln., Apt. 1 X Los Angeles, CA 90023 97 Guillermina Paez c/o Veronica Ramirez X [email protected]
98 José E. Sánchez X 99 Flora Santana 2731 Wynglen Ln. X Los Angeles, CA 90023 100 Teresa Valencia 2725 Wynglen Ln. X Los Angeles, CA 90023
LATE LETTERS
101 Lynn McLeod 4009 Via Picaposte X X Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
FORM LETTERS 102 November 1, 2011, Form (multiple signatures) X 103 November 3, 2011, Form (multiple signatures) X
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-77 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Table FEIR III-2 (Continued) Comments Matrix
ASSES ATERIALS G M
MPLOYMENT
/E ARKING
/P AZARDOUS
REENHOUSE REENHOUSE OUSING
H
EASURES
ECREATION ESOURCES /G /H
THER R M ESCRIPTION R CCESS
D
/O UPPLY ERVICES CONOMIC
ASTE /A
S S SE
/E
W
U UALITY
Q ASTEWATER ATER
ETTER ITIGATION L EOLOGY ENERAL ESTHETICS IR LTERNATIVES ULTURAL AZARDS AND OISE YDROLOGY ONSTRUCTION TILITIES ARKING AND ARKS OLICE OPULATION ROJECT CHOOLS OLID UBLIC NERGY IRE ISCAL AND RAFFIC EGAL P P S W P A E F M N P S T U H C A P G G NO. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS A CEQA C F H L P W L 104 November 4, 2011, Form (multiple signatures) X 105 November 8, 2011, Form (multiple signatures) X
106 Campaign to Preserve Wyvernwood Form (50 signatures) X X X X
107 Unite to Preserve Our Community Form (996 signatures) X X X
108 Wyvernwood is Irreplaceable Form (multiple signatures) X
109 Wyvernwood Small Group Meetings Form (multiple signatures) X
ADDITIONAL LATE LETTERS
110 Caltrans Comments After Reviewing Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Project Minutes X Revised March 21, 2012
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-78 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review
III. Responses to Comments D. Comment Letters
Comment Letter No. 1
Dianna Watson IGR/CEQA Branch Chief Department of Transportation District 7, Regional Planning IGR/CEQA Branch 100 Main St., MS #16 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Comment No. 1-1
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project located within the existing site referred to as the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. The project is bounded by 8th Street to the north, Soto Street to the west, Olympic Boulevard to the south, and Grande Vista A venue to the east.
Response to Comment No. 1-1
This comment correctly summarizes the streets that border the project site, as discussed on pages II-1 and II-4 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 1-2
The proposed project would replace the existing residential development, consisting of 1,187 units of rental housing, with a new mixed-use residential/commercial community that would include rental units and increased homeownership opportunities, complemented by neighborhood-serving retail and office space, civic uses, green/open space, and amenities. Specifically, the project would include up to 4,400 residential units comprised of no less than 1,200 rental units and up to 3,200 condominium units, 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office, and civic uses, approximately 24 acres of public, semi- private, and private usable open space and approximately 18.21 acres of planted streetscape and yard areas. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-79 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The project would develop in 5 phases with Phase I beginning in 2017, Phase 2 in 2021, Phase 3 in 2025, Phase 4 in 2028, and Phase 5 will be completed by 2030.
Response to Comment No. 1-2
The first portion of the comment correctly summarizes the basic characteristics of the proposed project as described in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
The second portion of the comment correctly notes that the proposed project would be developed in five phases, as shown in Table II-4 on page II-47 of Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. However, as shown therein, the years noted in the comment are the anticipated completion years for each phase, not the commencement years.
Comment No. 1-3
The subject project is within 1,000 feet of the State facilities. Under the maximum office/retail scenario, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 19,382/19,640 net new daily trips, 1,507/1,458 net trips in the a.m. peak hour and 1,927/1,934 net trips in the p.m. peak hour. Moreover, a total of 37 related projects have been identified within a two mile radius of the project site. Many of the trips will utilize State facilities and possibly cause existing congestion to further degrade if no improvements arc implemented.
Response to Comment No. 1-3
The comment reiterates information presented in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR regarding trip-generation estimates for the proposed project and the related projects included in the cumulative analysis. As stated on page IV.K-93 of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR conservatively concluded that cumulative development would yield a significant cumulative impact on intersection and roadway operations. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
Comment No. 1-4
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared in October 2011 did not address Caltrans’ traffic concerns on State facilities.
Caltrans’ letter dated July 2, 2008, states that “The Department as commenting agency under CEQA has jurisdiction superceding [sic] that of Metro in identifying the freeway analysis needed for this project. Caltrans is responsible for obtaining measures that will City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-80 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments off-set project vehicle trip generation that worsens Caltrans facilities and hence, it does not adhere to the Congestion Management Plan guide of 150 or more vehicle trips added before freeway analysis is needed. LA County’s Congestion Management Program in acknowledging the Department’s role stipulates that Caltans [sic] must be consulted to identify specific locations to be analyzed on the State Highway System.” In addition, when Caltrans is a consulting agency as defined by Public Resources Code section 21092.4, the lead agency must consult with Caltrans regarding the effect of the project on the State highways. A meaningful analysis of the effect of a proposed project on the State’s highways can only be done if the necessary information is provided; therefore a traffic impact study would have to be prepared. The DEIR did not provide traffic analysis referenced to Caltrans’ letter dated July 2, 2008.
The intent of the Congestion Management Act is to assist federal, state, and local agencies in developing and implementing comprehensive planning strategies to handle traffic congestion. (Gov. Code, §65088.) It does not relieve Caltrans of its duties under Streets and Highways Code section 90 and 92. In other words, the Congestion Management Act is a planning tool it is not used to dictate to Caltrans operational and safety standards for highways within its jurisdiction. Therefore, a supplemental traffic study is necessary to comply with CEQA requirements in addressing the following traffic issues in addition to the Traffic Impact Study for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Project, dated July 2011, prepared by Fehr & Peers:
Response to Comment No. 1-4
The comment states that the intent of the Congestion Management Act is to assist agencies in developing and implementing planning strategies to handle traffic congestion, and that a supplemental traffic study is necessary to comply with CEQA requirements. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that the CMP regional transportation impact analysis (TIA) methodology and criteria be used for the evaluation of project impacts on the regional freeway system for any project for which an environmental impact report is being prepared and states that “TIA requirements should be fulfilled within the existing environmental review process, extending local traffic impact studies to include impacts to the regional system” (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Appendix D Guidelines for CMP Transportation Analysis, page D-1). The City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project, adopted the CMP methodology and impact criteria specifically for CEQA purposes, as set forth in the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006). The Traffic Study included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-81 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Therefore, the City has no obligation under CEQA to analyze the project’s potential impacts on the freeway system in a supplemental traffic study.
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was issued June 25, 2008. The Traffic Study was subsequently prepared in accordance with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, March 2002. Those guidelines require the following as it relates to an analysis of freeway facilities:
An analysis of all CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on- and off-ramp intersections where a proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours
Mainline freeway monitoring locations where a project will add 150 or more trips in either direction during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours.
Caltrans must be consulted through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system
Per these requirements, an analysis of CMP arterial monitoring intersections freeway mainline conditions was conducted. Caltrans was notified through the NOP process in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15086.
Per the requirements of the lead agency, “The capacity analysis methodology for freeways and unsignalized intersections must be approved by LADOT” (Los Angeles Department of Transportation Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, March 2002, Pg. 9).
Comment No. 1-5
1. The section of freeway on 1-10, US- I0I, I-710, SR-60 and 1-5 within the project vicinity is currently operating at LOS F, therefore, additional traffic added resulting from the proposed project will likely to impact freeway operations. Traffic analysis of the mainline should be prepared accordingly. We are aware of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program in the area. However, the funding and schedule of those improvements are not committed at this time. Alternate mitigation measures should be proposed to alleviate the congestion on State facilities in the near term.
Mitigating cumulative traffic impacts on State highways may present some challenges. Given that the Los Angeles County’s CMP debit and credit system has been suspended, Caltrans recommends that the City consider an alternate local funding plan towards regional transportation improvements. Local funding efforts
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-82 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
may include a city, region, or community wide traffic impact fees such as the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (WLA-TIMP).
Response to Comment No. 1-5
The Draft EIR contains an evaluation of potential project impacts on the freeway system in accordance with the methodology adopted by the City (as lead agency) for I-5 between Stadium Way and Atlantic Boulevard, I-10 between the I-110 junction and the I-5 junction, US 101 between the I-110 junction and the I-5/SR 60 junction, SR 60 between the I-5 junction and the I-710 junction, and I-710 between the I-5 junction and the I-105 junction. The Draft EIR acknowledged that many of the freeway segments within the study area operate at LOS F. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR determined that the impact of project traffic would be less than significant using the CMP impact criteria adopted by the City of Los Angeles for CEQA analysis. Therefore, the project is not required to contribute towards mitigation measures or regional transportation improvements on the state highway system.
As detailed in Topical Response No. 6, a conservative set of assumptions was used to estimate trip generation for the project, including:
Census 2000 journey-to-work data indicates a 36 percent transit, walk, and bike existing mode split for current residents who live in the Census Tract that contains the project site, yet the traffic study assumed only 20 percent total for transit, walk, and bike mode share.
An existing trip-generation credit was applied to the existing number of units to be removed based on ITE Apartment trip-generation rates. However, as discussed in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, average occupancy in the existing project is 5.18 residents per unit, compared with 4.35 residents per unit in medium-density housing in Boyle Heights generally and 2.83 in the Los Angeles area. Thus, the existing project site has nearly 20 percent more persons per dwelling unit than the average for Boyle Heights, and over 80 percent more persons per unit than Los Angeles in general. Given this greater population density, it is reasonable to assume that in the current condition, more person trips are being generated per dwelling unit than would be expected using typical trip-generation rates. The project would provide additional housing units and below market rate units to address overcrowding at the existing project site. Therefore, the net increase in trip generation associated with those additional units is likely to be less than would typically be found given the increase in units, as the population per unit is expected to decline with the implementation of the project.
The use of the ITE Apartment trip-generation rate even for project condominium uses (apartments have a higher ITE trip-generation rate than condominiums).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-83 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
These, as well as other conservative assumptions, ensure that the project trip- generation estimations contained in the Draft EIR are likely to be overestimates of the actual trips that will be generated by the project in the future. The actual trips could be more than 30 percent less than predicted depending on how closely the actual circumstances match the trip-generation assumptions. Thus, the overall trips assigned to State facilities would likely be lower than what has been estimated in the Draft EIR.
The commenter’s recommendation that the City of Los Angeles consider an alternative local funding plan towards regional transportation improvements is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 1-6
2. In the Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), Table F-3 Existing (2008) Off- Site Un-signalized Intersections LOS & Signal Warrant Analysis indicates that the intersection of 1-5 SB off-ramp and 4th Street is operating at LOS F for both AM and PM peak periods in the existing and future condition. Traffic mitigation other than signal controller upgrades may be needed.
Response to Comment No. 1-6
The comment notes that, as presented in Appendix F of the Traffic Study included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR, the intersection of I-5 SB off-ramp and 4th Street currently operates at LOS F for both peak hours, and is projected to continue to operate at LOS F in the future. The comment suggests that traffic mitigation other than signal controller upgrades may be needed. According to current LADOT policy, offsite unsignalized intersections are no longer evaluated in traffic studies. Rather, only unsignalized intersections critical to site access are evaluated. The analysis contained in Appendix F of the Traffic Study was included because the project study intersections were initially scoped with LADOT before this policy change. While the intersection noted in the comment currently has poor level of service, which is expected to continue in the future, it can be concluded that the project would not cause the current deficiency to degrade further in the future. The project is expected to contribute less than 0.5 percent of total future traffic volumes. This volume increase is negligible, the project would not cause an impact at this intersection, and no project-funded mitigation would be required.
Comment No. 1-7
3. The CMA (Critical Movement Analysis) is used to evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections, but does not address the impact to the off ramp diverge area and queuing. An existing/future ramp analysis should be conducted that includes queue lengths to determine whether traffic will back up onto the freeway through City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-84 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
lanes at those intersections operating at LOS D or worse. These include the following off ramps intersections:
Intersection #1 WB I-10 @ Soto St. off-ramp
Intersection #3 EB I-10 @ Soto St. off-ramp
Intersection #10 NB 1-5 @4th St. off-ramp
Intersection #24 EB Rte 60 @ Lorena St/Whittier Blvd. off-ramp
Intersection #31 WB I-10 @ Santa Fe Ave. off-ramp
Intersection #33 SB 1-5 @Soto St. off-ramp
Intersection # 43 EB I-10 @ Santa Fe Ave. off-ramp
Intersection #75 NB 1-710 @ Atlantic & Bandini Blvd. off-ramp
WB SR-60@ Indiana Street off-ramp
EB SR-60 @ Whittier Blvd. off-ramp
I-5 NB @ Grande Vista Avenue off-ramp
I-5 NB @ Ditman off-ramp
Response to Comment No. 1-7
The comment notes that the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) method was used to evaluate traffic operations at all study intersections. The comment suggests that an analysis of queuing on freeway ramps should also be included. The Traffic Study included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the analysis methodology (CMA) required by the City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project. Lead agencies have the discretion to determine the required analysis methodologies to assess a project’s potential for impacts. The City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide does not require ramp queuing analysis. Ramp terminal intersections were fully evaluated using the CMA methodology in accordance with City of Los Angeles policy.
Comment No. 1-8
4. The report should include the analysis/queuing analysis of the following un- signalized intersections identified in Appendix F:
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-85 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
A-SB Rte 101 @ 4th St. off-ramp
B-SB 1-5 @ 4th St.
E- SB Rte 101 @ 7th St.
F-EB I-10 @ Boyle Ave.
Response to Comment No. 1-8
See Response to Comment No. 1-7.
Comment No. 1-9
5. From the City of Los Angeles inter-departmental correspondence, dated October 1,2010, Attachment 1 summarizes the traffic impact analysis at the various intersections showing existing traffic (2010) VIC ratios. In the report on Table 10 Existing (Year 2008) Intersection Levels of Service, page 31 of the TIS, existing traffic (2008) VIC ratios appear to be identical, even though it is a different year. Explain the discrepancy.
Response to Comment No. 1-9
As stated throughout Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the existing base year for the traffic analysis is 2008. The City of Los Angeles interdepartmental correspondence to which the comment refers, which is included in Appendix L to the Draft EIR, incorrectly labeled the base year as 2010.
Comment No. 1-10
6. The TIS needs an explanation of the criteria in defining the freeway segment boundaries for study outlined on page 66. Traffic volumes generated by the Project Only (Tables 22 and 23 CMP Freeway analysis-AM/PM peak Hour, pages 67-70) indicate that traffic has not dissipated at each boundary end while the freeway is operating in an unstable or forced flow condition (LOS E or F) during the AM and/or PM peak hour. It appears that Project traffic has an impact on additional freeway segments not studied. Also, Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that if the state facility is operating at less than a target LOS between C and D, the existing measures of effectiveness should be maintained. The report also needs to provide the assignment of freeway on/off ramp traffic volume due to the Project Only.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-86 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 1-10
The freeway analysis segments were selected for evaluation based on the criteria set forth in the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006), which in turn were adopted by the City of Los Angeles from the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Appendix D Guidelines for CMP Transportation Analysis, page D-1). In accordance with the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide criteria, freeway segments were selected for analysis if the project has the potential to add 150 or more peak-hour trips to the segment. To provide a more comprehensive analysis for CEQA purposes, all freeway segments with the potential for 150 or more project trips were selected for analysis, not just CMP monitoring segments. Project trips were tracked on freeway segments, to ensure that fewer than 150 peak-hour project trips would travel on any freeway segments beyond those analyzed in the study. The City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide defines a significant freeway impact as a change in the demand to capacity ratio (D/C) of 0.02 or more as a result of project trips when a freeway segment is operating at LOS F. There are no freeway segments in the study area where project trips result in a D/C ratio of 0.02 or more, and the project’s incremental increase in D/C dissipates on the freeway system as it moves further from the project site. Thus, the comment incorrectly asserts that the project has an impact on additional freeway segments not studied. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the project would not have significant impacts on any freeway segments.
The City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide does not include the criteria that existing measures of effectiveness should be maintained when state facilities operate at less than a target of LOS between C and D, so this criteria suggest by the comment, is inapplicable to the study. Project-only traffic volumes are provided at all study intersections including analyzed ramp terminal intersections and may be found in Appendix C of the Traffic Study included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 1-11
7. When the traffic impacts are identified in the supplemental traffic report, the project is responsible for its fair share towards the cost of any proposed improvements for all identified impacted freeway segments and ramps.
Response to Comment No. 1-11
The impacts to the freeway system were fully analyzed in accordance with the methodologies and criteria required by the City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the proposed project. No supplemental traffic report is required. The analysis conducted in accordance with the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide methodologies
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-87 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments determined that there would be no significant project impacts to freeway segments and ramps, and, therefore, no mitigation would be required.
Comment No. 1-12
8. In section 11, Construction Impact Analysis, page 143 of TIS, during the construction period, haul activity should be confined to daylight non peak hours, not from 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday as proposed.
Response to Comment No. 1-12
See Response to Comment No. 6-8 regarding the addition of Mitigation Measure K-4, which would limit truck haul trips such that no haul trips shall leave the project site after 3:00 P.M.
Comment No. 1-13
9. On page 52 of the TIS, how are the estimates for internal capture reflected in Tables 16 Trip Generation Estimates (Maximum Office Scenario) and Table 17 Trip Generation Estimates (Maximum Retail Scenario)? On page 66 of TIS, what time period were existing freeway traffic volumes taken from PEMS to develop the Existing (2008) condition? Explain why the PROJECT ONLY traffic volumes shown in Tables 22 & 23 CMP Freeway Analysis-AM/PM Peak Hour in the TIS differ from the PROJECT ONLY traffic volumes shown in Tables 3 & 4 Existing Plus Project CMP Freeway Analysis AM/ PM Peak Hour of Appendix I, Sunnyvale Supplemental Analysis.
Response to Comment No. 1-13
The text on page 52 of the Traffic Impact Study for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Project (Traffic Study), prepared by Fehr & Peers on June 2011, and included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR, incorrectly lists the internal capture percentages for the P.M. peak hour for both scenarios. Under the Maximum Office Scenario, 6 percent of P.M. peak-hour residential trips are projected to be internal, 21 percent of P.M. retail trips, and 16 percent of P.M. office trips. Under the Maximum Retail Scenario, 7 percent of P.M. residential trips are projected to be internal, 21 percent of P.M. retail trips, and 19 percent of P.M. office trips. The text on page 52 of the Traffic Study is correct for the A.M. peak-hour internal capture percentages for residential, retail, and office for both the Maximum Office and Maximum Retail scenarios. Tables 16 and 17 of the Traffic Study correctly list the internal capture percentages. The Traffic Study has been revised to list the correct internal capture percentages. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-88 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The freeway analysis was conducted for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. For each freeway analysis segment, weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) peak period (6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.) data were pulled from the California Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) system, for a two-month period in fall 2008. The A.M. and P.M. peak hour for each day was determined, and the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for each weekday were averaged across the two months of weekday data to determine the Existing (2008) A.M. and P.M. peak-hour values used for the CMP freeway analysis.
Project-only traffic volumes shown in Tables 22 and 23 (CMP Freeway Analysis) differ from the values shown in Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix I, Sunnyvale Supplemental Analysis, of the Traffic Study because the two analyses were conducted using two separate runs of the travel demand model that was developed to analyze the traffic effects of the proposed project. The freeway analysis contained in Tables 22 and 23 was based on a future with project model run, which included future baseline transportation improvements and projected growth in the study area along with project trips.16 The analysis in Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix I of the Traffic Study was based on an Existing plus Project run, which added the project trips on top of the existing base year street network. The future baseline transportation improvements and the growth in traffic in the study area, affect how the travel model assigns project trips, which results in slight differences in the assignment of project trips between the Existing plus Project and Future plus Project scenarios.
Comment No. 1-14
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.
Response to Comment No. 1-14
The project’s impacts on stormwater quality are analyzed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, implementation of Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements, inclusive of best management practices (BMPs), would ensure that discharges from the project would not violate water quality standards. The project would also implement the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements and would be subject to the review and approval of the Watershed Protection Division of the Bureau of Sanitation. Furthermore, the project would also be
16 As stated on page 35 of the Traffic Study (see Appendix L of the Draft EIR), modifications to the future base analysis were made to account for related projects and future baseline roadway improvements in the study area.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-89 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments designed in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Order No. 90-079 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which regulates the issuance of waste discharge requirements. Operation of the project would not result in discharges that would create pollution, contamination or nuisance or that cause regulatory standards to be violated for the receiving water body. Therefore, project impacts on water quality during operation would be less than significant.
Comment No. 1-15
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 the Department. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.
Response to Comment No. 1-15
The Applicant would obtain all required transportation permits from Caltrans. See Response to Comment No. 6-8 regarding the addition of Mitigation Measure K-4, which would limit truck haul trips such that no haul trips shall leave the project site after 3:00 P.M.
Comment No. 1-16
In the spirit of mutual cooperation, again, we would like to invite the lead agency, City of Los Angeles and the consultants, to the Caltrans office to discuss traffic project/cumulative impact, mitigation, and fair share contributions towards planned freeway improvements. Please contact this office at your earliest convenience to schedule a meeting in the near future.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 897-9140 or Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to IGR/CEQA No. 111037AL.
Response to Comment No. 1-16
In response to this comment, a meeting was held on February 22, 2012 between Caltrans, the Lead Agency, the Applicant, the Applicant’s traffic consultant, and the Draft EIR preparers prior to the release of the Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-90 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 2
Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814
Comment No. 2-1
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California ‘Trustee Agency’ for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3rd 604). The court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources, impacted by proposed projects including archaeological, places of religious significance to Native Americans and burial sites. The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 2-1
This comment, which describes the role and authority of the NAHC, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 2-2
This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as ‘consulting parties’ under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9.
Response to Comment No. 2-2
This comment, which generally references state and federal regulations related to Native American cultural resources, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 2-3
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA—CA Public Resources Code 21000- 21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-91 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a ‘significant effect’ requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as ‘a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” [sic] In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the ‘area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. [sic]
Response to Comment No. 2-3
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the analysis of the project’s impacts to historic and archaeological resources presented in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 2-4
The NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search resulted as follows: Native American cultural resources were not identified within the project area identified. However, the absence of archaeological resources does not preclude their existence. . [sic] California Public Resources Code §§5097.94 (a) and 5097.96 authorize the NAHC to establish a Sacred Land Inventory to record Native American sacred sites and burial sites. These records are exempt from the provisions of the California Public Records Act pursuant to. California Government Code §6254 (r). The purpose of this code is to protect such sites from vandalism, theft and destruction.
The NAHC “Sacred Sites,’ [sic] as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ).
Response to Comment No. 2-4
As discussed on page IV.C-26 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, although the presence of archaeological sites in the project vicinity is unknown, the project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Los Angeles River. Several Native American villages were recorded in the vicinity (estimated at 2 to 3 miles from the project site) in the late prehistoric to early historical-period times. Therefore, although the project City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-92 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments site has already been developed and graded, the potential exists that use of the project site for past Native American use may have occurred and the potential for development of the project to encounter buried prehistoric or Native American resources exists. Therefore, during project construction, the Draft EIR concluded that the project has the potential to result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. To mitigate significant impacts to archaeological resources, Mitigation Measure C-2 is recommended to ensure that, in the event archaeological resources are encountered during development of the project, all work stop in the immediate area and that a qualified archaeologist be consulted to determine the discovery’s significance and, if necessary, develop a mitigation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure C-2, the Draft EIR concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure C-4 would ensure that impacts to buried human remains, including those of Native Americas, would be less than significant in accordance with State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98, in the event that such remains are uncovered during project construction. Therefore, the Draft EIR analysis is consistent with the position expressed in the comment that while the Sacred Lands File search indicated that no known Native American cultural resources are located within the project area, the absence of such resources does not preclude their existence.
Comment No. 2-5
Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. [sic] APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Special reference is made to the Tribal Consultation requirements of the California 2006 Senate Bill 1059: enabling legislation to the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109- 58), mandates consultation with Native American tribes (both federally recognized and non federally recognized) where electrically [sic] transmission lines are proposed. This is codified in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.3 and §25330 to Division 15.
Response to Comment No. 2-5
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18) requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning contacted the NAHC to identify California Native American Tribes to be consulted regarding the potential effects of the proposed project. The NAHC responded and the tribes were consulted. In addition,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-93 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments as noted above in Comment No. 2-4, the NAHC conducted a search of the Sacred Lands File, which stated that no known Native American cultural resources were identified within the project area. Nonetheless, in the event that archaeological resources and/or human remains are uncovered during project construction, the Draft EIR includes mitigation to ensure that impacts to such resources would be less than significant, as discussed above in Response to Comment No. 2-4.
SB 1059 applies to projects proposing high-voltage electric transmission lines, which include electric transmission lines with an operating capacity of at least 200 kilovolts, or that are under the operational control of the California Independent System Operator. The proposed project does not propose the construction of any high-voltage electric transmission lines, and therefore is not subject to the requirements of SB 1059. Nonetheless, as described above, the Lead Agency for the proposed project has consulted with Native American tribes in accordance with applicable State regulations. It should also be noted that all major utilities for the proposed project would be placed underground, as stated on page IV.A-22 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 2-6
Furthermore, pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources.
Response to Comment No. 2-6
See Responses to Comment No. 2-4 and No. 2-5, above.
Comment No. 2-7
Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq [sic]), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-94 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior’s Standards include recommendations for all ‘lead agencies’ to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to “research” the cultural landscape that might include the ‘area of potential effect.’
Response to Comment No. 2-7
See Responses to Comment No. 2-4 and No. 2-5, above.
Comment No. 2-8
Confidentiality of “historic properties of religious and cultural significance” should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) [sic] and may also be protected under Section 304 of he [sic] NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (ct. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity.
Response to Comment No. 2-8
See Responses to Comment No. 2-4 and No. 2-5, above.
Comment No. 2-9
Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a ‘dedicated cemetery’.
Response to Comment No. 2-9
See Response to Comment No. 2-4, above.
Comment No. 2-10
To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-95 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects.
Response to Comment No. 2-10
See Response to Comment No. 2-5, above.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-96 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 3
Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
Comment No. 3-1
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comment is intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) as appropriate.
Response to Comment No. 3-1
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific concerns referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 3-2
Based on a review of the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR the AQMD staff is concerned about the project’s significant localized and regional air quality impacts. Therefore, the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional mitigation measures to minimize the project’s significant air quality impacts pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Details regarding these comments are attached to this letter.
Response to Comment No. 3-2
The Draft EIR includes a number of project features and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce construction and operational emissions from the proposed project. Many of the measures are recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the SCAQMD. However, even with incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would result in construction and operational air quality impacts. The lead agency acknowledges the concern of SCAQMD staff regarding the significant air quality impacts that the proposed project would have on the region and local residents during construction, and a detailed discussion of the additional SCAQMD staff-recommended mitigation measures is provided below.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-97 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 3-3
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.
Response to Comment No. 3-3
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, a copy of the Final EIR will be provided to the SCAQMD.
Comment No. 3-4
Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures
1. The lead agency determined that the proposed project will exceed the CEQA localized construction significance thresholds for PM10 and NO2 and the regional construction significance thresholds for VOC and NOx emissions; therefore, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide the following additional mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4.
Response to Comment No. 3-4
The comment correctly summarizes the conclusions of the construction air quality analysis provided in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR includes a number of project features and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce construction emissions from the proposed project. Many of the measures are recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the SCAQMD. However, even with incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would result in short-term regional and localized construction air quality impacts. The lead agency acknowledges the concern of SCAQMD staff regarding the significant air quality impacts that the proposed project would have on the region and local residents during construction, and a detailed discussion of the additional SCAQMD staff-recommended construction mitigation measures related to construction traffic, fugitive dust, architectural coatings, and equipment exhaust is provided below.
As it relates to several of the comments below, it should be noted that Mitigation Measure K-1 on pages IV.K-95 through IV.K-96 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, Parking, of the Draft EIR requires a construction traffic management plan that would implement traffic
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-98 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments control measures during construction activities beyond what is recommended in ensuing comments. See pages IV.K-95 through IV.K-96 of Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, Parking, of the Draft EIR for a complete discussion of what is required in the construction traffic management plan. A detailed discussion of each SCAQMD-recommended construction traffic management measure is provided in the responses to comments below.
Comment No. 3-5
Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements,
Response to Comment No. 3-5
In response to this comment, the following additional mitigation measure has been added to page IV.B-66 in Section IV.B-1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure B.1-10: Haul truck fleets during demolition and grading excavation activities shall use newer truck fleets (e.g., alternative fueled vehicles or vehicles that meet 2010 model year Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] NOX standards), where commercially available. At a minimum, truck fleets used for these activities shall be encouraged to apply for funding (e.g., Carl Moyer Grant Program) from the Air Resources Board (ARB) or Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to upgrade their truck fleets, and if awarded, shall be required to use those funds to upgrade their fleets.
Comment No. 3-6
Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow,
Response to Comment No. 3-6
As discussed on page IV.K-95 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure K-1 requires that a construction traffic management plan be prepared that includes “provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag persons)” and would effectively implement the measure recommended in this comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-99 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 3-7
Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site,
Response to Comment No. 3-7
As discussed on page IV.K-95 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure K-1 requires that a construction traffic management plan be prepared that includes “provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and offsite, to the extent feasible” and would effectively implement the measure recommended in this comment.
Comment No. 3-8
Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas,
Response to Comment No. 3-8
As discussed on page IV.K-51 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, haul routes have been identified for the haul trucks and construction delivery trucks to access the project site. Construction trucks would generally access/leave the site via Olympic Boulevard and head west to Soto Street north, to either I-5 or SR-60. The return to the project site would travel on the same haul route. As shown in Figure IV.B-3 on page IV.B-24 of Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, this route would avoid air quality sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure K-1 on page IV.K-95 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, requires all construction truck traffic to be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, which would avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure K-1 also requires rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible.
Comment No. 3-9
Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation,
Response to Comment No. 3-9
In response to this comment, the following additional mitigation measure has been added to page IV.B-66 in Section IV.B-1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-100 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Mitigation Measure B.1-11: An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to each construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. The Applicant or its contractor shall promptly investigate complaints, and, if required, shall take remedial action within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. A construction relations officer, who shall act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity, including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation, shall be reachable at the telephone number provided on the information sign.
Comment No. 3-10
Use required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113,
Response to Comment No. 3-10
The SCAQMD imposes the strictest rules in the nation with regard to the application of architectural paints and coatings. The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 which restricts volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in virtually all types of paints and coatings, including but not limited to, wood finishes, lacquers, concrete-curing compounds, fire-proofing exterior coatings, paints, floor coatings, coatings for signs, mastic coatings, roof coatings, stains, swimming pool coatings, wood preservatives, and water- proofing sealers. This rule is the result of considerable rule-making activity and reflects the most stringent industry-wide standards achievable in practice.
In addition to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, as stated on page IV.B-66 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure B.1-9 requires that low- and non-VOC-containing paints, sealants, adhesives, solvents, asphalt primer, and architectural coatings (where used), or pre-fabricated architectural panels shall be used in the construction of the project to reduce VOC emissions. Mitigation Measure B.1-9 satisfies the intent of the SCAQMD-recommended mitigation measure in this comment. In response to this comment, the following project design feature has been added to page IV.B-64 in Section IV.B-1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Project Design Feature B.1-7: The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-101 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 3-11
Construct/build with materials that do not require painting,
Response to Comment No. 3-11
See Response to Comment No. 3-10 regarding Mitigation Measure B.1-9, which requires the use of pre-fabricated architectural panels where appropriate.
Comment No. 3-12
Use pre-painted construction materials, and
Response to Comment No. 3-12
See Response to Comment No. 3-10 regarding Mitigation Measure B.1-9, which requires the use of pre-fabricated architectural panels where appropriate.
Comment No. 3-13
Contractors shall use high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50% or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
Response to Comment No. 3-13
In response to this comment, the following additional mitigation measure has been added to page IV.B-66 in Section IV.B-1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure B.1-12: Where use of high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators is required, contractors shall use HPLV paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
Comment No. 3-14
Operational Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources
2. The lead agency’s operational air quality analysis demonstrates significant operational air quality impacts from criteria pollutant emissions (i.e., NOx, CO, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5) in an area that already exceeds state and federal ambient air quality standards.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-102 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
A substantial portion of these impacts are from mobile source emissions related to vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. Based on the traffic impact analysis summarized in chapter four of the Draft EIR the lead agency determined that the proposed project will result in significant traffic impacts from additional trips generated by the proposed project. Specifically, these impacts will occur at some of the most highly congested intersections surrounding the project site. For example, the lead agency determined that the project will significantly impact the Soto Street and Olympic Boulevard Intersection (identified as Intersection 46). As a result, the AQMD staff is concerned that in addition to regional air quality impacts these significantly impacted traffic intersections could contribute to cumulative local air quality impacts that have not been addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment No. 3-14
The comment correctly summarizes the conclusions of the operational air quality analysis provided in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. In addition, the comment correctly identifies that the lead agency determined that the proposed project will result in significant traffic impacts from the additional trips generated by the proposed project. As shown in Table IV.K-19 on page IV.K-107 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the following six locations would result in a significant traffic impact: (1) Lorena Street & Whittier Boulevard (P.M. peak hour); (2) Alameda Street & Olympic Boulevard (both peak hours); (3) Santa Fe Avenue & Olympic Boulevard (P.M. peak hour); (4) Soto Street & Olympic Boulevard (both peak hours); (5) Grande Vista Avenue & Washington Boulevard (P.M. peak hour); and (6) Downey Road & Leonis Boulevard/District Boulevard (both peak hours).
To address potential air quality impacts from the additional trips generated by proposed projects, the SCAQMD recommends an evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when project-generated traffic causes the level of service (LOS) at a study intersection to worsen from C to D, or if a project increases the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio at any intersection rated D or worse by 2 percent or more. Consistent with this methodology, Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR addressed localized CO impacts at potentially impacted roadway intersections.
CO concentration levels were forecasted at the five potentially most impacted intersections based on the following factors: (1) highest LOS; (2) increase in V/C ratio; (3) project contribution; and (4) proximity to sensitive receptors. The analysis was conducted using the CALINE4 dispersion model developed by the California Department of Transportation including peak-hour traffic volumes and conservative meteorological assumptions (e.g., low wind speed, stable atmospheric conditions, and the wind angle producing the highest CO concentrations for each case). Three of the intersections
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-103 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments identified above, (Alameda Street & Olympic Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue & Olympic Boulevard, and Soto Street & Olympic Boulevard) were included in the localized impact analysis.
CO concentrations were modeled under the cumulative with project and no project conditions. As shown in Table IV.B-7 on page IV.B-50 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, cumulative traffic was forecasted to generate a maximum CO concentration of 6.0 parts per million (ppm) at the intersection of Soto Street and Olympic Boulevard, the intersection cited in this comment, for the 1-hour CO concentration (approximately 70 percent below the 20 ppm California Ambient Air Quality Standard [CAAQS]) and 5.1 ppm for the 8-hour concentration (approximately 43 percent below the 9.0 ppm CAAQS), of which the project contribution was less than 0.1 ppm for the 1-hour concentration and the 8-hour concentration. Project-generated traffic volumes were forecasted to have a negligible effect on the projected 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations at each of the five intersection locations analyzed. Since no significant impacts would occur at the intersections operating at the highest LOS and V/C ratio, it was concluded that no significant impacts would occur at any other analyzed roadway intersection as a result of project-generated traffic volumes. Thus, it was concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new or exacerbate any existing CO hotspots, and, as a result, impacts related to localized mobile-source CO emissions would be less than significant.
Although the intersections with greatest potential to result in localized air quality impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR, based on this comment the three additional intersections identified in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, as resulting in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts (Lorena Street & Whittier Boulevard, Grande Vista Avenue & Washington Boulevard, and Downey Road & Leonis Boulevard/District Boulevard) have been evaluated to determine whether project generated traffic would result in any localized CO impacts. See Appendix FEIR-10 to this Final EIR, which contains the additional CO analysis. The results of the analysis are summarized as follows:
Lorena Street & Whittier Boulevard—Maximum 1-hr CO concentration of 5.7 ppm (approximately 72 percent below the 20 ppm CAAQS) and 5.0 ppm for the 8-hour concentration (approximately 44 percent below the 9.0 ppm CAAQS), of which the project contribution was less than 0.1 ppm for the 1-hour concentration and the 8-hour concentration.
Grande Vista Avenue & Washington Boulevard—Maximum 1-hr CO concentration of 5.7 ppm (approximately 72 percent below the 20 ppm CAAQS) and 4.9 ppm for the 8-hour concentration (approximately 46 percent below the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-104 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
9.0 ppm CAAQS), of which the project contribution was less than 0.1 ppm for the 1-hour concentration and the 8-hour concentration.
Downey Road & Leonis Boulevard/District Boulevard—Maximum 1-hr CO concentration of 5.5 ppm (approximately 73 percent below the 20 ppm CAAQS) and 4.8 ppm for the 8-hour concentration (approximately 47 percent below the 9.0 ppm CAAQS), of which the project contribution was less than 0.1 ppm for the 1-hour concentration and the 8-hour concentration.
Thus, the results of the additional analysis further support the conclusion presented in the Draft EIR that the Project-generated traffic would result in less than significant localized air quality impacts.
Comment No. 3-15
The arterial streets that surround the project site are highly used by truck traffic and passenger vehicles traveling from major freeways (i.e., Interstate -10, [sic] Interstate -5, [sic] 101-Freeway and 60-Freeway) to industrial areas south of the project site based on Table 7 of the Traffic Study (Appendix L) of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the AQMD staff is concerned that additional congestion could result in the dispersion of traffic (i.e., passenger vehicles and diesel trucks) to local neighborhood roads that provide access to worker and industrial destinations. This type of traffic activity could result in additional local air quality impacts to residents. Also, the lead agency has expressed uncertainty in the effectiveness of the neighborhood intrusion mitigation if the program cannot achieve consensus among community members and stakeholders (Page IV-K-108).
Response to Comment No. 3-15
As discussed above in Response to Comment No. 3-14, localized air quality impacts associated with project-generated traffic were addressed in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodology. The results of the analysis presented Table IV.B-7 on page IV.B-50 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in localized CO impacts.
Regarding the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure K-16, the neighborhood intrusion mitigation measure on page IV.K-102 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the AQMD correctly identifies that implementation of the neighborhood traffic management plan under Mitigation Measure K-16 requires consensus amongst stake holders before implementation. Since the neighborhood mitigation is meant to alleviate traffic impacts to neighbors, it does not make sense to impose mitigation that the neighborhood determines it does not want. Therefore, there is the potential that a preferred
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-105 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments plan may not be agreed upon by the community and, if such a situation were to occur, the project’s neighborhood impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. This type of traffic activity could result in additional local air quality impacts to residents. To address this potential, the localized air quality impacts presented in Table IV.B-7 on page IV.B-50 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR reflect the unmitigated traffic conditions and would represent a conservative estimate of potential localized impacts. The traffic mitigation measures would further reduce pollutant concentrations presented in Table IV.B-7 on page IV.B-50 of the Draft EIR. As such, localized air quality impacts associated with project-generated traffic would result in less than significant localized impacts, regardless of whether the neighborhood intrusion mitigation is implemented.
Comment No. 3-16
Further, the project does not appear to maximize opportunities to reduce regional air quality impacts given that the additional traffic combined with impediments to active transportation (such as reduced sidewalk widths, a lack of bicycle amenities, etc.) could discourage pedestrian activity needed to maximize the use of mass transportation by residents. The lead agency only requires a single non-quantifiable mitigation measure that encourages delivery trips during off-peak traffic periods (i.e., Mitigation Measure B.1-10) to reduce mobile sources emissions. Additional mitigation measures should be included to discourage truck travel in residential neighborhoods, such as enforcement mechanisms to restrict truck parking and truck routes. In addition, the AQMD staff recommends that at a minimum the lead agency reduce the project’s significant operational air quality impacts by reviewing and incorporating additional transportation mitigation measures, such as those from the greenhouse gas quantification report published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association in the Final EIR.1
1 California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association. August 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Accessed at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA- Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
Response to Comment No. 3-16
The Draft EIR included mitigation measures that would, to the extent feasible, reduce operational emissions from the proposed project. The SCAQMD correctly identifies that the proposed project does not include many mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions. This is not because the proposed project ignores significant regional operational impacts, rather it is because many of the pollutant emission reducing measures are built into the proposed project as urban design elements of the Specific Plan or as project features and would be included as conditions of approval.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-106 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
As discussed in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability, as evidenced in its mixed-use nature, the project site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit, and the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses. Implementation of these sustainability features in return contributes to a reduction in air quality emissions via a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the project would be designed to meet the requirements for certification at the LEED-ND® Silver level and would reduce its energy usage by at least 15 percent below the 2008 Title 24 baseline, or the LAMC requirement at the issuance of building permits which ever yields higher energy reductions. See page IV.B-34 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for an extensive list of project features that would be incorporated into the proposed project. These project features would be incorporated as part of the project to reduce pollutant emissions related to the proposed project.
Trip-reduction measures such as internal trip capture, pass-by trips, and transit/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) were accounted for in the trip generation rates for the proposed project provided in Table IV.K-9 on pages IV.K-63 through IV.K-64 of Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. The estimates for internal capture are based on the reduction of trips as a result of the proposed mixed-use community comprised of mutually supportive uses that collectively offer housing, employment, shopping, dining, recreational, and other community-serving activities and opportunities, so as to promote a vibrant neighborhood. Pass-by trips are trips already traveling on an arterial that divert to visit a particular land use on that arterial. Pass-by trips, even though they involve a visit to a nearby land use, are not new trips generated by that land use, because they were already traveling on the street and as a result would have a decrease in vehicle miles travelled. It was determined that a transit, walk, and bike credit of 20 percent was appropriate to apply to the trip-generation estimates, to reflect the high quality of transit service that currently serves the project site.
As shown in Table IV.K-9 on page IV.K-63 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the Maximum Office scenario is projected to generate approximately 40,406 daily trips prior to implementation of trip-reducing measures. Trip- reducing measures would reduce the total number of project generated trips to 25,209 trips or a reduction of 38 percent. Specifically, the proposed project would result in a reduction of 6,997 trips as a result of the integrated mix of land uses or internal capture; 1,899 pass- by trips; and a reduction of 6,301 trips as a result of high quality transit service that currently serves the project site. Similarly, the Maximum Retail scenario is projected to generate approximately 41,732 daily trips prior to implementation of trip-reducing measures. As shown in Table IV.K-10 on page IV.K-65 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, trip-reducing measures would reduce the total number of
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-107 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments project generated trips to 25,467 trips or a reduction of 39 percent. Specifically, the proposed project would result in a reduction of 7,526 trips as a result of the integrated mix of land uses or internal capture; 2,374 pass-by trips; and a reduction of 6,365 trips as a result of high quality transit service that currently serves the project site. The project design results in a reduction of 38 to 39 percent of project-generated trips and would serve to reduce regional air quality impacts. Some of the project features and mitigation measures set forth in Section II, Project Description, and Section IV.K, Traffic, Access and Parking, of the Draft EIR, would also serve to reduce the project’s mobile air pollutant emissions.
Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR includes a project feature which commits approximately 15 percent of the housing developed as covenanted, affordable housing for low and very low income families. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) guidance document (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 2010 page 176), this measure would result in approximately 0.6 percent reduction in vehicle miles travelled and a corresponding reduction in air pollution emissions.
It is not clear what the commenter’s reference to “reduced sidewalk widths” and “a lack of bicycle amenities” is based upon. The project’s design framework as set forth in the Specific Plan has been conceived as a means to maximize access to transit and encourage non-motorized modes of transportation. As discussed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the project site is well-served by public transit, primarily in the form of bus service provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the Montebello Bus Line System, and the El Sol shuttle. The Metro bus system provides 13 bus lines in the form of both rapid and local bus service in the study area, Montebello Bus Lines operates three lines, and El Sol provides one shuttle. In addition, Metro has recently completed construction of an extension of the MetroRail Gold Line which links the Boyle Heights community with Union Station and other MetroRail lines that serve locations throughout the Los Angeles region. The MetroRail Gold Line extension provides several station stops in Boyle Heights, including stops at Soto Street/First Street and Indiana Street/Third Street, each within approximately 1.25 miles of the project site. The Gold Line station stop at Soto Street/First Street is served by Metro Local Lines 30, 251,252, and 605 and Metro Rapid Line 751.17 The Gold Line station stop
17 Metro, Metro Gold Line: Monday through Friday, Effective Jan 29, 2012, www.metro.net/riding_metro/ bus_overview/images/804.pdf, Accessed July 10, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-108 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments at Indiana Street/Third Street is served by Metro Local Lines 30, 68, 254, 620, and 665; Montebello Bus Line 40, and the El Sol Whittier/Blvd/Saybrook Park Line.18
Project Design Feature K-3 on page IV.K-94 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR would provide additional bus stop amenities and new bus stops along the site perimeter, thus improving access to public transportation services in the area. The amenities are shown in Figure II-14 on page II-32 in Section II, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Project Design Feature K-4 on page IV.K-94 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR would also require the project to include a system of bicycle routes and pedestrian paths throughout the site to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Specifically, the internal street network would add numerous points of connection to the broader street grid and would be designed to accommodate shared vehicular and bicycle traffic, equivalent to the City of Los Angeles’ Class III bike lane designation. Landscaped pathways would also be introduced throughout the site to connect the various project elements and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, which would include wide sidewalks, narrow streets, street trees and landscaped pathways between buildings, improved street and pedestrian lighting, and decorative awnings and street lamps within the retail/office areas.
In addition, Mitigation Measure K-4 on page IV.K-97 of the Draft EIR requires a TDM program and includes the following:
Mitigation Measure K-4: A project-level TDM program for the project shall be prepared and approved during the recordation of final project maps. The TDM program shall include a series of TDM elements including the following: Site Design—The internal street network shall be designed to maximize connectivity and enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities to encourage walking, biking, and transit. Amenities shall include: – Wide sidewalks – Narrow streets – Street trees & landscaped pathways between buildings
18 Ibid.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-109 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
– Improved street and pedestrian lighting – Decorative awnings and street lamps within the retail/office areas of the project site – Most parking structures and loading areas accessed via alleys on the side or rear of the buildings to minimize visual and physical disruptions to the pedestrian environment – Improved bus shelters, lighting and landscaping, and additional bus stops would be added to the perimeter of the project site. – The internal street network shall be designed to accommodate shared vehicular and bicycle traffic, equivalent to the City of Los Angeles’ Class III bike route designation. On-site bicycle parking shall also be provided. Shared Parking—The TDM program shall include a shared parking plan. Transit Pass Discount Program—The TDM program shall implement a transit pass discount program. Parking Strategies—The TDM program shall implement parking strategies, including compliance with the State parking cash out law (if applicable), and unbundling the site’s parking spaces. Rideshare Programs—The TDM program may require a rideshare program if determined to be feasible.
The trip generation reducing measures discussed above effectively maximize opportunities to reduce regional air quality impacts and would serve to facilitate active transportation (e.g., increase sidewalk widths, provide bicycle amenities, encourage pedestrian activity and maximize the use of mass transportation by residents). The measures would also incorporate feasible measures from the greenhouse gas quantification report published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association. Examples include: (1) transit accessibility; (2) below market residential housing; (3) improvements to the bicycle network; (4) and the Transit Pass Discount Program.
In response to this comment, the following additional mitigation measure has been added to page IV.K-105 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR to discourage truck travel in residential neighborhoods. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-110 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Mitigation Measure K-18: The project shall include enforcement mechanisms (e.g., signage) to restrict truck travel and parking in residential areas of the project site.
Note that with incorporation of feasible project features and mitigation measures discussed above, the Draft EIR correctly identified that regional operational air quality emissions would be substantially reduced, but would continue to result in significant unavoidable regional operational air quality impacts.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-111 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Jacob Lieb Manager Environmental Assessment Services Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
Comment No. 4-1
Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project [I20110190] to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372 (replacing A-95 Review). Additionally, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083(d) SCAG reviews Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15125(d) and 15206(a)(1). SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG’s responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.
Response to Comment No. 4-1
This comment, which explains the role of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-2
SCAG staff has reviewed this project and determined that the proposed project is regionally significant per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15125 and/or 15206. The proposed project includes mixed-use residential/commercial development intended to provide a walkable community with modern amenities and high-quality design City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-112 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments that promotes sustainability within the Boyle Heights neighborhood located in the City of Los Angeles.
Response to Comment No. 4-2
This comment states that SCAG has determined that the proposed project is regionally significant as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15206. The comment also correctly summarizes the proposed project, as discussed throughout the Draft EIR (e.g., see page II-1 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-3
We have evaluated this project based on the policies of SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Compass Growth Vision Principles that may be applicable to your project. The RTP and Compass Growth Visioning Principles can be found on the SCAG web site at: http://scag.ca.gov/igr. The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. We also encourage the use of the SCAG List of Mitigation Measures extracted from the RTP to aid with demonstrating consistency with regional plans and policies.
Response to Comment No. 4-3
An evaluation of the consistency of the project with relevant SCAG policies was completed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. As indicated therein, the proposed project would be substantially consistent with the goals and policies set forth in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Vision Report. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, with incorporation of the project design features and the approvals, permits, and actions that would be required by the City of Los Angeles and other responsible agencies, impacts related to consistency with land use plans would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for land use.
Comment No. 4-4
Please send a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) ONLY to SCAG’s main office in Los Angeles for our review. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Pamela Lee at (213) 236-1895. Thank you.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-113 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-4
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, a copy of the Final EIR will be provided to SCAG.
Comment No. 4-5
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the Boyle Heights Community of the City of Los Angeles located approximately 14.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, 2 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, and approximately 0.4 mile east of the Los Angeles River. The 68.8 acre site is generally bordered by East 8th Street to the north, Grand Vista Avenue to the east, and Olympic Boulevard to the south, with the western boundary located parallel to and just east of South Soto Street. Nearby jurisdictions include the unincorporated East Los Angeles area of the County of Los Angeles to the east, the City of Vernon to the south, and the Cities of Maywood and Commerce to the southeast.
Response to Comment No. 4-5
The comment correctly summarizes the location of the proposed project as described in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 4-6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the redevelopment of approximately 68.8 acre site with a mixed-use community providing increased housing and homeownership opportunities, neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, civic space, greens and open space amenities. As indicated therein, the project would include up to 4,400 residential units, comprised of no less than 1,200 rental units and up to 3,200 condominium units, and 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office, and civic uses. Upon completion of the project, there would be no net loss of rental housing units within the project site and a considerable increase in ownership housing as compared to current conditions. The project would also provide active and passive open space areas throughout the project site, including approximately 10.5 acres of privately maintained, publicly available, common useable open space. In addition, semi-private and private courtyards, plazas, and open spaces would comprise an additional 13.5 acres of open space amenities for a total of approximately 24 acres of useable open space, which would also include 2.4 acres of roof top garden spaces and recreational facilities, and 2.5 acres of private open space. The project would also
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-114 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments include 18.2 acres of planted streetscape and yard areas. Upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level, including publicly accessible open space, unfenced yards, streetscape, interstitial spaces, paseos and courtyards would be 37.25 acres, compared to 36.43 acres of comparable space that currently exists on the project site. Overall the project is intended to provide a walkable community with modern amenities and a high-quality design that promotes sustainability.
Response to Comment No. 4-6
The comment correctly summarizes the basic characteristics of the proposed project as described in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 4-7
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Regional Growth Forecasts
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should reflect the most recently adopted SCAG forecasts, which are the 2008 RTP (May 2008) Population, Household and Employment forecasts. The forecasts for your region, subregion, and city are as follows:
Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population 19,418,344 20,465,830 21,468,948 22,395,121 23,255,377 24,057,286 Households 6,086,986 6,474,074 6,840,328 7,156,645 7,449,484 7,710,722 Employment 8,349,453 8,811,406 9,183,029 9,546,773 9,913,376 10,287,125
Adopted City of Los Angeles Subregion Forecasts1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population 4,140,516 4,214,082 4,292,139 4,367,538 4,440,017 4,509,435 Households 1,386,658 1,445,177 1,506,564 1,554,478 1,600,754 1,638,823 Employment 1,860,672 1,905,337 1,933,860 1,967,393 2,003,196 2,037,472
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-115 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Adopted City of Los Angeles Forecasts1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population 4,057,484 4,128,125 4,204,329 4,277,732 4,348,282 4,415,773 Households 1,366,985 1,424,701 1,485,519 1,532,998 1,578,850 1,616,578 Employment 1,820,092 1,864,061 1,892,139 1,925,148 1,960,393 1,994,134 1. The 2008 RTP growth forecast at the regional, subregional, and city level was adopted by the Regional Council in May 2008.
SCAG Staff Comments:
Pages IV.1-12, IV.1-45 and IV.1-75 indicate that the DEIR population, household and employment analyses were based on 2008 RTP Regional Growth Forecasts.
Response to Comment No. 4-7
This comment confirms that the Draft EIR utilizes the appropriate SCAG regional growth forecast adopted for the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan Update, as stated on page IV.I-11 in Section IV.I, Employment, of the Draft EIR. The commenter provides growth forecasts for the SCAG Region, the City of Los Angeles Subregion, and the City of Los Angeles. In accordance with SCAG’s standard practice for intergovernmental review of regionally significant projects, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with forecasts for the City of Los Angeles Subregion in Section IV.I.1, Employment; Section IV.I.2, Housing; and Section IV.I.3, Population. For informational purposes only, and not as a basis for determining impact significance, the Draft EIR also provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the Boyle Heights Area. The forecasts for the SCAG Region and the City of Los Angeles provided in this comment are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-8
The 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies that are pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following:
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-116 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-8
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The RTP goals and policies that relate to the project are discussed in Table IV.G-3 starting on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. The following responses address the specific regional goals and policies referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 4-9
Regional Transportation Plan Goals: RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Response to Comment No. 4-9
This comment correctly restates RTP G1. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G1. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-17, below.
Comment No. 4-10
RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
Response to Comment No. 4-10
This comment correctly restates RTP G2. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G2. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-18, below.
Comment No. 4-11
RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
Response to Comment No. 4-11
This comment correctly restates RTP G3. Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-65 through IV.G-66 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G3. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-19, below.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-117 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 4-12
RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
Response to Comment No. 4-12
This comment correctly restates RTP G4. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G4. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-20, below.
Comment No. 4-13
RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency.
Response to Comment No. 4-13
This comment correctly restates RTP G5. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G5. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-21, below.
Comment No. 4-14
RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments.
Response to Comment No. 4-14
This comment correctly restates RTP G6. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with RTP G6. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-22, below.
Comment No. 4-15
RTP G7 Maximize the security of our transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-118 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-15
In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-67 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
RTP G7 Maximize the security of our Consistent. Although this Not Applicable. This goal transportation system through applies to system monitoring and planning activities that improved system monitoring, rapid would be carried out by SCAG and/or transportation recovery planning, and coordination agencies, the project would support this goal by with other security agencies. implementing land use development patterns that facilitate a reduction of vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled, thereby promoting a safe and sustainable regional transportation system. The project would include a new street grid to improve accessibility to and through the site. This new roadway system would link the various areas of the site, improve connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood and the regional roadway network, and provide improved access for public safety vehicles.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
Comment No. 4-16
SCAG Staff Comments:
Where applicable, SCAG staff finds that the proposed project partially meets consistency with Regional Transportation Plan Goals. The proposed project is not applicable to RTP G7.
Response to Comment No. 4-16
With regard to RTP G7, see Response to Comment No. 4-15. The following responses address additional specific comments on the Draft EIR’s RTP consistency analysis.
Comment No. 4-17
Per RTP G1, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project is located near and improves upon existing transportation infrastructure and includes a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths to encourage alternate modes of transportation (Page IV.K-86).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-119 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-17
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with RTP G1 and correctly summarizes the analysis of consistency in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. This comment also correctly summarizes a portion of the analysis of whether the project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and impacts to public transit services, as discussed on pages IV.K-85 through IV.K-86 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 4-18
SCAG staff finds the proposed project consistent with RTP G2. Per page IV.G-65, the street grid proposed would improve accessibility throughout the site and improve connectivity with the surrounding neighborhood and regional roadway network, thus increasing safety for all vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Response to Comment No. 4-18
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with RTP G2 and correctly summarizes the analysis of consistency in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-19
Per RTP G3, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project includes a comprehensive TOM program, which will reduce vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled thereby promoting a sustainable regional transportation system (Page IV.K-97).
Response to Comment No. 4-19
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with RTP G3, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-20
SCAG staff finds the proposed project partially meets consistency with RTP G4. Per page IV.K-106, implementation of the proposed project will have significant impacts
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-120 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
on peak hour traffic flows. Six intersections of twenty-two will not be fully mitigated to a level below significance during peak traffic conditions.
Response to Comment No. 4-20
In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our Partially Consistent. As described in response to RTP transportation system. G3, above, the project location and characteristics contribute to land use patterns that facilitate a reduction of vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled, thereby maximizing the productivity of the region’s transportation system. However, as discussed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of this Draft EIR, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts at six of the 22 study intersections.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
Comment No. 4-21
Per RTP G5, the proposed project is partially consistent. Site design objectives are based on the· principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability, by including new development design to meet Silver level LEED rating. Other sustainability features within the proposed project include water conservation features such as high-efficiency toilets and drought-tolerant plants included in landscaping (Page II-38). However, during construction of the proposed project, there is potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the project site reducing the air quality.
Response to Comment No. 4-21
In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-121 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air Partially Consistent. As described in response to RTP quality and promote energy efficiency. G3, above, the project location and characteristics contribute to land use patterns that facilitate a reduction of vehicular trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air pollution. Further, the project would be designed to incorporate LEED® features so as to be capable of achieving Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-ND® Rating System. Such LEED® features would include energy-efficient buildings, a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly site design, and water conservation measures, among others (refer to Table II-3 in Section II, Project Description, of this Draft EIR for a detailed list of the project’s sustainability features). However, as analyzed in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOX and VOC during the most intense construction period and SCAQMD LST thresholds for PM10 and NO2. Thus, project and cumulative impacts to regional and local air quality during construction would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. During operation, regional emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold for NOX, VOC, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 after implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, project and cumulative operational impacts on regional air quality would be significant and unavoidable.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
Comment No. 4-22
In regards to RTP G6, SCAG staff finds the proposed project to meet consistency. The proposed project is located in an area with existing transportation infrastructure and contributes to land use patterns that facilitate the reduction of vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled thereby utilizing land use and growth patterns to support transportation investments and infrastructure.
Response to Comment No. 4-22
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with RTP G6 and correctly summarizes the analysis of consistency in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-66 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-122 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 4-23
COMPASS GROWTH VISIONING
The fundamental goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. Thus, decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development should be made to promote and sustain for future generations the region’s mobility, livability and prosperity. The following “Regional Growth Principles” are proposed to provide a framework for local and regional decision making that improves the quality of life for all SCAG residents. Each principle is followed by a specific set of strategies intended to achieve this goal.
Response to Comment No. 4-23
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The Growth Vision Report principles and goals that relate to the project are discussed in Table IV.G-3 starting on page IV.G-65 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. The following responses address the specific principles and strategies referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 4-24
Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents. GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive.
Response to Comment No. 4-24
This comment correctly restates Principle 1 and GV P1.1. Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-67 through IV.G-68 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Principle 1 and GV P1.1. This analysis is discussed in Responses to Comment Nos. 4-28 and 4-29, below.
Comment No. 4-25
GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing.
Response to Comment No. 4-25
This comment correctly restates GV P1.2. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-68 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-123 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments consistency with GV P1.2. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-30, below.
Comment No. 4-26
GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development.
Response to Comment No. 4-26
This comment correctly restates GV P1.3. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-68 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P1.3. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-31, below.
Comment No. 4-27
GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices
Response to Comment No. 4-27
This comment correctly restates GV P1.4. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-68 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P1.4. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-32, below.
Comment No. 4-28
SCAG Staff Comments:
SCAG staff finds that the proposed project partially meets consistency with Principle 1.
Response to Comment No. 4-28
In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-67 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
GV P1 Principle 1: Improve Partially Consistent. The project would develop a mixed- mobility for all residents. use high density community within an area that is easily accessible by public transit. Specifically, the project site is within 1.25 miles of two station stops on the MetroRail Gold Line extension, and within the immediate vicinity of eight bus lines. The project would provide bus stop amenities
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-124 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
and new bus stops along the site perimeter, thus improving access to public transportation services in the area. The project would also include a system of bicycle routes and pedestrian paths throughout the site to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Specifically, the internal street network would be designed to accommodate shared vehicular and bicycle traffic, equivalent to the City of Los Angeles’ Class III bike lane designation. Landscaped pathways would also be introduced throughout the site to connect the various project elements and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment. The project is also centrally located 2 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to several freeways, including the Golden State/Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10), the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), and Hollywood Freeway (US 101), allowing immediate access to the regional freeway system. However, because the MetroRail Gold Line is located more than a mile away from the project site, the project does not fall within the traditional definition of “transit-oriented development.” Therefore, the project is only partially consistent with GV P1.3, as discussed below.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
Comment No. 4-29
SCAG staff finds the proposed project generally meets consistency with GV P1.1. The proposed project would develop a mixed-use residential and commercial community near existing transportation improving the connectivity of the current development to the existing transportation system (Page IV.G-67).
Response to Comment No. 4-29
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be generally consistent with GV P1.1 and correctly summarizes the analysis of consistency in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-67 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-30
Per GV P1.2, the proposed project meets consistency. Per page IV.G-33, the proposed project enhances residential development in connection with existing
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-125 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
transportation infrastructure thereby locating new housing near existing jobs in downtown Los Angeles employment.
Response to Comment No. 4-30
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P1.2 and correctly summarizes a portion of the discussion of the sustainability features of the proposed project, as discussed on page IV.G-33 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-31
In regards to GV P1.3, SCAG staff finds the proposed project is partially consistent. The proposed project will provide a similar mix of uses in a mid-to high-rise setting that will complement the high-density, mixed-use and transit-oriented nature of the Related Project #10 at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street, but does not develop transit-oriented development directly (Pages IV.G-83 – IV.G-84).
Response to Comment No. 4-31
Contrary to this comment, the discussion of the project’s consistency with GV P1.3 is on page IV.G-68 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-68 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented Partially Consistent. The project site is within 1.25 miles development. of two station stops on the MetroRail Gold Line extension, and within the immediate vicinity of eight bus lines. The project would provide bus stop amenities and new bus stops along the site perimeter, thus improving access to public transportation services in the area. The project is being developed in an area with many transit opportunities and experiences transit usage at a much higher rate than the rest of the City. However, because the MetroRail Gold Line is located more than a mile away from the project site, the project does not fall within the traditional definition of “transit-oriented development.”
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-126 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 4-32
Per GV P1.4, the proposed project is consistent. Per page IV.K-49, the proposed project includes a system of bicycle rotes and pedestrian paths throughout the site to encourage alternative modes of transportation and also encourages other modes of travel like public transit.
Response to Comment No. 4-32
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P1.4 and correctly summarizes a portion of the discussion of the project design features on page IV.K-49 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-33
Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities. GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities.
Response to Comment No. 4-33
This comment correctly restates Principle 2 and GV P2.1. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-69 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Principle 2 and GV P2.1. This analysis is discussed in Responses to Comment Nos. 4-37 and 4-38, below.
Comment No. 4-34
GV P2.2 Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses.
Response to Comment No. 4-34
This comment correctly restates GV P2.2. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-69 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P2.2. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-39, below.
Comment No. 4-35
GV P2.3 Promote “people scaled, “walkable communities.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-127 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-35
Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-69 through IV.G-70 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P2.3. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-40, below. It should be noted that the actual text of GV P2.3 reads: “Promote ‘people-scaled,’ pedestrian-friendly communities.” However, as indicated in the comment, SCAG also refers to “pedestrian- friendly communities” as “walkable communities.” Thus, the Draft EIR states this policy as follows: “Promote ‘people-scaled,’ pedestrian-friendly (walkable) communities.”
Comment No. 4-36
GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods.
Response to Comment No. 4-36
This comment correctly restates GV P2.4. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-70 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P2.4. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-41, below.
Comment No. 4-37
SCAG Staff Comments:
SCAG staff finds that the proposed project meets consistency with Principle 2.
Response to Comment No. 4-37
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with Principle 2, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-38
Per GV P2.1, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project intends to increase residential development, both rental and opportunities for homeownership through infill development at increased densities (Page IV.G-83).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-128 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-38
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P2.1, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-39
SCAG staff finds the proposed project to meet consistency with GV P2.2. The proposed project includes a mix of uses including residential (rental and condominium), neighborhood-serving retail, office, civic uses, a civic plaza and open space (Page II-1).
Response to Comment No. 4-39
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P2.2 and correctly summarizes a description of the proposed project on page II-1 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-40
Per GV P2.3, SCAG staff finds the proposed project to be consistent. Landscaped pathways planned in the proposed project will be introduced throughout the project site to connect the various project elements and uses and foster a pedestrian- friendly environment (Page II-33).
Response to Comment No. 4-40
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P2.3 and correctly summarizes a description of the proposed project on page II-33 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-41
In regards to GV P2.4, the proposed project will preserve single family neighborhoods. North of the project site include single-family residences which are being preserved and the proposed project will result in the removal of any single- family uses (Page IV.G-70).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-129 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-41
It is assumed that this comment contains a typographical error, as the project would not result in the removal of any single-family uses. Based on that assumption, this comment correctly summarizes the analysis of consistency of the proposed project with GV P2.4 in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-70 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. However, it should be noted that there are also single-family uses located to the east of the project site.
Comment No. 4-42
Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people. GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels.
Response to Comment No. 4-42
This comment correctly restates Principle 3 and GV P3.1. Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-70 through IV.G-71 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Principle 3 and GV P3.1. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 4-47 and 4-48, below.
Comment No. 4-43
GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth.
Response to Comment No. 4-43
This comment correctly restates GV P3.2. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-71 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P3.2. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-49, below.
Comment No. 4-44
GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class.
Response to Comment No. 4-44
This comment correctly restates GV P3.3. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-71 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-130 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments consistency with GV P3.3. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-49, below.
Comment No. 4-45
GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth
Response to Comment No. 4-45
This comment correctly restates GV P3.4. Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-71 through IV.G-72 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P3.4. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-49, below.
Comment No. 4-46
GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement.
Response to Comment No. 4-46
This comment correctly restates GV P3.5. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-72 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P3.5. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-49, below.
Comment No. 4-47
SCAG Staff Comments:
SCAG staff finds that the proposed project meets consistency with Principle 3 where applicable.
Response to Comment No. 4-47
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with Principle 3, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-48
Per GV P3.1, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project provides up to 4,400 new residential units of various sizes, rental/ownership opportunities, and style/density configurations (Page IV.G-70).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-131 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-48
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P3.1 and correctly summarizes a portion of the consistency analysis on page IV.G-70 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-49
SCAG staff cannot determine consistency with GV P3.2, GV P3.3, GV P3.4 and GV P3.5 based on the information provided in in [sic] the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 4-49
The consistency of the proposed project with GV P3.2, GV P3.3, GV P3.4, and GV 3.5 is provided in Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-71 through IV.G-72 of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the proposed project would be consistent with GV P3.2 and GV 3.5 because the proposed project would include 25,000 square feet of civic use(s) that would consist of community-serving or public facilities, which may include a 15,000-square-foot library. It is anticipated that this facility would be available for public use and/or for use by the two public schools located adjacent to the project site. In addition, the project’s civic component may also include a 10,000-square-foot multipurpose community room for use by project tenants and their guests for meetings and social functions.
As discussed in Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-71 through IV.G-72 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with GV P3.3 because the proposed project would include ground-level open space and parks, as well as community-serving commercial/retail uses that are intended to enhance the public realm and improve the quality of life of all area-wide residents and workers, and would be accessible to all members of the public, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. The Resident Retention Plan for the project would ensure that tenants who want to remain in the project will be able to do so, minimizing displacement. Furthermore, no aspect of proposed project development would result in a disproportionate impact to populations that are related to environmental justice issues.
In addition, as discussed in Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-72 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with GV P3.4 because the proposed project would generate tax revenues within a mixed-use project that would provide both residential and commercial uses with pedestrian connections. The project would also provide infill development and would place residential uses in proximity to job-rich areas and public transit.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-132 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
This comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-50
Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations. GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas
Response to Comment No. 4-50
This comment correctly restates Principle 4 and GV P4.1. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-72 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Principle 4 and GV P4.1. This analysis is discussed in Responses to Comment No. 4-54, below.
Comment No. 4-51
GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities.
Response to Comment No. 4-51
This comment correctly restates GV P4.2. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-72 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P4.2. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-55, below.
Comment No. 4-52
GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste.
Response to Comment No. 4-52
This comment correctly restates GV P4.3. Table IV.G-3 on pages IV.G-72 through IV.G-73 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P4.3. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-56, below.
Comment No. 4-53
GV P4.4 Utilize “green” development techniques
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-133 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-53
This comment correctly restates GV P4.4. Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-73 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with GV P4.4. This analysis is discussed in Response to Comment No. 4-56, below.
Comment No. 4-54
SCAG Staff Comments:
Where applicable, SCAG staff finds that the project is partially consistent with Principle 4. The proposed project is not applicable to GV P4.1 as the proposed project is not located in a rural, agricultural, recreational or environmentally sensitive area.
Response to Comment No. 4-54
In response to this comment, Table IV.G-3 on page IV.G-72 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
GV P4 Principle 4: Promote Partially Consistent. As described further below for the sustainability for future GV P4 sub-principles, the project would support generations sustainability by providing development in an urban in-fill area proximate to public transit, using resources efficiently, and employing the use of green development techniques so as to be capable of achieving Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-ND® Rating System. However, the project is not located in a rural, agricultural, recreational or environmentally sensitive area and is therefore not applicable to GV P4.1, as discussed below. GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, Not Applicable. The project is not located in a rural, recreational and environmentally agricultural, recreational or environmentally sensitive area. sensitive areas. Consistent. The project would not cause development within any rural, recreational, or environmentally sensitive areas. The project would replace the existing open space areas on the project site with enhanced open space that features native, drought-tolerant species and a series of urban bioswales designed to collect surface water and provide first flush treatment prior to discharge to the local storm drain system. The proposed project would also retain many of the existing oak and sycamore trees on-site as well as many of the jacaranda trees along Glenn Avenue.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This correction does not change the conclusion in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-134 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the project would be in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the local and regional plans and policies that are applicable to the project site.
Comment No. 4-55
Per GV P4.2, the proposed project meets consistency. The project is located in a highly urbanized area within the Boyle Heights neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles (Page II-4).
Response to Comment No. 4-55
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P4.2 and correctly summarizes a portion of the consistency analysis on page IV.G-72 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-56
In regards to GV P4.3 and GV P4.4, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability through mixed-uses and reduction of vehicle trips. Also the project will be designed to incorporate LEED features capable of achieving a Silver certification rating including energy efficient buildings, pedestrian and bicycle friendly design, and water conservation features (Page IV.G-73).
Response to Comment No. 4-56
This comment, which confirms the proposed project would be consistent with GV P4.3 and GV P4.4 and correctly summarizes a portion of the consistency analysis on page IV.G-73 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-57
CONCLUSION
Where applicable, the proposed project generally meets consistency with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals and also meets consistency with Compass Growth Visioning Principles.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-135 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-57
This comment, which states that the project generally meets consistency with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals and Compass Growth Visioning Principles, will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. This comment is consistent with the conclusions provided in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 4-58
All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. We recommend that you review the SCAG List of Mitigation Measures for additional guidance, and encourage you to follow them, where applicable to your project. The SCAG List of Mitigation Measures may be found here: http://www.scag.ca.gov/igr/ documents/SCAG IGRMMRP 2008.pdf
Response to Comment No. 4-58
In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR prescribes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate identified potentially significant impacts. Section IV, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project that lists all of the proposed mitigation measures and project design features by environmental topic, and identifies for each of the measures the applicable enforcement agency, monitoring agency, monitoring phase, monitoring frequency, and action indicating compliance. The MMRP would be incorporated into the proposed project’s conditions of approval and would be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures prescribed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 4-59
When a project is of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, transportation information generated by a required monitoring or reporting program shall be submitted to SCAG as such information becomes reasonably available, in accordance with CEQA, Public Resource Code Section 21081.7, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (g).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-136 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 4-59
In accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.7, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (g), transportation information generated by the proposed project’s MMRP will be submitted to SCAG.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-137 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 5
Ali Poosti Acting Division Manager Wastewater Engineering Services Division Bureau of Sanitation City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Correspondence
Comment No. 5-1
This is in response to your October 20, 2011 letter requesting a review of your proposed, project The Bureau of Sanitation has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the potential. impacts to the wastewater and stormwater systems for the proposed project
WASTEWATER REQUIREMENT
The Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division (WESD) is charged with the task of evaluating the local sewer conditions and to determine if available wastewater capacity exists for future developments, The evaluation will determine cumulative sewer impacts and guide the planning process for any future sewer improvements projects needed to provide future capacity as the City grows and develops.
Response to Comment No. 5-1
This comment, which explains the role of the Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division (WESD), is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 5-2
Projected Wastewater Discharges for the Proposed Project:
Average Daily Flow per Type Description Average Daily Type Description (GPD/UNIT) Proposed No. of Units Flow(GPD) Existing Residential: Studio 80 GPD/DU 22 DU (1,760) Residential: 1-BR 120 GPD/DU 449 DU (53,880) Residential: 2-BR 160 GPD/DU 640 DU (102,400) Residential: 3-BR 200 GPD/DU 76 DU (15,200)
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-138 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Proposed Residential 160 GPD/DU 4,400 SQ,FT 704,000 Office 150 GPD/1 000 SQ,FT 150,000 SQ,FT 22,500 Retail 80 GPD/1000 SQ,FT 150,000 SQ,FT 12,000 Civic Uses 200 GPD/1000 SQ.FT 25,000 SQ.FT 5,000 Total 570,226
Response to Comment No. 5-2
This comment provides the projected wastewater discharge for the proposed project based on the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation Sewer Generation Rates table. It should be noted that the proposed project would include up to 4,400 residential units rather than 4,400 square feet, as stated in the 8th row of the table provided in the comment. As discussed on page IV.L-69 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR, the analysis of project impacts on wastewater conveyance and treatment capacity is based on the Sewer Capacity Study prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc. (included as Appendix M.3 of the Draft EIR). The Sewer Capacity Study study analyzes the existing sewer conveyance system in the project area and calculates the anticipated wastewater flows to be generated by the project using wastewater generation factors from the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual, Section F200. Additionally, the project’s wastewater estimates are based on the maximum office development scenario, which is anticipated to generate more wastewater than the maximum retail scenario. This methodology results in a higher project wastewater demand when compared to the estimate provided in the comment. Specifically, the Draft EIR estimates that the project would result in a net increase of 677,480 gallons per day (gpd) in average daily wastewater flow from the project site (as discussed below), whereas the comment estimates that the project’s net increase would be 570,226 gpd. Therefore, the Draft EIR analysis is based on a more conservative estimate that indicates a greater increase in wastewater generation as compared to existing conditions.
As discussed in Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Appendix M.3, Sewer Capacity Study, and Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR has been revised to correct calculation errors in the estimate of the proposed project’s wastewater generation. Specifically, the 15,000- square-foot daycare included in the conceptual development scenario (see Table II-2 on page II-22 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR) was added to the calculation of the proposed project’s projected wastewater flow. As a result, the revised estimate of the project’s net increase in average daily wastewater flow is 677,480 gpd, which is 2,730 gpd higher than the estiamte provided in Table IV.L-10 on page IV.L-74 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR (674,750 gpd).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-139 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The revised estimate of the project’s net increase in peak daily wastewater flow is 1,661,952 gpd, which is 23,281 gpd higher than the estimate provided in Table IV.L-10 on page IV.L-74 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR (1,638,671 gpd). This would increase the flow to Sewer Pump Plant No. 606, which has an available capacity of 4.3 mgd. Therefore, the project’s net increase in average and peak daily wastewater flow would continue to be within the available capacity of the wastewater infrastructure that serves the project site, and impacts with respect to wastewater conveyance capacity would remain less than significant, as concluded in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the project’s net increase in average and peak daily wastewater flow would continue to be within the assumed 2030 design capacity of the Hyperion Service Area (570 mgd), and impacts with respect to wastewater treatment facilities would remain less than significant, as concluded in the Draft EIR. Therefore, these revisions do not constitute “significant new information” within the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and recirculation is not required.
Comment No. 5-3
SEWER AVAILABILITY
The sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed project includes an existing 15-inch line on 8th St RIW and existing 21-inch line on 8th St The sewage from the existing 15-inch line feeds into an 18-inch and 30-inch line on Camulos St before discharging into a 27-inch line on Soto St. The sewage from the existing 21-inch line feeds into the Dacotah Pumping Plant and then into a 21-inch force main. The flow continues into a 24-inch line on 8th St before discharging into the 60-inch North Outfall Sewer (NOS) line. According to our existing pumping data, the Dacotah Pumping Plant appears to have sufficient capacity to handle the proposed flow. Figure 1 shows the details of the sewer system within the vicinity of the project.
Response to Comment No. 5-3
The description of existing sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site provided in this comment does not conflict with the description of existing sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site provided on pages IV.L-59 through IV.L-61 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR. It is assumed that the “Dacotah Pumping Plant” referenced in the comment refers to Sewer Pump Plant No. 606 located at Dacotah and Eighth Streets. As stated on page IV.L-75 of the Draft EIR and discussed above in Response to Comment 005-2, the available capacity at Sewer Pump Plant No. 606 is sufficient to accommodate the wastewater demands of the proposed project. Therefore, this comment is consistent with the conclusions presented in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-140 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 5-4
The current approximate flow level (d/D) and the design capacities at d/D of 50% in the sewer system are as follows:
Pipe Diameter (in) Pipe Location Current Gauging d/D (%) 50% Design Capacity 15 8th St R/W * 3.18 MGD 21 8th St 28 3.92 MGD 18 8th St R/W 18 1.41MGD 30 Camulos St 35 4.92 MGD 27 Soto St 67 2.94 MGD 21 8th St * 10.46 MGD 24 8th St 24 4.07 MGD 60 Santa Monica Fwy 21 31.26 MGD * No gauging available
Response to Comment No. 5-4
The description of existing sewer capacity in the vicinity of the project site provided in this comment does not conflict with the description of existing sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site provided on pages IV.L-59 through IV.L-61 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 5-5
Based on the estimated flows, it appears the sewer system might be able to accommodate the total flow for your proposed project. Further detailed gauging and evaluation will be needed as part of the permit process to identify a specific sewer connection point. If the public sewer has insufficient capacity then the developer will be required to build sewer lines to a point in the sewer system with sufficient capacity. A final approval for sewer capacity and connection permit will be made at that time.
Response to Comment No. 5-5
The statement in the comment that “the sewer system might be able to accommodate the total flow for your proposed project” does not conflict with the conclusion presented on page IV.L-75 in Section IV.L.2, Utilities and Service Systems—Wastewater, of the Draft EIR that the existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate the wastewater demands of the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with all required permitting procedures, including the final approval of the sewer capacity and connection permit, outlined in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-141 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 5-6
Ultimately, this sewage flow will be conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Plant, which has sufficient capacity for the project.
Response to Comment No. 5-6
The statement in the comment that the Hyperion Treatment Plant has adequate capacity to treat the wastewater flow of the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions presented on pages IV.L-75 through IV.L-76 in the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 5-7
SOLID RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
The City has a standard requirement that applies to all proposed residential developments of four or more units or where the addition of floor areas is 25 percent or more, and all other development projects where the addition of floor area is 30 percent or more. Such developments must set aside a recycling area or room for onsite recycling activities. For more details of this requirement, please contact Daniel Hackney of the Special Project Division at (213)485-3684.
Response to Comment No. 5-7
This comment describes the City’s Space Allocation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 171687). As described on page IV.L-110 of Section IV.L.3, Utilities and Service Systems—Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR, the Space Allocation Ordinance requires the provision of an adequate recycling area or room for collecting and loading recyclable materials for all new construction projects, multi-family residential projects of four or more units where the addition of floor area is 25 percent or more, and other development projects where the addition of floor area is 30 percent or more. Mitigation Measure L.3-3 requires that recycling bins be provided at accessible locations on the project site available to all building occupants to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable materials. The Department of Building and Safety will review the project’s construction plans as part of the permit review and approval process to determine and ensure that the minimum recycling space allocation requirements are met. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-142 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 6
Jose Huizar Councilmember, 14th District 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 465 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Comment No. 6-1
On October 20, 2011, Thurman Interim California, LLC through its affiliate Fifteen Group Land and Development (“Developers”) submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the “DEIR”) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (the “Project”) which will provide for the development of approximately 68.8 net acres on and around the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments (“Wyvernwood”) site.
Response to Comment No. 6-1
This comment, which restates a portion of the information provided in the Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR released for the proposed project on October 20, 2011, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 6-2
The Developers’ proposed plan represents an ambitious project with up to 4,400 residential units where 1,187 presently exist – almost a four-fold increase in density and out of scale with the surrounding uses. The proposed density, request for general plan and zoning amendment changes, and requested increase in height district to allow towers up to 260 foot [sic] tall are not consistent with the current on-site (RD 1.5-1) and nearby surrounding off-site (RD 1.5-1, R2-1, and PF-1XL and OS-1XL) zoning and community scale.
Response to Comment No. 6-2
This comment correctly states that the required approvals for the project include a General Plan Amendment pursuant to LAMC Sections 11.5.6 and 12.32(E) and Zoning Code Amendment/Zone Change pursuant to LAMC Section 12.32(E) and (F). However, the comment incorrectly states that the project requests a height district increase. Rather, maximum building heights would be established by the proposed Specific Plan. As stated on page IV.G-60 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, under the proposed project,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-143 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the site would be re-zoned to reflect the proposed Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Specific Plan. The regulations of the proposed Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code (Chapter 1) of the LAMC. Whenever the Specific Plan contains provisions which establish regulations (including, but not limited to, standards related to heights), which are different from, more restrictive, or more permissive than would be allowed pursuant to the LAMC, the Specific Plan would supersede the applicable provisions of the LAMC and those relevant ordinances.
The Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts that could occur from implementation of the requested discretionary actions, including an analysis of land use compatibility on pages IV.G-74 through IV.G-78 of Section IV.G, Land Use, and an analysis of impacts to visual character on pages IV.A-52 through IV.A-54 of Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views. These analyses conclude that the proposed project is considered compatible with the surrounding area in terms of both land use type and design, and that the proposed height increases would not result in a substantial adverse impact to the visual character of the project site or the surrounding environment. This is largely due to the transitional height zone proposed by the project that would extend a distance of 70 feet into the site interior and would limit building heights to 35 feet along the north and northeastern site perimeters of the project site, closest to adjacent low density residential uses (see page IV.A-21 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR). The allowable height would step up to 64 feet moving toward the center of the site, transitioning to a 74-foot height limitation along the edges of the central park and along the Evergreen Street retail frontage. The creation of these transitional height zones would maintain low- and mid-rise buildings in the northern and northeastern areas of the site and concentrate the tallest structures furthest from nearby low-rise residences, resulting in a project design that promotes visual compatibility with off-site uses. See also Response to Comment No. 6-6.
The density of the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Framework and the Growth Vision Report, as discussed below. The goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan Framework that relate to the project are discussed in Table IV.G-1 starting on page IV.G-34 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the project would be consistent with Policy 3.1.4, which states that new development shall be accommodated in accordance with land use and density provisions of the General Plan Framework Long-Range Land Use Diagram. The southwest corner of Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street is designated as a Regional Center on the Long-Range Land Use Diagram and as a Major Opportunity Site in the Community Plan. The proposed project would provide a mix of uses in a mid- to high-rise setting and would re-designate the portion of the project site closest to this intersection as Regional Center, which would complement the high-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented nature of the adjacent Regional Center. In addition to its neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, the project’s
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-144 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments residential population would support nearby commercial/retail activity. The project’s housing units could also provide housing for workers in the Regional Center. The project’s civic uses could also support visitors and tourism. In addition, the Growth Vision Report principles and goals that relate to the project are discussed in Table IV.G-3 starting on page IV.G-67 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the analysis of the project’s consistency with GV P1.1 on page IV.G-67 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project site is located within a Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Area, which indicates that it has been identified by SCAG as an opportunity area for the implementation of the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy to develop compact, mixed-use development with housing and jobs near major transportation infrastructure. The project’s mix of uses and proposed density are consistent with the land use and growth patterns envisioned in SCAG’s Compass Growth Vision. In addition, as discussed in the analysis of the project’s consistency with GV P2.4 on page IV.G-70 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the project would also provide a transitional high density residential development between the low density residential development to the north and east of the project site and the Regional Center that is designated at Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street.
This comment, which expresses disagreement with the conclusions of the Draft EIR’s analysis of land use compatibility and visual character, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 6-3
Wyvernwood was designed in 1939 with the intention of promoting a strong social network among its residents and that intention has been abundantly realized in the decades since its completion. Many families, in some cases multiple generations of the same family, enjoy the vibrant and rich community within this California historically-designated [sic] district. Wyvernwood residents also have immediate access to approximately 36.5 acres of open space– a unique and rare experience among Angelenos since open space is seldom designed into modern Los Angeles multi-family developments. To that end, the City has a responsibility to ensure that the existing fabric of this community is not torn apart, nor to place additional onerous burdens on it.
Response to Comment No. 6-3
This comment, which describes the historical designation of Wyvernwood and existing open space at the project site, is consistent with the analysis presented on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, and page II-9 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 5 regarding the quality of existing open space.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-145 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 6-4
Should the Project proceed, it is important to ensure that specific areas are adequately analyzed, mitigated, and addressed to the fullest extent possible. In my review of the Project, I have identified several issues of concern and which should be addressed within the scope of the DEIR. These issues are submitted within the comments below:
Response to Comment No. 6-4
The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR discloses the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts where feasible. See Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, which includes a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific concerns referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 6-5
1. Density
4,400 residential units are being sited where 1,187 units presently exist. This represents an increase of almost four times the number of existing units and is out of scale with the surrounding community. Moreover, this translates to a substantial increase in residents, car trips, and strain on the infrastructure of the community. As proposed in the DEIR, the mitigation measures are not adequate to deal with the impacts of these additional units in an already highly dense neighborhood of Boyle Heights.
Response to Comment No. 6-5
See Response to Comment No. 6-2 regarding the compatibility of the project with the surrounding community. The proposed project’s population impacts are addressed in Section IV.I-3, Population, of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that impacts related to population would be less than significant. Indeed, as discussed at page IV.I-71 of the Draft EIR, one of the anticipated benefits of the proposed project is the alleviation of current overcrowding in existing units. The current development on the project site is characterized by a higher than average number of people per unit. Specifically, census data shows that there are approximately 5.18 people per unit as compared to the 4.35 people per unit estimated for medium density residential developments in the Boyle Heights community plan area. This figure is even more striking when considered that 40 percent of the existing 1,187 units are composed of single- and one-bedroom apartments. The project would require that 15 percent of the new units be affordable units
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-146 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments for low- and very low-income households. To the extent that current low-income tenants may be increasing unit occupancies to pay rent, they would be able to relocate into a similar sized unit in the proposed project at a rent affordable to their income. Tenants who do not have sufficiently low income to qualify for the affordable units would also be able to move into the new project at a rent that is no greater than what they would have paid under the RSO for their current unit. Accordingly, it is anticipated that by providing a larger pool of housing affordable to low-income tenants, and by allowing existing tenants with below market rents to move into the new project at a rent no higher than they would have paid under RSO, the current overcrowded conditions can be alleviated. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the RSO and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Although the proposed project would substantially increase the number of units on the project site, because existing tenants are being provided the opportunity to occupy new units at rents that would be at or below their current rent, the resulting population is expected to see a modest increase when considering the amount of new units that would be introduced. Moreover, the proposed type of ownership housing included in the project is expected to have significantly lower occupancy rates than the current development. This conclusion is based on current persons-per-unit data in Boyle Heights, generally, by product type. For example, in Boyle Heights, renter-occupied units in buildings with 50 or more units have an average of 1.5 persons per unit. Buildings of 20 to 49 units have an average of 2.2 persons per unit. Owner-occupied units of the same size have an average of 1.6 persons per unit. These figures are consistent with the average of 2.3 persons per unit estimated for the proposed project. Accordingly, although there would be a net increase of 3,213 units of housing, it is estimated that there would only be an increase in population of 3,982 people. As the project’s population increase would not exceed the population forecast for SCAG’s City of Los Angeles Subregion, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
The proposed project’s traffic impacts are addressed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. As summarized in Topical Response No. 6, the analysis identified significant traffic impacts and prescribed mitigation to reduce the project’s significant impacts to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s impacts to infrastructure are analyzed in Section IV.L, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that impacts to water supply and wastewater capacity would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. The analysis also concluded that impacts to solid waste would be significant and unavoidable based on a potential regional shortfall in landfill disposal capacity during project operation. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project impacts; however, long-term planning efforts to ensure future solid waste disposal capacity are beyond the control of the Applicant. The comment states that the “the mitigation measures are not adequate to deal
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-147 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments with the impacts” but does not delineate specific impacts or suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects. Therefore, a meaningful response cannot be provided (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15204[a]). See also Topical Response No. 4 for a discussion of the relationship between the project’s density and potential environmental impacts.
Comment No. 6-6
2. Height
Residential towers of up to 260 feet, 24 stories, where two to three story buildings presently stand, are out of scale with the surrounding largely single-family home residential community. Aesthetics, vistas, and visual impacts on the neighborhood as a whole are irreparable and there are no adequate mitigations to address these impacts.
Response to Comment No. 6-6
Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s impacts to the visual quality and character of the project site and the surrounding environment. As discussed on pages IV.A-52 through IV.A-54 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, the majority of the new buildings would range in height from two to seven stories (approximately 24 feet to 74 feet). Up to three buildings could be as tall as 18 stories (approximately 210 feet), and up to three buildings could be as tall as 24 stories (approximately 260 feet). Thus, there are only six buildings that are proposed to be over 200 feet, and the vast majority of buildings would be significantly lower in height. Proposed buildings adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods to the north and east would be limited in height to 35 feet, and transitional heights would provide a gradual transition from the shorter buildings along the north and east frontages to the taller buildings in the center of the project site.
From an urban design standpoint, the six towers are designed to act as “punctuation points” to the open spaces and public plazas. The height is intended to create new urban forms that define the public spaces within the project site and offer a varied skyline. As discussed above, up to three buildings could be as tall as 24 stories (approximately 260 feet). These high-rise structures would be no higher than the nearby Sears building, which is approximately 226 feet tall, because the high-rise structures would sit lower in the topography than the Sears building. That is, the high-rise structures would be positioned no higher above sea level than the Sears building despite the high-rise structures being approximately 260 feet tall and the Sears building being approximately 226 feet tall. In addition, the perceived bulk and height of the project would be diminished through the use of transitional building heights, articulated building facades, ample open space and landscaping, and screened parking structures so that the new development appears
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-148 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments visually compatible with and complementary to surrounding development and typical of a modern, urban community. Moreover, there is a gradual slope of 65 feet from the northwestern corner to the southeastern edge of the project site, creating the large differences in elevation throughout the site such that the tower elements would not be perceived as out of scale overall. In addition, retail uses would be strategically located within the eastern portion of the project site along a new internal roadway that would provide access to the north and south and along Olympic Boulevard, which is currently a retail and light industrial corridor anchored by a designated Major Opportunity Site and Regional Center at the Soto Street intersection. All project buildings would have a variety of heights and configurations creating both vertical and horizontal articulation and adding greater dimension and interest to medium- and long-range views across the site. Based on these design features, the Draft EIR concludes that potential impacts associated with visual quality and character would be less than significant. This comment, which implies that the commenter disagrees with that conclusion, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Although the Draft EIR concluded that potential impacts associated with visual quality and character would be less than significant, the evaluation of aesthetics is inherently influenced by a degree of subjectivity, as individuals respond differently to changes in the visual environment. To reflect the potential for differences of opinion as to aesthetic impacts, the Draft EIR analyzed an alternative that would not include the six towers. To the extent the towers are considered a detriment to the aesthetics of the area, the Reduced Height Alternative is substantially similar to the proposed project in terms of building footprints, internal circulation, and the distribution of open space and recreation areas. As such, this Alternative would meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of additional housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities. Furthermore, this Alternative would achieve almost all of the project objectives that support this underlying purpose to the same extent as the project. As such, the Reduced Height Alternative would adequately address any perceived impacts created by the inclusion of the six residential towers.
Comment No. 6-7
3. Construction Impacts
Several of the alternatives propose heavy construction and demolition of structures. The dust, noise, and vibration will impact residents while they live within the Project site. The community will experience additional construction impacts as existing businesses are relocated, small businesses access is disrupted, and traffic circulation is stressed by
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-149 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments construction activities. A mitigation plan must be in place if residents are to endure the impacts of this heavy construction.
Response to Comment No. 6-7
The comment notes that construction activities will impact residents within the Project Site, existing businesses, and traffic circulation, and states that a mitigation plan must be in place to address construction impacts. As detailed in Mitigation Measure K-1 on pages IV.K-95 through IV.K-96 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, a construction traffic management plan including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Los Angeles for approval. The construction traffic management plan would direct that construction parking be located to minimize interference with traffic, schedule construction activities that would affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible, and reroute construction off congested streets to the extent feasible, along with other measures. The construction traffic management plan would be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencement of construction activities. As stated on page IV.K-105, Mitigation Measure K-1 would help to mitigate construction impacts related to construction traffic to a less than significant level, though cumulative construction-related traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
See Topical Response No. 8 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of impacts from construction.
Comment No. 6-8
Truck trips generated during the peak a.m. traffic hours are not addressed within the proposed mitigation measures. Morning truck trips will create as much additional congestion for Boyle Heights residents trying to drop their kids off for school or get to work on time as they will for residents trying to get home. To address these concerns, construction hours should be limited to 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. daily, and truck trips and construction impacts should be avoided and, at the least, minimized during both the a.m. and p.m. peak commuting hours to accommodate the community during the 15 year build out period of the Project.
Response to Comment No. 6-8
The comment notes that truck trips generated during the peak A.M. traffic hours are not addressed within the proposed mitigation measures. The comment notes that these morning truck trips will create additional congestion for Boyle Heights residents trying to drop their kids off for school, and suggests that construction hours should be limited to
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-150 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., and truck trips should be avoided or minimized during the A.M. and P.M. commuting hours.
The traffic analysis reviewed the impact of truck trips generated by construction at pages IV.K-51 through IV.K-55 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measures K-1, K-2, and K-3 specifically address potential construction impacts. Mitigation Measure K-1, which would require a construction traffic management plan, as described on pages IV.K-95 through IV.K-97 of the Draft EIR, would have several measures to minimize the impact of construction activities on the schools adjacent to the project site. These measures would include: following generally accepted construction safety standards to separate pedestrians from construction activity, maintaining sidewalk access along one side of the roadway at a minimum during all demolition and construction phases as feasible, or developing alternative temporary pedestrian pathways to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian routes to schools are maintained throughout the construction phases, designating appropriate truck routes and haul schedules to minimize truck traffic on construction period pedestrian routes during times of peak pedestrian activity, as well as other measures. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall contact the LAUSD Transportation Branch regarding potential impact to school bus routes, and project contractors shall maintain on-going communication with school administration at affected schools, providing sufficient notice to forewarn students and parents/guardians when existing pedestrian and vehicle routes to school may be impacted. Crossing guards shall also be provided when safety of students may be compromised by construction-related activities at impacted school crossings.
In response to this comment, the following additional mitigation measure has been added to page IV.K-97 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure K-4: Truck haul trips on Mondays through Fridays shall be limited such that no truck haul trips shall leave the project site after 3:00 P.M.
Comment No. 6-9
In addition, the Developers should work with LAUSD School Officials to minimize any construction and / or operational impacts to nearby schools during peak periods.
Response to Comment No. 6-9
The potential impacts on schools during construction and operation of the proposed project are addressed in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR. As stated on
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-151 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments page IV.J-68, although construction staging and parking would be prohibited on streets adjacent to the schools, to the extent that construction traffic, including construction worker travel, hauling activities, and the delivery of construction materials, travel along designated pedestrian routes during school hours, Garza PC and/or Dena Elementary School could potentially be impacted during project construction. However, with implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan (Mitigation Measure K-1) and the Construction Period Pedestrian Routing Plan (Mitigation Measure K-2) provided in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, which are designed to minimize impacts on pedestrian safety and school access, construction-related impacts on schools would be reduced to less than significant levels.
As also stated on page IV.J-68 through IV.J-69 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the recommended traffic mitigation measures, which are detailed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, would reduce short- term impacts affecting roadway operations and access to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures, in addition to Mitigation Measures K-1 and K-2 discussed above, include Mitigation Measure K-3 on pages IV.K-96 through IV.K-97 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, which requires the Applicant to contact the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Transportation Branch regarding potential impact to school bus routes and operations. A number of precautions would be implemented as part of Mitigation Measure K-3, including a requirement that Project contractors shall maintain on-going communication with school administration at affected schools to forewarn students and parents/guardians when existing pedestrian and vehicle routes to school may be impacted.
In addition, as discussed on page IV.J-69, even with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, potential localized air quality impacts associated with construction of the project would significantly affect Garza PC and Dena Elementary School, as discussed in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. While such impacts are based on maximum construction levels which would not occur on a daily basis, they are nonetheless concluded to be significant and unavoidable although temporary. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, noise impacts to the schools would also remain significant following implementation of mitigation. Such impacts would not occur at each school during all construction phases and thus would be limited in duration. However, they would nonetheless be significant and unavoidable.
As stated on page IV.J-64 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, Senate Bill 50 states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Section 65995 of the Government Code sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-152 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments required to pay to mitigate a project’s impacts on school facilities under SB 50 and Section 17620 of the California Education Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities resulting from implementation of a project to less than significant levels. As shown in Table IV.J-10 on page IV.J-71 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, Garza PC, Dena Elementary School, Sunrise Elementary School, Hollenbeck Middle School, and Stevenson Middle School are projected to operate below their total enrollment capacity during the 2012–2013 school year prior to the addition of the proposed project students. The LAUSD has indicated that Roosevelt Senior High School would experience a shortage of approximately 1,645 seats during the 2012–2013 school year prior to the addition of the proposed project students, though this projection does not take into consideration the additional seats provided by Felicitas & Gonzalo Mendez Learning Center, as discussed in Footnote C in Table IV.J-10 on page IV.J-71 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR. With the proposed project students, a surplus of approximately 297 elementary school seats and 301 middle school seats is expected to occur. Roosevelt Senior High School would experience a shortage of approximately 363 seats, as shown in Table IV.J-10. These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated through the payment of school development fees pursuant to Mitigation Measure J.3-11.
Comment No. 6-10
4. Pedestrian Circulation
The Developer needs to pay special attention to issues related to circulation and pedestrian passageways. Items like enhanced crosswalks, pedestrian level street lighting, wider sidewalks, bulb-outs and other traffic calming measures should be implemented. Boyle Heights’ residents are largely transit-dependent and any new development should include mitigations and amenities that support and protect pedestrian circulation.
Response to Comment No. 6-10
The comment notes that the Developer needs to pay special attention to issues related to circulation and pedestrian passageways, with items like enhanced crosswalks, pedestrian level street lighting, wider sidewalks, bulb-outs, and other traffic calming measures that support and protect pedestrian circulation.
As discussed on page IV.K-94 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, Project Design Feature K-4 would ensure that a system of pedestrian paths throughout the project site would be provided. In addition, landscaped pathways would be introduced throughout the site to connect the various project elements and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, which would include wide sidewalks, narrow streets, street
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-153 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments trees, and landscaped pathways between buildings; improved street and pedestrian lighting; and decorative awnings and street lamps within the retail/office areas. These types of measures to improve pedestrian circulation are expressly incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan requirements (e.g., Chapter 3 concerning Open Space and Streets), and as such are considered project features. The proposed Specific Plan is included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. As indicated in Section 2.1 of the proposed Specific Plan, creating a walkable community, with a pedestrian friendly environment is a key part of the overall design intent of the proposed Specific Plan. See also Topical Response No. 7 for more information regarding the existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
Comment No. 6-11
5. Traffic Circulation
The Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study for the Project determined that 22 intersections (15 within the City of Los Angeles) would be significantly impacted by project- related traffic. At the greatest proposed density, the Project is expected to generate over 19,640 net new daily trips once fully built out. Considering the effect this increase will have on local traffic, the proposed mitigation measures with respect to traffic circulation are inadequate.
For example, the DEIR proposes mitigation measures regarding overall and neighborhood transit system improvements, traffic signal upgrades and new signals, a transit demand management plan, transit pass subsidies, expansion of the car sharing program, and the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan. However, the area is already saturated with traffic which the local streets cannot sustain. Each day, not only will residents of the Project go to and from work/school, but there are thousands of vehicles that use Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street as major thoroughfares for neighboring communities to reach downtown Los Angeles. In fact, the Olympic/Soto intersection is considered one of the heaviest daily traveled in the City of Los Angeles.
Response to Comment No. 6-11
The information provided in this comment, which states that the project is projected to impact 22 intersections during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours, or during both peak hours, is consistent with the analysis presented on page IV.K-71 and IV.K-73 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. However, contrary to this comment, 17 of the 22 intersections are located in the City of Los Angeles, rather than 15, as stated in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-154 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The comment also correctly states that the project would generate about 19,640 net new daily trips at buildout (under the Maximum Retail Scenario), as stated on page IV.K-62. The comment then summarizes some of the proposed mitigation measures provided in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, including transit system improvements, physical intersection improvements, traffic signal upgrades, installation of new traffic signals, a travel demand management (TDM) program, and funding for the implementation of a neighborhood traffic management plan. The comment states that the mitigation measures are inadequate, but does not provide any detail to indicate why the mitigation measures should be considered inadequate, other than noting that Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street in the vicinity of the project are among the heaviest roadways traveled daily in Los Angeles. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities. See also Topical Response No. 7 for more information regarding the existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
The 22 impacted intersections were identified using the City of Los Angeles’ significance criteria adopted in the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, December 2010 and August 2011) and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006). The robust traffic mitigation program proposed for the project was analyzed to determine its effectiveness in mitigating project impacts. As outlined in Table IV.K-19 on page IV.K-107 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the proposed mitigation program would fully mitigate the project impacts at 16 of the 22 impacted study intersections to a level below significance, and would partially mitigate the remaining six intersections. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to fully mitigate the project’s impacts at the remaining six intersections to a level below significance.
Heavy traffic volumes on Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street were factored into the traffic analysis and evaluation of the mitigation program. Transit system improvements, and adjacent signal controller upgrades would partially, but not fully mitigate project impacts at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street. Physical mitigation measures were explored at this intersection, but no feasible measures acceptable to LADOT were identified at this intersection due to right of way constraints.
It should also be noted that the Traffic Study was prepared by a private consultant and was subject to review and approval by LADOT. A copy of LADOT’s approval letter is provided in Appendix L of the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-155 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 6-12
In addition, each day there are diesel trucks coming and going from the adjacent industrial area within Los Angeles and the neighboring City of Vernon. A diesel truck takes up significantly more space than a regular vehicle and a singular daily trip as counted in the typical methodology does not accurately account for the full extent of congestion. Traffic impacts for the Project should not only be measured quantitatively, but qualitatively.
Response to Comment No. 6-12
The comment describes the activities of diesel trucks in the project vicinity and suggests that traffic impacts should be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. As stated on page IV.K-15 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the high volume of truck traffic in the study area was recognized and has been factored into the traffic analyses. Traffic volumes at intersections with higher truck activity were separately accounted for truck traffic in the baseline traffic counts. A passenger car equivalency factor of 2.0 was applied to all truck volumes at intersections where truck volumes made up at least 5 percent of total traffic volumes. Thus, one truck trip was considered to have the equivalent effect of two automobile trips in the methodology. This methodology ensured that the length and frequency of heavy trucks was factored into the level of service analysis of the study intersections.
Comment No. 6-13
6. Design Features
Design features contributing to sustainability, such as permeable paving for example, require regular maintenance and upkeep to retain maximum utility and their ability to operate as originally envisioned. To ensure that these features continue to contribute to the site’s sustainability and minimize any impact on the environment, a regular maintenance program must be a required operational program feature. In addition, the mere installation of features, such as installing plumbing for grey water use, is not enough – a mechanism must be in place to make certain that the sustainable features the project is endowed with are fully utilized.
Response to Comment No. 6-13
As part of the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project, the homeowners association for the proposed project would be responsible for regular maintenance and upkeep of on-site infrastructure. Maintenance requirements are proposed to be recorded in the conditions, covenants, and restrictions for the proposed project (the “CC&Rs”). Under such requirements, the homeowners association (or other entity) would provide all
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-156 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments necessary and ongoing maintenance and repairs for parks, paths, and other public areas of the project in conformance with standards to be set forth in the project’s Development Agreement. These recorded and enforced maintenance requirements would promote regular upkeep and maximum utility of the sustainability features.
As discussed in Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, the following Project Design Feature has been added to page IV.F-34 of Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR:
Project Design Feature F-13: As a condition to obtaining the first building permit, conditions, covenants, and restrictions shall be recorded that require the homeowners association or other entity to provide ongoing maintenance and repairs for parks, paths, swales and other public areas of the proposed project in conformance with standards to be set forth in the proposed project’s Development Agreement that ensure the long-term implementation of the sustainability features.
Comment No. 6-14
7. Signage
The proposed signage program may not be in compliance with the City’s proposed sign ordinance. The program may have heightened impacts on the local community with respect to lighting, unnecessary visual obstruction, and other impacts that are not addressed in the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 6-14
The Draft EIR contains detailed descriptions of the proposed signage, illumination guidelines, and potential impacts at pages IV.A-22 through IV.A-35 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, and IV.A-88 through IV.A-93 in Section IV.A.2, Aesthetics/Visual Resources—Light, Glare, and Shading. In order to reflect more current policies of the City Attorney’s office, the sign regulations have been removed from the Draft Specific Plan and incorporated into a separate Sign Supplemental Use District (SUD). See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. The Sign SUD divides the project site into three Sign Districts, as shown in Figure IV.A-6 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of this Draft EIR. The Sign SUD incorporates the regulations that were previously contained in Section 2.21 of the Design Guidelines and Standards and provides further guidelines and restrictions for project signage including the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-157 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments establishment of Sign Districts as well as design, size, content, and placement standards. In addition, as stated on page IV.A-65 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of this Draft EIR, the regulations set forth with regard to signage would not result in new environmental impacts, and in some cases would be more restrictive than the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The Sign SUD contains specific limitations on signage illumination that require that new buildings shield illumination sources and direct on-site lighting onto driveways and walkways and away from adjacent residential uses. Street lights installed along the street frontages would be coordinated with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Lighting to maintain adequate, uniform, appropriate and safe lighting levels on both sidewalks and roadways while minimizing light and glare on adjacent properties. With respect to signage lighting, project lighting would be limited to a light intensity of no more than 3 foot-candles above ambient lighting, as measured at the property line of the nearest residentially zoned property, as discussed on pages IV.A-92 through IV.A-93 of Section IV.A.2, Aesthetics/Visual Resources-Light, Glare, and Shading of the Draft EIR. Overall, the proposed project’s lighting sources would not significantly increase nighttime lighting levels in the area. Therefore, the increase in ambient light would not substantially alter the character of the area and would not interfere with nearby sensitive uses. Operational impacts related to light would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure A.2-7 would ensure that off-site signage, which is restricted to Sign District C, is not visible from any right-of-way outside of the project site other than Olympic Boulevard. Sign District C is located in the southern portion of the project site adjacent to Olympic Boulevard. The maximum area of off-site signs would also be restricted to 1,400 square feet (e.g., two 600-square-foot signs and three 65-square-foot signs).
The differences between the signage regulations in the LAMC and the Sign SUD are summarized in Table IV.A-2 on page IV.A-55 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the regulations set forth in the Sign SUD would not result in new environmental impacts, and in some cases would be more restrictive than the LAMC. For example, the proposed Sign SUD’s methodology for calculating sign area is both self-limiting and more predictable than the LAMC methodology. In addition, in adopting the Citywide ban on off-site and supergraphic signs, the City determined that supergraphic signs and off-site signs have the potential to create substantial adverse aesthetic impacts. Supergraphics and off-site signs may be visible from certain viewpoints along Olympic Boulevard. Therefore, under the construct in which supergraphic signs and off-site signs could be considered an adverse aesthetic impact, the supergraphic signs and off-site signs would have the potential to result in a significant impact to the visual character along Olympic Boulevard. However, the overall improvements to the project site’s visual character as seen from Olympic Boulevard, and the integration of the signage into the architecture and design of the retail improvements would offset the otherwise adverse impacts to visual character that the supergraphic signs and off-site signs would have. Given the urbanized nature of the project area, the off-site signs would not be visible beyond Olympic Boulevard and would
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-158 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments not impact the residential portion of the project or the surrounding community. The off-site signage would have no impact on the industrial character of the area adjacent to the Olympic Boulevard frontage. Therefore, these changes would not result in a significant impact to visual quality.
The City’s proposed Sign Ordinance would amend Article 4.4 and related provisions of the LAMC to enact new requirements and provisions regulating signs. At this time, the proposed Sign Ordinance is being considered by City Council Committees and is awaiting consideration by the full City Council. It should be noted that it is unknown whether the proposed project would comply with the proposed Citywide Sign Ordinance, as it has yet to be adopted and the language has yet to be finalized.
The comment also states that the signage program may have “other impacts that are not addressed in the DEIR” but does not provide an explanation of what these impacts might be that would facilitate a meaningful response. As discussed above, project signage would be coordinated and controlled by a Sign SUD. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 6-15
8. Public Amenities
The Developers should assist in the creation of a Nexus Study to assess the impacts of the specific plan development on public infrastructure, facilities, and services. A more robust analysis is needed to ensure that civic necessities and amenities such as schools, fire stations, and other civic resources necessary for public safety and the community’s welfare are appropriately provided.
Response to Comment No. 6-15
The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential impacts on City infrastructure, facilities, and services. As set forth in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant project and cumulative impacts with respect to police and fire protection services (Sections IV.J.1 and IV.J.2), schools (Section IV.J.3), parks and recreation (Section IV.J.4), libraries (Section IV.J.5), water supply (Section IV.L.1), and wastewater (Section IV.L.2). As set forth in the Initial Study provided in Appendix A to the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to electricity and natural gas. As set forth in Section IV.L.3, Utilities and Service Systems— Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on solid waste during construction, but it was conservatively concluded that project and cumulative impacts during operation would be significant and unavoidable due to the potential regional shortfall in landfill disposal capacity during project operation. In addition, City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-159 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments as set forth in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, but of the six intersections not fully mitigated during operation, two intersections would be fully mitigated during one peak hour and partially mitigated during the other peak hour, and the other four intersections would be partially mitigated during both peak periods. These analyses and associated mitigation measures are adequate under CEQA, and the comment does not raise specific questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of these analyses or the methodology utilized.
A Nexus Study is not required by CEQA, and would not provide any more meaningful information regarding impacts than the studies and analyses that are already contained in the DEIR. Indeed, Appendix J.3 includes an analysis of the net fiscal impacts of the proposed project from the recurring tax and other revenues it would generate, as compared with the average annual cost of City services that would be provided to the project, as well as the net fiscal impact of the existing Wyvernwood development over the same time period to 2032. This analysis showed, first, that the estimated average annual project-generated revenue to the City over the period to 2032 would total about $25.3 million, the annual average cost to the City to provide services to the project would total about $14.3 million, for a net fiscal impact of about $11.0 million per year.19,20 The analysis also shows that the annual net fiscal impact of continuing operation of the existing Wyvernwood over the same time period is net negative (-$6.3 million) to the City, because Wyvernwood does not generate enough revenue to pay for the cost of the City services it currently requires (i.e., average annual revenues between 2008 and 2032 of $2.2 million versus annual average service costs of $8.5 million) , and -$116.4 million cumulatively over the 2008-2032 period.21 The fiscal impact study further estimates that the project’s “net- net” annual average fiscal impact (i.e., after accounting for City service costs to the Project and eliminating the net negative impact of continued operation of the existing Wyvernwood) will be a positive $17.2 million.22 Cumulatively over the build-out period, the net-net incremental yield to the City from the project will be $188.3 million.23 Thus, even accounting for the cost of estimated required City services, the project will contribute
19 All dollar amounts included in this response are stated in constant 2010 dollars, consistent with the information presented in the Draft EIR. 20 See Table 13 in the Economic & Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included as Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR. 21 See Table 11 in the Economic & Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included as Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR. 22 See Table 15 in the Economic & Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included as Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR. 23 Ibid.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-160 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments significant revenues to the City’s general fund which can be utilized to provide services throughout the City.
Comment No. 6-16
9. Commercial Development
None of the security measures entailed in the DEIR specifically addresses issues that may arise from the commercial and retail portions of the development. Should retail or commercial uses be developed, it is important that each have the specific types of uses like restaurants, grocery stores, and, in particular, any use that offers alcohol for sale and/or consumption to the general public be required to have a detailed and appropriate security plan in place. Boyle Heights has an over-concentration of liquor licenses. This analysis may change the types of impacts and subsequent proposed mitigations should any be required.
Response to Comment No. 6-16
This comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately address potential issues associated with the commercial and retail portions of the proposed project. Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to police protection, including the project’s non-residential uses. Contrary to this comment, the Draft EIR includes a number of project design features and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts specifically related to the non-residential portions of the proposed project on police services and facilities. Project Design Feature J.1-2 requires that the Applicant provide on-site security personnel commensurate with development levels within the residential, neighborhood-serving retail, and office uses. Project Design Feature J.1-3 requires that the project comply with the guidelines and limitations concerning the sale and dispensing for consideration of alcoholic beverages set forth in the proposed Specific Plan (e.g., a maximum total of eight Alcohol Use Approvals, of which no more than two allow service of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, shall be permitted).
With respect to the portion of this comment stating that the Boyle Heights Community has an overconcentration of liquor licenses, Project Design Feature J.1-4 requires that the project’s commercial uses only purchase existing alcohol licenses that are transferred from other commercial uses in the Hollenbeck Community Police Station service area so as not to increase the overall number of alcohol licenses in the project area. Finally, as stated on page IV.J-17 in Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, via personal correspondence dated June 8, 2011, the LAPD has indicated that no significant impact would occur related to the permission of the eight Alcohol Use Approvals as long as the project adheres to the alcohol consumption restrictions and conditions in the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-161 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Specific Plan, including the requirement to purchase existing alcohol licenses from other commercial uses in the area.
Comment No. 6-17
10. Retention Plan
The City of Los Angeles has long acknowledged its lack of affordable housing and its need to retain its existing stock. At present, no affordability covenant exists, although all units are subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). The Developer proposes to provide 1,200 new rental apartments, with up to 660 of these units under covenant restricting rents to rates affordable to very low- and low-income families for a period of 30 years.
The replacement of existing affordable units is required under current city codes, and we encourage the Developer to extend the covenant to all 1200 affordable units while ensuring that all present tenants who wish to remain may rent an apartment within the project at a rate no higher than the rent stabilized amount they would pay based upon their current lease.
As the Retention Plan proposes that residents remain within the Project site while heavy construction and demolition occur, a mitigation plan must be in place if residents are to endure the impacts of these activities.
Response to Comment No. 6-17
The comment addresses two separate points: (1) the number of deed-restricted affordable units in the project; and (2) construction impact mitigation. The comment states that all existing affordable units on the property are required to be replaced, and indirectly suggests that all of the exisiting rental units are “affordable” housing. In fact, none of the existing units is “affordable housing” and, therefore, the City codes do not require that the existing housing be replaced with affordable housing. As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the RSO generally provides that if a landlord demolishes residential property subject to the City’s rent control law, and builds new residential rental units on the same property within five years, the newly constructed units are also subject to the rent control law.24 However, if the demolished rental units are replaced by an equal number of new affordable rental units (as defined), but not to exceed 20 percent of the total number of newly constructed rental units (i.e., 240 units, in the case of Wyvernwood), the
24 LAMC Section 151.28 (A).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-162 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments owner may apply to the Los Angeles Housing Department to exempt the new units from the RSO.25 As indicated in Table II-4 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, as the development is built out, a minimum of 15 percent of the total new housing units developed on the site would consist of affordable housing for low and very low income families (with first priority given to existing site residents). This works out to 660 units, which means more than 50 percent of the newly constructed rental units would be affordable housing. Moreover, each phase would include sufficient additional rent-restricted rental units to enable residents who choose to relocate into the project, but who would not otherwise qualify for the affordable units, to pay no more in rent than they would have in their current unit under the existing RSO.
Wyvernwood is a private, market-rate apartment community that does not currently include any dedicated affordable housing. As stated on page IV.I-35 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, only between 221 and 439 of 1,187 units (depending on whether former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles or Department of City Planning standards are applied) have rents that would qualify as “affordable” under City standards. While these rents are considered “affordable” because they are lower than current market rents, they are not true “affordable housing,” as defined by applicable laws and regulations. Affordable rental housing, unlike rent stabilized housing, is housing with below-market rents that are based on below-market income levels for a particular area, and that remain at below-market levels even after a tenant moves out. Under rent stabilization, rents are not protected in perpetuity. Once a tenant moves out, the rents are reset to market.
The comment correctly states that the proposed project would provide 1,200 apartments, of which up to 660 units would be under a voluntary covenant restricting rents to rates that are affordable to very low- and low-income families for a period of 30 years, as discussed throughout the Draft EIR (e.g., see pages II-23 through II-24 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). As discussed on page IV.I-51 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the proposal to provide up to 660 affordable units is consistent with the estimated demand for such units considering: (1) the number of existing tenant households that meet the definition of very low- and low-income; and (2) a reasonable projection of the number of qualifying households that would choose to remain on site, as opposed to selecting the option for a relocation assistance payment and moving to another off-site location. As stated on page IV.I-35 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the specific number of existing rental households that meet standard “affordability” definitions is unknown. However, an estimate can be derived by dividing on
25 LAMC Section 151.28 (B).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-163 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the rents charged in December 2008 by the associated number of bedrooms for occupied units (96 percent), and applying affordability criteria to the data provided by the California Housing and Community Development Department. Using this data, households in about 197 (17.3 percent) units are paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “very low- income” households and 242 (21.2 percent) units are paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “low-income” households, for a total of 439 units, as shown in Table IV.I-13 on page IV.I-36.26 In addition, if the criteria from the Los Angeles Housing Department for new construction of rental units are applied, using only the same December 2008 rents, about 112 (9.4 percent) units are paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “very low- income” households, and 109 (9.2 percent) units are paying rents that would qualify as affordable to “low-income” households, for a total of 221 units, as shown in Table IV.I-13. Figure IV.I-2 on page IV.I-52 of the Draft EIR shows that even with these very conservative assumptions, total demand for affordable units would total 622, as compared with the proposed project’s supply of 660 affordable apartments. Therefore, allocating more than 660 units as affordable is not required to meet either the existing number of such households or the projected demand for such units by existing qualified households. Moreover, in accordance with the Resident Retention Plan (see Appendix J.4 of the Draft EIR), to the extent an existing tenant does not meet the income requirements for the covenanted affordable units, the Applicant has committed to allow the tenant to lease a rental unit in the new project at the same rent stabilized rent that would have been paid by the tenant. There is no limit to the number of rental units that must be set aside to satisfy this commitment, but since there would be at least as many rental units as currently exist on the property, there would be sufficient units to meet this commitment. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
With respect to the portion of the comment regarding construction mitigation, see Topical Response No. 8 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of impacts from construction.
26 Accurate classification of units by affordability category is also complicated by the fact that, according to the Applicant, many units may be occupied by persons residing with the actual named tenant who are not named in the household lease. Thus, incomes used to classify households as to their affordability category may be lower than the rental level would suggest. Nevertheless, this method of using rent charged to approximate affordability categories is a method used by the Los Angeles Housing Department in determining affordable housing classifications for existing units in the City’s coastal zone. All existing tenants with qualifying household incomes will be given first priority for affordable units in the project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-164 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 6-18
11. Financial Feasibility
I am concerned that the economics of the project are not realistic given existing depressed market conditions. The financials list units at rates comparable to existing Downtown units, which have a high vacancy rate in this market. Accordingly, I am concerned that financially the project is infeasible and will never be built.
I am also concerned that the cost of rehabilitation referenced within the DEIR has been greatly inflated – rehabilitation costs for the Lincoln Place Apartments, another garden apartment project in Venice built in the 1940s, are about half of those listed in this DEIR. Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Additionally, the Developers should ensure that a demand for the level of office and retail space included within this project exists – vacant storefronts can negatively impact the greater community.
Response to Comment No. 6-18
The comment addresses three separate points: (1) the financial feasibility of the proposed project; (2) assumed historic preservation rehabilitation costs; and (3) demand for commercial space in the project.
The comment regarding the financial feasibility of the proposed project does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. It should be noted, however, that it would be illogical for the Applicant to pursue entitlements for the proposed project if the Applicant did not determine that the project would be feasible with the requested entitlements. Moreover, the mitigation measures and commitments are structured to ensure that the mitigation and commitments to tenants are assured prior to issuance of permits. To the extent the project is not built, there would be no impact on the environment.
With respect to the portion of the comment regarding rehabilitation costs, see Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-165 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
With respect to the portion of this comment regarding whether there is sufficient demand for the commercial space proposed for the project such that negative environmental impacts of vacant space can be avoided, this issue was addressed on pages IV-G.78 through IV-G.82 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR and the Urban Decay Analysis provided in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the project would provide a maximum of 300,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and office- using services. While the final mix of retail and office space would be determined on the basis of market conditions at the time space is developed, the Draft EIR conservatively evaluates the scenario that could potentially have the greatest urban decay impacts: 200,000 square feet of retail/service and related space and 100,000 square feet of office space.
The Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix H of the Draft EIR included a detailed assessment of retail and dining market conditions in the Boyle Heights community and surrounding neighborhoods, relying in part on the information and work product that was prepared by The Concord Group, a consulting firm that has been assisting the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) to understanding the retail potential of its Adelante Eastside Redevelopment Project. Based on the relationship between growth in project household spending for retail goods and services, the amount of retail space that may be supported by such household spending, and the share of the supportable retail space planned for the proposed project, the Urban Decay analysis concludes that the amount of retail floor area in the proposed project would be supported entirely by growth in demand from net new project households. Thus, the project’s retail would not drain sales away from existing retailers or other planned retail developments. In fact, the projected sales capture at the project allows for more than 50 percent of the potential retail sales generated by the project to be captured by other retail establishments in the community and new retail projects planned by others. Moreover, additional retail sales would be generated from household growth in the secondary market area that consists of residents of Boyle Heights and other communities who reside within 1.5 miles of the project site, but do not reside within the project site over the same time period, which will also be available to support other retail establishments in the community and new retail projects planned by others. Therefore, as stated on page IV.G-82 of the Draft EIR,there is no foreseeable potential for the project to cause conditions of urban decay within the meaning of CEQA.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-166 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 7
Michael J. LoGrande Director of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 525 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801
Comment No. 7-1
On Thursday, October 20, 2011, our Department released the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project with a 60-day comment period ending on December 19, 2011. We are receptive to your concerns regarding sufficient time for the public to review this extensive document for such a comprehensive project. Therefore, at your request, we will be extending the comment period for an additional 30 days until Wednesday, January 18, 2012.
Response to Comment No. 7-1
This comment reflects the fact that the Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day public comment period that was extended by 30 days, for a total of 90 days, in order to provide additional time for interested parties to review and comment on the document. This Final EIR has been prepared to include responses to the comments raised regarding the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-167 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 8
Toan Dong Land Development Division Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803
Comment No. 8-1
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Boyle Heights Mixed‐Use Community project located in the City of Los Angeles. We offer the following comments:
Response to Comment No. 8-1
This comment, which states that the Los Angles County Department of Public Works has reviewed the Draft EIR, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific concerns referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 8-2
1. TRAFFIC
We generally agree with the findings in the DEIR that the proposed project will have a significant impact at the County intersections listed below.
Response to Comment No. 8-2
This comment, which states that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works generally agrees with the findings in the Draft EIR regarding the significant impacts at intersections located in the County, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address comments about the specific intersections referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 8-3
Indiana Street at Olympic Boulevard
Although we concur with the DEIR’s findings that the project will have a significant impact, we disagree with the DEIR that the County is not requiring mitigation for this intersection. Under the County’s guidelines, the project is solely responsible for City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-168 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
mitigating significant impacts at County intersections resulting from trips generated by the project alone.
Although the DEIR does not provide specific capacity-enhancement improvements to mitigate its impact, we generally support the proposed Travel Demand Management (TDM) program and transit system improvements to reduce the number of trips generated by the project.
Response to Comment No. 8-3
The first portion of this comment, which states that the project would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Indiana Street and Olympic Boulevard, is consistent with the analysis presented in Table IV.K-11 on pages IV.K-67 through IV.K-69 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
A portion of this comment is apparently referring to text on page 107 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix L of the Draft EIR that states, “50. Indiana Street & Olympic Boulevard (County of Los Angeles intersection, not requiring mitigation under County of Los Angeles criteria).” This text was a reference to the fact that the the project’s potential for impacts were analyzed using the City of Los Angeles’ required methodologies and impact criteria for all study intersection (including those in other jurisdictions), because the City of Los Angeles is lead agency for this project. Based on City of Los Angeles criteria, the project would generate a significant impact at the intersection of Indiana Street and Olympic Boulevard. However, additional analysis was conducted for intersections located in the jurisdicition of the County of Los Angeles, including the intersection of Indiana Street and Olympic Boulevard, using the County of Los Angeles analysis methodology and impact thresholds. It was determined that no intersection impact would be expected at the intersection of Indiana Street and Olympic Boulevard, using the County’s criteria, as discussed on page IV.K-73 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the text in the Traffic Study quoted above was intended to indicate that under the County’s criteria, no mitigation would be required. However, mitigation measures were proposed to mitigate the intersection under City of Los Angeles methodology and impact criteria. As noted in the comment, these mitigation measures include a travel demand management program and a transit service upgrade on the Olympic corridor. These measures would fully mitigate the project’s impact at this intersection under City of Los Angeles methodology and impact criteria. Accordingly, after implementation of the mitigation, the intersection would not be considered impacted under either the City or County methodology. The commenter’s support for these mitigation measures is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-169 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 8-4
Downey Road at Bandini Boulevard
We concur with the proposed mitigation measure to add a second eastbound left‐turn lane and modify the signal phasing to operate the eastbound and westbound left‐turns as lead/lag phasing to avoid truck left‐turn conflicts. Detailed striping and signal plans for these improvements shall be submitted to DPW-Traffic and Lighting Division for review and approval .
If you have any questions regarding the traffic comments, please contact Mr. Virgilio (Gil) Lazatin of our Traffic Studies Section at (626) 300‐4721.
Response to Comment No. 8-4
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works’ concurrence with Mitigation Measure K-13, which would add a second eastbound left-turn lane and modify the signal phasing to operate the eastbound and westbound left-turns as lead/lag phasing to avoid truck left-turn conflicts at the intersection of Downey Road and Bandini Boulevard, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The mitigation phasing program set forth in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR identifies this mitigation as associated with Phase 2 of the project implementation. The Applicant shall submit detailed striping and signal plans for the improvements to the DPW—Traffic and Lighting Division for review and approval at the appropriate time.
Comment No. 8-5
2. SOILS/GEOLOGY
An update to the soils reports dated June 10, 2008 may be required. The seismic design parameters may need to be updated for the latest building code.
If you have any questions regarding the soils/geology, please contact Mr. Jeremy Wan at (626) 458-4725.
Response to Comment No. 8-5
In response to this comment, the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geotechnical Report) prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. on June 10, 2008, and included as Appendix E of the Draft EIR, has been updated to reflect the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), which became effective on January 1, 2011. The updated Geotechnical Report is included as Appendix FEIR-3 of this Final EIR. Section IV.D, Geology, of the Draft EIR has also been revised to reflect the updated Geotechnical Report. See City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-170 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. These revisions did not result in any substantive changes that would constitute “significant new information” in the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Therefore, recirculation is not required.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-171 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 9
Scott Hartwell CEQA Review Coordinator, Long Range Planning MTA CEQA Review Coordination One Gateway Plaza MS 99-23-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
Comment No. 9-1
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. This letter conveys recommendations from MTA concerning issues in relation to the proposed project:
Response to Comment No. 9-1
This comment, which states that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has received the Draft EIR, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific concerns referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 9-2
Existing Metro bus passenger activity in the vicinity of the proposed project is significant, particularly along the 8th Street corridor. Therefore, Metro bus stops should be maintained along each side of the project even if temporary relocation is required in the interest of project construction, (bus) equipment and passenger safety. The developer and/or contractor should contact MTA’s Special Events desk at 213-922-4632 to coordinate.
Response to Comment No. 9-2
The existing transit conditions in the Project area, including the bus lines provided by the Metro bus system, are described on pages IV.K-4 through IV.K-7 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, in the Draft EIR. Project Design Feature K-3 would ensure that the project would provide improvements to existing bus stops (wider sidewalks and amenities) and new bus stops along the site perimeter. To the extent feasible, the project would maintain access to all existing bus stops during the construction process. Temporary closures or relocations, if necessary during the construction process, will be coordinated with MTA’s special events desk. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-172 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
Comment No. 9-3
MTA looks forward to reviewing the Final EIR. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at 213-922-2836 or by email [email protected]. Please send the Final EIR to the following address:
MTA CEQA Review Coordination One Gateway Plaza MS 99-23-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Attn: Scott Hartwell
Response to Comment No. 9-3
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, a copy of the Final EIR will be provided to Metro.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-173 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 10
Michael Mercado Environmental Planning and Assessment Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [email protected]
Comment No. 10-1
Thank you for including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) in the environmental review process for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (the Project). The Project consists of a multi-use residential/commercial development. The conceptual plan includes: 4,400 residential units comprised of no less than 1,200 rental units, up to 3,200 condominium units, and 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office, and civic uses; a civic plaza, an expansive central park, active parks, neighborhood greens, neighborhood playgrounds, and landscaped courtyards and pathways; a total of approximately 24 acres of usable open space, including approximately 10.5 acres of privately maintained, publicly available, common useable open space and parks and approximately 13.5 acres of semi-private and private recreational amenities, such as landscaped courtyards and recreation rooms; and 18.21 acres of planted streetscape and yard areas. After having reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) we would like to submit the following comments, for your consideration and incorporation into the Final EIR.
Response to Comment No. 10-1
The comment correctly summarizes the basic characteristics of the proposed project as described in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 10-2
Water Infrastructure, Local Water Infrastructure and Operation, Water Supply
LADWP is also developing plans for a project to deliver recycled water to the downtown area, including the Boyle Heights Mixed Use Development. This project is currently in the planning phase and should be considered as a potential recycled water source for the Project.
Response to Comment No. 10-2
As set forth in Project Design Feature L.1-5 on page IV.L-57 in Section IV.L1, Utilities and Service Systems—Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, the project would construct City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-174 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments a purple pipe system to connect to the recycled water project referenced in this comment, provided LADWP demonstrate with reasonable certainty (by meeting the conditions stipulated in the Project Design Feature) that the recycled water project will be constructed within 10 years of the issuance of the first demolition permit for development in Phase 1 of the project.
In response to this comment, the last paragraph on page IV.L-27 in Section IV.L1, Utilities and Service Systems—Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows:
Currently, there is no existing source or distribution system for reclaimed water within or nearby the project site. However, The LADWP is developing plans for a project to deliver recycled water to the downtown area, including the project site. This project is currently in the planning phase. In addition, the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD), a water wholesaler that provides water and recycled water to local water providers such as LADWP, is planning the construction of the Southeast Water Reliability Project (SWRP). The SWRP includes a 42-inch pipeline that is planned to transfer recycled water between water treatment plants. The SWRP is organized in two construction phases, the first of which was recently completed. The second phase of the SWRP includes planned facilities easterly of the project site at Olympic Boulevard and Lorena Street. The CBMWD has considered a lateral extension from its planned 42-inch pipeline that would provide recycled water directly to the project site.
Additionally, the first full paragraph on page IV.L-48 in Section IV.L1, Utilities and Service Systems—Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows:
With regard to recycled water, as previously noted, LADWP is developing plans for a project to deliver recycled water to the downtown area, including the project site. This project is currently in the planning phase. In addition, the CBMWD is planning the construction of the SWRP which includes planned facilities easterly of the project site at Olympic Boulevard and Lorena Street. According to CBMWD staff, economic feasibility of its second phase, which could provide recycled water directly to the project site, will require an additional customer demand of approximately 200 acre-feet to 300 acre-feet per year. The project’s irrigation demand would be approximately 64.5 acre- feet per year, representing between 21 to 32 percent of the overall customer demand necessary to create economic feasibility of CBMWD’s second phase. Since the proposed project cannot on its own satisfy the CBMWD project’s customer demand threshold for economic feasibility, and since the LADWP’s
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-175 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
recycled water project is still in the planning phase, the proposed project is not assured of access to recycled water. Nonetheless, specific actions to support the use of recycled water at the project site would be implemented as described below and listed under Project Design Feature L.1-5.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Comment No. 10-3
It should also be noted that LADWP is the water purveyor for the Project. Any potential water received from a water wholesaler will require an agreement between LADWP and the water wholesaler prior to the water being distributed to the Project.
Response to Comment No. 10-3
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 10-4
Water Infrastructure Improvements and Project Design Feature L.1-5
Remove “to the extent feasible”. The purple pipe shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all irrigation and cooling tower demands. The feasibility of connecting to recycled water irrigation and cooling tower demands will be determined by negotiations between LADWP and the individual customers.
Response to Comment No. 10-4
In response to this comment, the bullet points on page IV.L-43 in Section IV.L1, Utilities and Service Systems—Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, have been revised as follows:
Prior to the issuance of the project’s Phase 1 demolition and grading permitsIn no less than one year from certification of the Final EIR for the project, the applicant Applicant shall provide proof to the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning of submission of a written request for a determination from the Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as to: (a) the status of the approval and construction schedule for recycled water delivery to the project site at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Evergreen Avenue; (b) the availability of a dedicated or identifiable
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-176 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
source for financing the construction of the recycled water delivery (including, but not limited to, the Demand Side Management and Water Recycling Surcharge); and (c) in the event that LADWP does not plan to deliver recycled water from its own city supply, an agreement between the LADWP and a third party recycled water wholesaler to sell its recycled water to LADWP. If prior to the issuance of Phase 1 demolition and grading permits for the initial development in Phase 1: (1) LADWP has completed and certified an EIR for the recycled water delivery (which could include, but is not limited to, an EIR for the Elysian Park Downtown Water Recycling Project) issued an EIR Notice of Preparation or Mitigated Negative Declaration within one year after certification of the Applicant’s EIR for a recycled water project capable of serving the proposed project; and (2) LADWP has noted the availability of a dedicated or identifiable source for financing the construction of the recycled water delivery recycled water delivery system, then the initial development in the project’s Phase 1 improvements (and the improvements for subsequent Phases) shall include a purple pipe recycled water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Water and Power LADWP. Subsequent development in Phase 1 and other Phases shall also include a purple pipe recycled water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and LADWP, to the extent feasible, as defined below, provided that in the event that To the extent feasible, the purple pipe system shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all irrigation and cooling tower demands. In the event that LADWP fails to deliver recycled water to the project within five years after completion of the project’s Phase 1 purple pipe recycled water system is constructed, then from and after the expiration of the five year period, remaining project construction phases will not be required to incorporate a purple pipe recycled water system.
To the extent feasible (as determined by the Director of Planning in consultation with LADWP), purple pipe systems shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all irrigation and cooling tower demands. Consistent with CEQA, as used in this condition, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
If LADWP’s construction schedule does not indicate with certainty that their delivery of recycled water to the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Evergreen Avenue will occur within 10 years of the issuance of the project’s Phase 1 demolition and grading permits for Phase 1, then the project’s Phase 1 improvements (and the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-177 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
improvements for subsequent Phases) will not be required to include a purple pipe recycled water system.
Further, should the LADWP fail to respond to the Applicant and the Department of City Planning within 90 days of submission to the Department of City Planning of Applicant’s written request for determination with a final written response regarding its approval and construction schedule and source of financing, then the project’s improvements will not be required to include a purple pipe water system.
Additionally, in response to this comment, Project Design Feature L.1-5 on page IV.L-57 in Section IV.L1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows:
Project Design Feature L.1-5: Recycled Water Measures. Actions to support the use of recycled water at the project site shall be implemented as follows: Prior to the issuance of the project’s Phase 1 demolition and grading permitsIn no less than one year from certification of the Final EIR for the project, the applicant Applicant shall provide proof to the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning of submission of a written request for a determination from the Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as to: (a) the status of the approval and construction schedule for recycled water delivery to the project site at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Evergreen Avenue; (b) the availability of a dedicated or identifiable source for financing the construction of the recycled water delivery (including, but not limited to, the Demand Side Management and Water Recycling Surcharge); and (c) in the event that LADWP does not plan to deliver recycled water from its own city supply, an agreement between the LADWP and a third party recycled water wholesaler to sell its recycled water to LADWP. If prior to the issuance of Phase 1 demolition and grading permits for the initial development in Phase 1: (1) LADWP has issued an EIR Notice of Preparation or Mitigated Negative Declaration within one year after certification of the Applicant’s EIR for a recycled water project capable of serving the proposed project completed and certified an EIR for the recycled water delivery (which could include, but is not limited to, an EIR for the Elysian Park Downtown Water Recycling Project); and (2) LADWP has noted the availability of a recycled water delivery City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-178 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
system dedicated or identifiable source for financing the construction of the recycled water delivery, then the initial development in the project’s Phase 1 improvements (and the improvements for subsequent Phases) shall include a purple pipe recycled water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and LADWP the Department of Water and Power. Subsequent development in Phase 1 and other Phases shall also include a purple pipe recycled water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and LADWP, to the extent feasible, as defined below, provided that in the event that To the extent feasible, the purple pipe system shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all irrigation and cooling tower demands. In the event that LADWP fails to deliver recycled water to the project within five years after completion of the project’s Phase 1 purple pipe recycled water system is constructed, then from and after the expiration of the five year period, remaining project construction phases will not be required to incorporate a purple pipe recycled water system. To the extent feasible (as determined by the Director of Planning in consultation with LADWP), purple pipe systems shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all irrigation and cooling tower demands. Consistent with CEQA, as used in this condition, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. If LADWP’s construction schedule does not indicate with certainty that their delivery of recycled water to the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Evergreen Avenue will occur within 10 years of the issuance of the project’s Phase 1 demolition and grading permits for Phase 1, then the project’s Phase 1 improvements (and the improvements for subsequent Phases) will not be required to include a purple pipe recycled water system. Further, should the LADWP fail to respond to the Applicant and the Department of City Planning within 90 days of submission to the Department of City Planning of Applicant’s written request for determination with a final written response regarding its approval and construction schedule and source of financing, then the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-179 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
project’s improvements will not be required to include a purple pipe water system.
See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Comment No. 10-5
LADWP requests two options for environmental timeframe:
1) If a completed and certified EIR is needed for the Project, LADWP requests 10 years to complete and certify this EIR for our recycled water infrastructure.
2) LADWP has issued a Notice to Proceed for an EIR that would cover the infrastructure to reach this project before the Phase 1 Grading permit is issued in lieu of a completed and certified EIR.
Response to Comment No. 10-5
See Response to Comment No. 10-4.
Comment No. 10-6
We appreciate having had the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR, and look forward to reviewing the Final EIR when it is available. Please continue to include LADWP in your mailing list and address it, and any questions you may have, to Mr. Michael Mercado of my staff at 213-367-0395.
Response to Comment No. 10-6
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, a copy of the Final EIR will be provided to the LADWP.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-180 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 11
Ken & Nancy Shifren, Owners A.A. Surplus Sales Co., Inc. 2940 East Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 11-1
I am a neighbor (across the street from the current Wyvernwood Projects) of the proposed Mixed Use Community Project now opened up for discussion by the immediate community….I have been a supporter of Fifteen Group proposed development from it’s [sic] inception, and have met with, and sustained MANY conversations about it’s [sic] progress through the years with Mr [sic] Steve Fink … What an amazing economic engine this project will become once it is up and running!! For blocks all around the development, new retail will come in, replacing the tired older building with a entirely new look and feel…there should definitely be a ripple effect all along Olympic blvd [sic] both east and west of the development as the soon to move in residents will need goods and services apart from what will be located within the boundaries of the project… We here in the immediate vicinity of the project are waiting anxiously for the ground breaking for the development to usher in a new chapter of progress and modernity here in Boyle Heights. Mr [sic] Ibarra, you can also count on my support to aid you in any way we can to help this development succeed.
Response to Comment No. 11-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. It should be noted that, as stated on page IV.I-24 in Section IV.I.1, Employment, of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR analysis concluded that the project employees’ and households’ demand for commercial goods and services could be met by new retail, service and other resources included as part of the project or already located within proximity of the project site. New development specifically to meet the project’s scale of household or commercial demand would not be needed. In fact, the project’s new non-residential and residential uses will help support the viability of existing businesses in the project vicinity.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-181 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 12
Cesar Armendariz President Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce [email protected]
Comment No. 12-1
The Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce is pleased to endorse the Wyvernwood redevelopment project, which will transform the Wyvernwood property with up to 4,400 new housing units, 10.5 acres of publicly available and privately maintained parks and open space, and a retail district with neighborhood-serving stores and restaurants, as well as office space. The economic impact of construction alone is estimated to be $3.6 billion, with an additional economic impact of $598 million each year once the project is complete.
Response to Comment No. 12-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The comment also states that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately $3.6 billion in annual tax revenue and an additional $598 million each year during operation of the proposed project, which is consistent with the analysis presented on page 4 of the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included in Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 12-2
Importantly, the project is anticipated to create more than 10,000 construction-related jobs, and an additional 2,800 permanent jobs following construction. These jobs are critically needed in our community, which has been severely affected by the lengthy economic slowdown. For this reason, we also applaud the creation of the Boyle Heights Jobs Collaborative, which will help ensure than many jobs go to local residents, with a special emphasis on Wyvernwood residents and at-risk workers. This will be a tremendous benefit for all of Boyle Heights.
Response to Comment No. 12-2
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. With regard to the portion of this comment stating that the project would generate 10,000 construction jobs, approximately 6,441 part-time and full-time jobs would be directly associated with the construction of the project and these direct jobs would support another 6,856 indirect and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-182 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments induced jobs in a wide range of industries throughout the City and County, as stated on page IV.I-16 of Section IV.I.1, Employment, of the Draft EIR. In addition, with regard to the portion of this comment that states the project would create 2,800 permanent jobs, the project would create 760 new on-site jobs and the project would create another 1,054 new direct jobs in the immediate vicinity of the project site due to households spending for goods and services from the project’s net increase in dwelling units, as stated on page IV.I-16 of Section IV.I.1, Employment, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 12-3
The new retail and commercial district – featuring up to 300,000 square feet for new stores, restaurants and offices – will be especially welcome in our community, which will benefit from a greater variety of shopping and work destinations within walking distance for Wyvernwood residents. This district will also contribute to the estimated $25 million in annual tax revenue to be generated by the project to support city services.
Response to Comment No. 12-3
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The information provided in this comment, which states that the proposed project would include up to 300,000 square feet of commercial uses, is consistent with the information presented in Table II-1 on II-17 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The comment also states that the proposed project would contribute approximately $25 million in annual tax revenue, which is consistent with the analysis presented on page 10 of the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included in Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 12-4
Overall, the project has been designed to be beautiful, environmentally responsible, and responsive to the needs of residents. Fifteen Group is also making meaningful commitments to current residents to ease their transition to the new development, and to welcome tenants with low and very low incomes by offering a significant number of affordable housing units.
Response to Comment No. 12-4
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-183 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 12-5
The New Wyvernwood represents a profound improvement over the current development that will benefit all of Boyle Heights, and we strongly encourage city officials to approve it swiftly.
Response to Comment No. 12-5
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-184 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 13
Isela C. Gracian Associate Director East LA Community Corporation 530 South Boyle Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90033
Comment No. 13-1
On behalf of Comunidades Unidas de Boyle Heights (CUBH) and the over 3000 Boyle Heights’ constituents we represent, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the proposed Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (“Project”). CUBH is a coalition of local organizations made up of East LA Community Corporation, InnerCity Struggle and Union de Vecinos representing the needs of working families and tenants in Boyle Heights. The coalition came together in 2005 because of the belief that the current tenants, small businesses, and youth of Boyle Heights are the foundation for any development of our community and together can influence and shape how resources in fact improve the quality of life for everyone in Boyle Heights.
Response to Comment No. 13-1
This comment, which describes the Comunidades Unidas de Boyle Heights, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-2
East LA Community Corporation was founded in 1995 with a mission to advocate for economic and social justice in Boyle Heights and Unincorporated East Los Angeles by building, affordable housing, grassroots leadership, self-sufficiency and access to economic development opportunities for low and moderate income families. East LA Community Corporation strengthens existing community infrastructure in underserved communities by developing and preserving neighborhood assets.
Response to Comment No. 13-2
This comment, which describes the East LA Community Corporation, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-185 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-3
InnerCity Struggle has worked with youth, families and community residents for the past sixteen years to promote safe, healthy and non-violent communities in the Eastside. InnerCity Struggle organizes youth and families in Boyle Heights, unincorporated East Los Angeles, EI Sereno and Lincoln Heights to work together for social and educational justice.
Response to Comment No. 13-3
This comment, which describes the InnerCity Struggle, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-4
Union de Vecinos is a network of neighborhood and building communities where working families get together to SEE the conditions of their neighborhood, reflect on the root causes for these conditions and act to bring about real, concrete change. Since 1991, Union de Vecinos has been working on the tenant rights and preservation of public housing. Members of the organization work to improve Boyle Heights’ housing conditions, use of public space and environmental justice.
Response to Comment No. 13-4
This comment, which describes the Union de Vecinos, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-5
We are writing to express our deep concern about aspects of the Project, if implemented as described would have significant impacts that are not adequately analyzed in the DEIR. Our comments will predominantly focus on the Environmental Impact Analysis – Land Use Section IV.G and the deficiencies in analysis as articulated below.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-186 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 13-5
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR for a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The following responses address the specific concerns regarding the analysis in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR that are referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 13-6
Wyvernwood Apartments is critical to the landscape of the Boyle Heights community and the City of Los Angeles overall. The Wyvernwood Apartments (“Wyvernwood”, [sic] “Wyvernwood Garden Apartments”) can and should be preserved and rehabilitated as part of the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project not completed demolished as proposed.
Response to Comment No. 13-6
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 13-7
The proposed project would demolish and replace in whole the historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. The proposed project involves redevelopment of the approximately 68.8-acre site for housing and homeownership opportunities, neighborhood serving retail and office uses, civic space, greens, and open space amenities. The project would have up to 4,400 residential units with no less than 1,200 rental units and up to 3,200 condominium units and 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office and civic uses.
Response to Comment No. 13-7
The comment correctly summarizes the basic characteristics of the proposed project as described in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 13-8
Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment complex in Los Angeles and reportedly the largest of its kind in the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-187 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments country at the time. Wyvernwood remains largely intact today and is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Response to Comment No. 13-8
This comment, which correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligiblity for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-9
SUMMARY
The proposed development must occur in a way which is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code, sections 2100, et seq. (CEQA)) and its implementing regulations (California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000, et seq. CEQA Guidelines)). The Legislature intended through CEQA to “[e]nsure that the long- term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” (Pub. Res. Code § 21101). There is [sic] two basic and connected functions of CEQA: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. Of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal 3d 553, 564).
Response to Comment No. 13-9
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-10
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 consequences (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n of San Francisco v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (“Laurel Heights”)). The environmental impact Report (EIR) process is the heart of CEQA and the primary mechanism to
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-188 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments effectuate its statutory purposes. (In Re Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1162). An EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached an ecological point of no return (Laurel Heights, supra 47 Cal. 3d at 392 (quoting Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App. 3d 818, 822).
Response to Comment No. 13-10
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-11
With an EIR the lead agency is entrusted with the responsibility of “provid[ing] public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effects which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; [listing] ways in which significant effects of such project might be minimized; and [indicating] alternatives to such a project.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21061; see CEQA Guidelines § 15002, subd. (a)).
Response to Comment No. 13-11
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-12
The EIR is intended “to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (14 C.C.R. § 15003 (d). Title 14, the CEQA implementing regulations). In this way, the EIR “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at 564). The EIR must not be obscure or incomplete (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 443). An EIR
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-189 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments that is confusing or self-contradictory is inadequate (San Joaquin Raptor Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656 fn.4).
Response to Comment No. 13-12
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-13
There are significant and adverse impacts the proposed Project would have to the neighborhood which are not adequately represented in the DEIR. We urge the city to address inconsistencies and include a stronger alternative which involves greater preservation and rehabilitation of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. In addition, we urge the reconsideration of the findings of less than significant impact for the requirement of mitigation measures within section IV.G of the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 13-13
The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR discloses the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts where feasible. See Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, which includes a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project. With respect to the portion of this comment requesting a “stronger” preservation alternative, see Topical Response No. 2. The portion of the comment that requests reconsideration of the conclusions provided in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR prefaces future comments that are addressed in detail in Response to Comments Nos. 13-14 through 13-18 and Response to Comment No. 13-23.
Comment No. 13-14 a. The DEIR fails to accurately analyze consistency of project with General Plan Framework, Community Plan, and the SCAG RTP Compass Growth Vision
The conclusion in the DEIR Land Use IV-G that the project is in substantial compliance is inaccurate because of critical inconsistent points used throughout the analysis. Several of the original planning principles for Wyvernwood -- pedestrian-friendly communities,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-190 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments communal open spaces, environmentally-sensitive siting and affordability -- have found renewed interest with smart growth and transit oriented development today, and are among the project objectives. As stated in the draft EIR, “overall, the project is intended to provide a walkable community with modern amenities and a high-quality design that promotes sustainability” (Project Description, II-17). Wyvernwood already meets these project goals with the development largely designed around modem-day sustainability principles for this reason we reiterate the request to include a stronger alternative for the preservation and rehabilitation of Wyvernwood.
Response to Comment No. 13-14
An evaluation of the consistency of the project with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Framework, the Boyle Heights Community Plan, and SCAG’s RTP and Growth Vision Report was completed in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, Table IV.G-1 starting on page IV.G-35 evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan Framework, Table IV.G-2 starting on page IV.G-52 evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with the Boyle Heights Community Plan, and Table IV.G-3 starting on page IV.G-65 evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with SCAG’s RTP and Growth Vision Report. As indicated therein, the proposed project would be substantially consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan Framework and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Vision Report. In addition, as discussed on page IV.G-60, the project would not be consistent with the existing general plan designation for the project site. However, the project would expressly limit the overall amount of permitted development to a level below what is permitted under the corresponding proposed Community Plan land use designations. Additionally, as discussed in the policy analysis in Table IV.G-2 on page IV.G-52, the types of land uses allowed in the Medium Residential and Regional Center designations are consistent with the character of the project site and the surrounding area. Thus, with approval of the requested General Plan amendments and adoption of the Specific Plan, the proposed project would be substantially consistent with the general intent of the Community Plan and potential impacts associated with consistency with the General Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to accurately analyze the consistency of the project with the General Plan Framework, the Boyle Heights Community Plan, and SCAG’s RTP and Growth Vision Report, but does not provide any detail to indicate why the consistency analysis provided for these plans is inaccurate.
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Pedestrian-friendly communities, communal open spaces, and environmentally sensitive siting are indeed considered key ingredients in the New Urbanism and green
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-191 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments building movements. However, the assertion that the present arrangement of Wyvernwood meets these characteristics is erroneous. A review of both the Charter of the New Urbanism (the Charter) as well as standards developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), crafters of the LEED certification methodologies, including LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), suggests just the opposite. For example, both the Charter and certification criteria for LEED-ND place a high priority on creating pedestrian environments as an integral component of “complete streets.” In other words, both documents argue for circulation systems that are “immersive,” i.e., encompassing automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians in equal measure and in spatially defined environments framed by a combination of buildings and landscapes. In addition, both the Charter and LEED-ND standards place a high priority on open spaces that are “defensible,” and both define environmentally sensitive siting in ways that are far more comprehensive and strategic than what can be found at present day Wyvernwood. One factor to consider is the separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. While it might seem counter-intuitive that such a separation would make a neighborhood less pedestrian friendly, this is exactly what Jane Jacobs demonstrated over five decades ago in her seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. In her highly regarded analysis of the preceding two decades of urban renewal, she documents the demise of “traditional” urban neighborhoods dominated by stoops and front porches, where neighbors could easily chat with their neighbors while also observing who walked down their street. The “natural surveillance” that came with such an arrangement not only provided “eyes on the street,” but allowed for the serendipitous encounters between strangers from which community bonds tended to form. Replaced by housing projects set within tree-shaded campus settings and appearing, in some cases, not unlike the present day Wyvernwood, these new housing campuses minimized the ability for residents to observe who walked by, and in turn reduced their ability to keep an eye on things. Jacobs also showed how the lack of through streets for vehicles added an additional safety burden, as the additional observation from passing vehicles (including, but not limited to police cars) removed yet another element of what made neighborhoods safe.
Extrapolating from Jacobs’ argument and capitalizing on another three decades of empirical research, the Charter and certification standards of LEED-ND place a tremendous emphasis on what really makes a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. In addition to a feeling of safety, pedestrians also seem to require an “interesting,” environment. This has been observed by comparing neighborhoods in dense, urban environments with less dense suburban neighborhoods. The result of this comparison is the observation that pedestrians in the urban areas seem willing to walk farther and longer than their suburban counterparts. Pedestrians, it turns out, find enjoyment in the visual stimulation provided in an urban setting. This helps make a place “pedestrian friendly.”
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-192 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
As a result of this research, both the Charter and LEED-ND certification standards place great emphasis on the provision of adequate space to the sidewalk, while also emphasizing that sidewalks must be gently embraced with buildings and landscapes that are pleasant and welcoming. Both documents argue for most streets to be lined by “pedestrian friendly buildings” where a pedestrian has the opportunity of not looking at blank walls, continuous and undifferentiated open spaces, or parking lots. Rather, the pedestrian’s experience should be continuously stimulated by views into storefronts and courtyards, or through landscapes to spaces beyond or between buildings where paseos grant access to more recessed courtyards or private spaces.
Importantly, both documents recognize that for a neighborhood to considered “walkable,” there must be things to walk to. Hence they place great emphasis on neighborhood’s possessing a robust mix of land uses, housing types, tenures, and price points. Indeed, the LEED-ND point system discourages a mono-culture, recognizing that a diverse mix of land uses allows vehicular traffic and parking demands to be spread more evenly throughout the day and utilizes resources more efficiently, while allowing people to live, work, shop, and play within a walkable area.
This latter point is worth reinforcing as it speaks to the environmental siting of present day Wyvernwood. As a low density housing complex surrounded by turf grass, a case for an appropriate environmental situation is difficult at best. Not only is such a landscape inadequate at controlling storm water run-off (turf grass is inefficient at transpovaporation and allows very little infiltration), but during the long summer months it requires enormous amounts of water if it is to be kept green. The single land use means that residents must use a car or bus to complete errands, so veheicle miles traveled per person are much higher than one would find in an environmentally sustainable community. Interestingly, a number of studies have documented that the “greenest” cities in the nation tend to be the densest, the most walkable, and the most functionally diverse, with functionality being a product of the pedestrian orientation in the design of buildings and landscapes. In fact, these characteristics are synergistic. A recent study from the Center for American Progress provides listings of the “greenest” cities by transit use and walkability. Interestingly, one city making the “greenest” list was Philadelphia, an urban environment characterized by high-density development with tremendous variation in urban character and spatial experience.
In Defensible Space, Oscar Newman provides similar observations about public open space. Newman documented that the ability of neighbors to easily observe their surroundings from their kitchen windows or front porches, or more casually as they walked down the street, is what makes an open space feel “safe.” Newman observed that merely calling an open space “communal” did not make it feel safe. Also, spaces that do not feel safe tend not to be used, making them even less safe. Neighborhood arrangements like
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-193 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Wyvernwood’s, characterized by the ends of buildings abutting major spaces, with few actual windows and doors facing the spaces and fewer streets, are not “defensible,” by Newman’s definition, nor are they the type of spaces recommended by the New Urbanism, or by the USGBC.
Finally, the determination that the design of the New Wyvernwood more closely follows the principles of the New Urbanism is evident by the recent announcement of the proposed project’s receipt of a 2012 “Charter Award,” by the Congress for the New Urbanism. This prestigious national design award is given to projects that most closely follow the principles of the Charter and results from an extensive submission process documenting existing and proposed conditions.
It should also be noted that in its comments on the Draft EIR, SCAG concurred with the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would be in substantial compliance with the Growth Vision Report. See Comment Letter No. 4.
Comment No. 13-15 b. The Project is not compatible with the existing land-use in the area
The project does not comply with the existing land use, compatibility of use, or compatibility of design as identified in the community plan. In the Conclusion Regarding Land Use Consistency on Page IV G-73 of the DEIR it states that only with the requested approvals would this project be consistent and only then would ‘‘the impacts related to the land use consistency be less than significant.” The DEIR fails to state and include in the analysis that the project has significant impacts to current land-use designation.
Response to Comment No. 13-15
The Zoning Code and General Plan are not intended to be static. Rather, they establish defined processes (such as zone changes, specific plans, and General Plan amendments) to allow for coordinated and transparent change and development. Therefore, projects that request changes to existing land use and/or zoning designations and follow the procedures established for implementing those changes are not necessarily inconsistent with governing land use plans by default. Notwithstanding, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to analyze the environmental impacts that could occur from such changes in order to inform decision-makers and the public prior to approval of the requested actions. This EIR, comprised of the Draft and Final EIRs, satisfies that requirement.
See Response to Comment No. 6-2 regarding the compatibility of the project with the surrounding community.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-194 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 13-16
The DEIR also states the proposed project is compatible with surrounding development:
“The types of land uses proposed by the new project would not be out of character or otherwise incompatible with surrounding development, as the project area is currently developed with and/or zoned for the development of each types of land uses proposed by the project.” Compatibility of Use on page IV. G-74
The surrounding area has low to medium residential, with limited height commercial and industrial along Olympic with the only exception being the Sears Tower on the Southwest comer of Soto and Olympic. The proposed project would be compatible only with the proposed changes not with existing. The DEIR itself acknowledges the incompatibility of the use in the Compatibility of Design section on Page IV. G-75:
“The project would increase the density, height, and mass of on-site structures as compared to existing conditions. The project’s increased height and density would be greater than most surrounding uses, with the exception of the Sears Building located at the southwest comer of Soto Street and Olympic Boulevard.”
Response to Comment No. 13-16
With regard to the portion of the comment that states, “The proposed project would be compatible only with the proposed changes not with existing,” see Response to Comment No. 13-15. This comment correctly restates portions of the analysis of the compatibility of use and compatibility of design on pages IV.G-74 and IV.G-75 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. Contrary to this comment, the statement on page IV.G-75, which correctly notes that the project would increase the density, height, and mass of on-site structures as compared to existing conditions, does not imply that the project is incompatible with surrounding land uses. See Response to Comment No. 6-2.
Comment No. 13-17 c. The Project does not meet the Community Plan policy/or High-Medium housing location
The Land Use section lists a variety of goals, objectives, policies of the General Plan, Community Plan, and SCAG RTP and Compass Growth Vision which relate to having mixed-use development concentrated along rail. In all but one of the analysis did the DEIR find Not Consistent even though throughout the document the analysis makes the case of
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-195 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments satisfying smart growth and transit oriented development principles by stating that the project is 1.25 miles from two MetroRail Gold Line stations. This distance is far greater than .25 mile radius set forth in the city policy for the location of High-Medium density housing (Policy 5, Page IV. G-53 in DEIR).
Response to Comment No. 13-17
The commenter correctly states that the project would not be consistent with Policy 5 in the Boyle Heights Community Plan, as discussed in Table IV.G-2 on page IV.G-53 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. This policy states that high- medium density housing be provided only within a 0.25-mile radius from proposed Metrorail Station stops. The conclusion that there is an inconsistency reflects a conservative interpretation of the general plan policy because the proposed community plan designation for the project is Medium Residential, which is consistent with Policy 5. However, the Specific Plan density reflects the density bonus allowed for projects that incorporate affordable housing so that the project’s maximum density would be approximately 64 dwelling units per net acre, which falls in the High-Medium Residential density range. Notwithstanding the inconsistency with this specific policy, the proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability and is consistent with the General Plan Policy 5. In addition to being 1.25 miles from two station stops on the MetroRail Gold Line extension (a distance that is reasonably accessible by foot, bicycle, and bus), the project’s smart growth principles are evidenced in its mixed-use nature, the site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit (with at least eight bus stops in the project’s vicinity), and the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses. Further, the project site is located adjacent to a designated Regional Center and Major Opportunity Site (also more than 0.25 mile from the nearest Gold Line station). In addition, the project would be designed to incorporate LEED® features so as to be capable of achieving Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-ND® Rating System. As discussed in detail in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, sustainability features that would be incorporated into the project would include energy-efficient buildings, a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly site design, and water conservation measures, among others.
See Response to Comment No. 4-28 for a description of the revisions to the discussion of the project’s consistency with GV P1.3. As stated therein, the project would provide bus stop amenities and new bus stops along the site perimeter, thus improving access to public transportation services in the area. The project is being developed in an area with many transit opportunities and experiences transit usage at a much higher rate than the rest of the City. Therefore, the proximity of the project site to the MetroRail Gold Line extension is one of numerous reasons that the proposed project is based on the principles of smart growth and transit-oriented development. However, because the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-196 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
MetroRail Gold Line is located more than a mile away from the project site, the project does not fall within the traditional definition of “transit-oriented development.”
Comment No. 13-18
The Community Plan’s policy that High-Medium density housing be located within the .25 miles radius of proposed MetroRail station stops follows the General Plan Framework policy 3.7.1 which sates [sic] the zoning for multi-family density will be identified in the community plan. The proposed project would have a maximum density of 64 dwellings per net acre (Analysis to Policy 3.7.1 Page IV.G-42, DEIR). Based on the Table 3-3 of the General Plan framework and the proposed maximum density the project falls into the High Medium housing characteristic and fails to be within an area where such housing is allowable by the community plan.
Response to Comment No. 13-18
This comment restates the reasons why the analysis in Table IV.G-2 on page IV.G-53 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project is inconsistent with Policy 5 in the Boyle Heights Community Plan. It should be noted that the underlying Community Plan designation is proposed to be Medium Residential, which would be consistent with Policy 5. However, the Specific Plan density reflects the density bonus allowed for projects that incorporate affordable housing so that the project’s maximum density would be approximately 64 dwelling units per net acre, which falls in the High-Medium Residential density range. See also Response to Comment No. 13-17.
Comment No. 13-19 d. The Project fails to analyze the negative impact on pollution
A critical goal in the SCAG RTP and Compass Growth Vision is GV P4.3 which states “develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste.” The analysis in this section continues to state the proposed projects being based on principles of smart growth. However it lacks sufficient information as to how the project would implement strategies to eliminate pollution. On the contrary, the proposed project would add to pollution, particularly the air pollution in the area based on information included in the DEIR Traffic, Access, and Parking. The project’s traffic study concluded that even with the implementation of the proposed mitigation there would be significant impacts at six study intersections at one or more peak hours.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-197 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 13-19
As stated on pages IV.G-72 through IV.G-73 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability, as evidenced in its mixed-use nature, the site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit, the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses, and the incorporation of LEED® features that would make the project eligible to achieve LEED® Silver certification. Overall, the project is intended to provide a walkable and livable community with modern amenities and a high- quality design that promotes both environmental and economic sustainability. As discussed on pages II-38 through II-46 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project would include numerous sustainability features that would be implemented by incorporation into the conditions of approval for the project, through mitigation measures, or pursuant to the regulations or design criteria required by the Specific Plan. A matrix summarizing these and the numerous other sustainable design features that would be implemented by the project is contained in Table II-3 on page II-41 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 3-16, implementation of sustainability features in return contributes to a reduction in air quality emissions via a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the project would be designed to reduce its energy usage by at least 15 percent below the 2008 Title 24 baseline, or the LAMC requirement at the issuance of building permits which ever yields higher energy reductions.
The portion of this comment that states that the proposed project would add to air pollution is consistent with the analysis presented on pages IV.B-72 through IV.B-73 in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The portion of this comment that states that the Traffic Study concluded that there would be significant impacts related to traffic at six study intersections after implementation of the project’s proposed mitigation program is consistent with the analysis presented on page IV.K-106 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment No. 3-16 regarding localized air quality impacts at these intersections.
It should be noted that SCAG submitted a comment letter on the Draft EIR dated December 13, 2011, and included in this Final EIR as Comment Letter No. 4 and indicated that: “[w]here applicable, the proposed project generally meets consistency with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals and also meets consistency with Compass Growth Visioning Principles.” In particular with respect to GV P4.3 SCAG wrote:
“In regards to GV P4.3 and GVP4.4, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability through mixed-uses and reduction of vehicle trips. Also, the project will be designed to incorporate LEED features
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-198 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
capable of achieving a Silver certification rating including energy efficient buildings, pedestrian and bicycle friendly design, and water conservation features” (page IV.G-73).
Comment No. 13-20 e. The open space is critical to existing design, calculations are inconsistent
We concur with the Los Angeles Conservancy’s assessment on the open space for the Project:
Open space at Wyvernwood is a primary design feature and contributes to a high quality of life for residents, not equal to or less than the proposed project. The project states the quality and usability of the open spaces would be substantially improved. In fact, the opposite is the case. The project will reduce the amount, quality and usability of open space.
Response to Comment No. 13-20
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space. See Response to Comment No. 17-13 regarding the Los Angeles Conservancy’s calculation of the amount of existing and proposed ground-level open space.
Comment No. 13-21
Throughout the Draft EIR inconsistent data is applied and discrepancies exist in regards to existing and proposed open space calculations. This lack of accuracy leads to an overall lack of confidence in the project’s analysis. For instance, Figure II-4 of the Project Description states there is 39.98 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood. Yet on page II-35 of the Project Description it states there is 36.43 acres of open space. Figure II-15 of the Project Description states there will be 37.25 acres of proposed open space. Yet on page II-34, the narrative adds up to 42.2 acres of proposed open space. In the Parks and Recreation section, the Draft EIR states, “In total, the project’s public and semi- private open space/recreational areas would be approximately 21.5 acres”( [sic] IV.J.4 Public Services – Parks and Recreation, IV.J-l 01). In the Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views analysis, it states, “ ... semi-private and private courtyards, plazas, and open spaces would comprise an additional 13.5 acres of open space amenities for a total of approximately 24 acres of useable open space”( [sic] IV.A.1 Aesthettics/Visual [sic] Quality/Views, IV.A-19).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-199 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 13-21
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 13-22
The Los Angeles Conservancy estimates that there are approximately 50 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood and that the Project actually provides approximately 24 acres of open space. Given the inconsistent calculations throughout the Draft EIR, the amount of relatively unusable streetscape space, the total proposed building footprint acreage, and the 40 percent increase in imperviousness due to the project, any representations that open space will be more than or “substantially improved” are false (Project Description, II-34). The Final EIR should fully reevaluate its analysis and provide accurate data.
Response to Comment No. 13-22
The comment does not include any analysis or documentation to support the assertion that there are currently 50 acres of existing open space, or that there are only 24 acres of open space in the proposed project. See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space. See Response to Comment No. 17-13 regarding the Los Angeles Conservancy’s calculation of the amount of existing and proposed ground-level open space. See Response to Comment No. 15-63 regarding the comment’s claim that the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site by 40 percent. Figure IV.J-5 on page IV.J-84 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR contains a breakdown of the entire acreage of the project site by type of open space or use. To achieve an aggregate of 50 acres of open space, one would need to count the publically accessible open space (9.47 acres), the interstitial open space (9.71 acres), the unfenced yard space (17.25 acres), the 3.55 acres of fenced yard space (which include common open areas claimed as private open space through the erection of fencing), and the asphalt parking lots (8.2 acres) for a total of 48.18 acres. It is difficult at best to justify how the 3.55 acres of privately claimed open space and the surface parking lots qualify as usable open space available to project residents. As shown on Figure IV.J-11 on page IV.J-103 in Section IV.J.4, Parks and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s 37.25 acres of open space is composed of publically accessible open space (10.48 acres), unfenced yard space (7.84 acres), 10.37 acres of streetscape space (which is analogous to the interstitial spaces on the existing site), paseos (1.11 acres), and courtyard space in the newly constructed buildings (7.45 acres).
It should be noted that there are alternate ways of categorizing the existing and proposed open space other than the categories provided in the Draft EIR. The categories
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-200 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments used in the Draft EIR are not intended to provide a value judgment regarding the quality of this open space. On the contrary, the categories are provided to describe these spaces as accurately as possible. Other means of categorization for the existing and proposed open space could be used and would represent an equally accurate evaluation.
Comment No. 13-23 f. The proposed project fails to meet its objective of “no net loss” of units
One of the Project’s objectives is a no net loss of housing. Wyvernwood currently has 1,187 dwelling units all protected by the City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). The RSO ensures affordability protections for tenants among other regulations which describe tenant and landlord responsibilities. With proposed full demolition of Wyvernwood, the City of Los Angeles and the residents loss 1,187 RSO units. Although the Project states an increase in net units it does not include information about the loss of RSO housing.
Response to Comment No. 13-23
As discussed in Topical Response No. 3, implementation of the proposed Resident Retention Plan would ensure compliance with the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). The project would demolish 1,187 existing on-site uses and would construct up to 4,400 new units, thereby resulting in a net increase of up to 3,213 housing units on the project site. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 6-17 and Topical Response No. 3, although the project site would no longer be subject to the RSO, the 660 covenanted affordable units that would be provided by the proposed project would exceed the estimated number of existing Wyvernwood households which meet the definition of very low- and low-income households, as well as the estimated demand for affordable units. Moreover, under the Resident Retention Plan included as Appendix J.4 of the Draft EIR, and as discussed in the Draft EIR, the Applicant has committed to make as much additional rental housing available in the project, at rents no greater than they would have been under RSO, as is necessary to ensure that tenants who want to remain in the community on site may do so. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in affordable housing. As also discussed in Topical Response No. 3, the fact that the project’s very low- and low-income households would be covenanted as such for 30 years provides a greater long-term housing affordability benefit than would be available under the RSO, which allows rents to increase to market rates upon vacancy of the unit.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-201 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 13-24 g. No substantial findings for mitigation measures is inaccurate
The DEIR states no substantial findings to require mitigation measures in the Land Use for the proposed project. This conclusion was reached even though the project is not consistent with the City’s policy on the location of High-Medium density housing only within .25 miles of Metro station stop and without providing adequate information on the existing land use designations. The land-use section needs to be revisited to reflect an accurate analysis with the existing land-use designations. In addition a correction to the analysis of the distance to rail because this project does not meet the intention of smart growth and transit oriented development principles. The inconsistent calculations on open space are also troubling because significant need of green open public space in the Boyle Heights neighborhood.
Response to Comment No. 13-24
See Response to Comment No. 13-15 regarding the requested changes to existing land use designations, Response to Comment No. 13-17 regarding Policy 5 in the Boyle Heights Community Plan, and Topical Response No. 5 regarding the Draft EIR’s calculation of existing and proposed open space.
Pages IV.G-8 through IV.G-10 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR describe the existing land use designations. As discussed on page IV.G-19 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the analysis of land use consistency impacts considers whether the proposed project would be in substantial conformance with applicable plans, policies, and regulations that govern land use on the project site. The determination of land use consistency is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions pertaining to the project site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address. A project is considered not inconsistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of the primary goals of the land use plan or policy. If a project is determined to be inconsistent with specific objectives or policies of a land use plan, although not inconsistent overall with the land use goals of that plan and would not preclude the attainment of the primary intent of the plan, the project generally would be considered consistent with the plan.
California courts have held that “[a]n action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Corona-Norco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-202 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments of Corona, 17 Cal. App. 4th 985, 994 (1993) (citing General Plan Guidelines at 212, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 1990); City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, 25 Cal. App. 4th 868, 879 (1994) (both concerning zoning consistency). In general, an agency has discretion to approve a plan even though the plan is not consistent with all of a general plan’s policies. Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1509 (2004) (explaining that a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy). It is enough that the proposed project would be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the applicable plan. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 23 Cal. App.4th at 719-720. In Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, 119 Cal.App.4th 1261 (2004), for example, the court found no inconsistency between a general plan’s policy of striving to improve a city’s jobs-to-housing relationship and a project creating more jobs than housing. The court found that it was enough that the public agency weighed pros and cons to achieve an acceptable mix. Id. at 1268-1269.
Furthermore, in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco, 102 Cal. App. 4th 656 (2002), the court upheld the city’s approval of a redevelopment project (the Yerba Buena Center), which required the demolition of a historically significant building (the former Emporium store). The approval was consistent with the city’s general plan, despite the plan’s mandatory provisions requiring retention and preservation of the “highest quality buildings,” because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the building had no substantial remaining market value. Id. at 675. In the subdivision context, courts have specifically held that the Subdivision Map Act does not require an exact match between the tentative map and the general plan. Greenbaum v. City of Los Angeles, 153 Cal. App. 3d 391, 406 (1984). The tentative map only need be in agreement or harmony with the general plan. Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 718 (1993) (holding that a given project including a map need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy). Therefore, as stated in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, with implementation of the project design features, project-level and cumulative impacts with regard to land use would be less than significant, and, thus, no mitigation measures would be required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 13-25
CONCLUSION
We believe that to ensure the Project meets the CEQA to it full extent a community engagement process needs to be created and implemented, not merely a “community input” process. The community engagement process needs to be more inclusive,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-203 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments community-driven, democratic and open decision-making in the overall development process. This can be achieved by having hearings where participants are informed about development process, land-use implications, and then given the opportunity to concretely define the design of the project.
The community input has been limited to a presentation of the project and a general “like” or “dislike” of the presentation. The community meetings on the proposed specific plan to date have been even more limited in the input process. A member of the Metro Resident Advisory put it well when Metro staff presented the issue of colors for the iron rod fencing along the Gold Line: “If you give me a choice between black and gray then I’ll choose between those. But if you ask me what is the best color for the neighborhood, that will go with the surroundings and beautify the area I’ll probably tell you brown or green.” Community engagement poses the latter question and using that as the starting point results in better planning and overall projects.
Response to Comment No. 13-25
CEQA does not require a “community engagement” process, and this comment does not point to a provision of CEQA that requires public hearings to determine the design of the project. Indeed, CEQA Guidelines §15202 is clear that “CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process.” Nonetheless, although not required by CEQA, the Applicant initiated extensive grassroots planning efforts for the property in 2005 by undertaking a planning process that engaged Wyvernwood tenants and the surrounding community to craft the future vision of the property. Residents, stakeholders, community-based organizations, and local representatives met over several years to create a wish list for the future. After the initial thirty months of planning and gaining community insight (including multiple “visioning” meetings on the Wyvernwood property), the Applicant created conceptual plans for the project. Over the next six months, the Applicant previewed the plan with tenants, stakeholders, and local representatives and modified the plan before submitting any applications to the City. In January of 2011, the Applicant hosted its 100th Community Meeting. The gatherings have included public open houses with Wyvernwood residents as well as smaller sessions with community leaders and civic organizations.
In addition, in accordance with CEQA, there has been an extensive formal process for review of the project and its potential environmental impacts. As stated on page I-20 in Section I, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles circulated an NOP for the proposed project to agencies and interested parties for a 30-day review period, beginning June 24, 2008. In addition, a public scoping meeting was conducted on July 10, 2008. The NOP letters and comments received during the comment period as well as comment sheets from the public scoping meeting are included in Appendix A of the Draft
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-204 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day public comment period beginning October 20, 2011, and ending December 19, 2011. To provide more time for responsible and trustee agencies as well as the public to comment on the Draft EIR, the comment period was extended through January 18, 2012. Thus, the public review period of the Draft EIR lasted a total of 90 days, which is twice the 45 days required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). The comments received on the Draft EIR are included in Appendix FEIR-1 of this Final EIR. Although not required by CEQA, this Final EIR will be made available to the public on the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning’s website. Furthermore, the Lead Agency will provide notice of the public hearings associated with the project approvals. As such, the City will comply with all CEQA provisions relevant to public consultation and engagement.
Comment No. 13-26
We believe the Project can provide a great opportunity to improve the quality of housing for the existing residents and surrounding neighborhood if enhanced from its existing state through a preservation and rehabilitation approach. We strongly believe that other feasible alternatives exist to make this happen while meeting many of the project objectives. However, as currently planned we remain concerned about the adverse impacts to the existing tenants and the overall neighborhood.
Response to Comment No. 13-26
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See Topical Response No. 3 for a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. The potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed in the Draft EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-205 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 14
Leonardo Lopez Co-founder and President El Comite de la Esperanza
Comment No. 14-1
El Comite de la Esperanza (hereinafter El Comite). El Comite de la Esperanza is the oldest and largest tenant association at the Wyvernwood Development. Formed in 1984 El Comite has a history of service to the residents of Wyvernwood. It also has a history of activism in the community on issues of development.
El Comite thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (hereinafter The Project).
Enclosed, please find the submissions of more than 1,600 residents and community representatives that oppose this project. More than 815 units from Wyvernwood Garden Apartments are opposed to this project. El Comite is represented by the offices of Elena Popp and our comments will be submitted via-email by Ms. Popp.
Thank you for the opportunity to allow our voices to be heard.
Response to Comment No. 14-1
This comment, which describes El Comite de la Esperanza, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The submissions referred to in this comment are addressed in Responses to Comment Nos. 106-1 through 106-7 and 107-1 through 107-7.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-206 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 15
Linda Kite Executive Director, In Solidarity with El Comite de la Esperanza Healthy Homes Collaborative 2601 Pasadena Ave., Ste. G Los Angeles, CA 90031
Comment No. 15-1
The Healthy Homes Collaborative (formerly the Lead Collaborative) has worked with El Comite de la Esperanza (hereinafter El Comite) since 1992. The Healthy Homes Collaborative is an association of community based organizations committed to eliminating environmental health threats in homes and communities. (hereinafter HHC) Linda Kite the executive director of the HHC worked closely with El Comite for over six years to bring about the largest Proposition 65 settlement against the previous owner Samuel Mevorach to ensure that lead hazards on the property were remediated in the 1990s.
El Comite de la Esperanza is the oldest and largest tenant association at the Wyvernwood Development. Formed in 1984 El Comite has a history of service to the residents of Wyvernwood. It also has a history of activism in the community on issues of development.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (hereinafter The Project). These comments are submitted in solidarity with El Comite.
The Healthy Homes Collaborative joins El Comite de la Esperanza, the Los Angeles Conservancy, East LA Community Corporation, and numerous other local community groups and residents in registering its opposition to the proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 15-1
This comment, which describes the Healthy Homes Collaborative and expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific comments referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-207 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-2
The Draft EIR suffers from multiple deficiencies as articulated below. Wyvernwood can and should be preserved and rehabilitated as part of the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. The proposed destruction of this historic community is ill-conceived at best.
Response to Comment No. 15-2
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. The following responses address the specific comments referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 15-3
El Comite de la Esperanza
El Comite de la Esperanza is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that was formed to provide social services and cultural and youth programming to the residents of the Wyvernwood community. At the height of its activities, El Comite had: 1) a food distribution program; 2) an emergency loan program; 3) services to families in need; 4) cultural programming related to key holidays; 5) folkloric dancing; 6) soccer tournaments (El Mundialito) and other youth programs. In recent years due in part to the extensive energy El Comite has had to put into addressing issues of displacement of its members by the Fifteen Group, El Comite’s programming has been reduced to events during the Winter Holidays including a toy drive and Posadas. The soccer tournaments were terminated on threat of eviction of the key organizers by the Fifteen Group. El Comite de la Esperanza has participated in campaigns related to planning and development in the local area including fighting the Vernon incinerator, attending meetings regarding the re-development plans for the Sears Tower, and participating in the formation of Union y Fuerza de la Comuidad [sic] and its early activities in the formation of the Eastside Adelante Project Area Committee.
El Comite has also been the primary advocate for the rights of the tenants in the Wyvernwood Community in the face of harassment, draconian rule enforcement, and the Fifteen Group’s efforts to displace tenants in order to circumvent the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Response to Comment No. 15-3
This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-208 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
§15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 15-4
The Wyvernwood Community
The Wyvernwood Community was developed as a residential park and garden apartment complex physically arranged so as to foster a sense of community. This experiment in developing a community within a larger urban setting was a complete success as evidenced by the love and appreciation that the vast majority of the residents have for the place they call home. The arrangements of the buildings, clustered so that groups of buildings share green space which can be accessed from both front and back doors encourages neighbors to get to know each other. Children can safely play in the park-like spaces in front of or behind their homes and parents can watch their children from inside their apartments. The buildings are well constructed and remain in good condition in spite of poor maintenance practices.
Response to Comment No. 15-4
The comment states that the existing on-site buildings are in “good condition” but does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts to support this claim. As discussed on page II-7 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, over time, the on-site buildings have aged, resulting in conditions typical of older developments, notwithstanding the interior and exterior renovations that were undertaken in the late 1990s, or on-going maintenance efforts. Current deficiencies include floor plans that do not represent current space needs. For example, all units have only one bathroom, regardless of the number of bedrooms. Storage space is also considered inadequate by today’s standards. In most units the water heater is located in the primary downstairs closet. Further, the number of parking spaces and garages, which were designed at a time when there were fewer automobiles (based on parking codes from decades ago), is inadequate and the subject of frequent complaints from residents. Moreover, the suggestion that the deficiencies in the project site are the result of neglect or lack of maintenance is not supported by facts. Current ownership has spent more than $7,500,000 on repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements over the past six years, even as plans for modernization of the units have been prepared and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-209 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments studied.27 These costs are just for property upkeep and exclude payroll, management, security, taxes, insurance, and many other costs associated with running an apartment community of this size. Further, on a per apartment basis, these costs are significantly understated because much of the work is done in-house by maintenance staff and the payroll is not included in the $7.5 million in expenditures.
In addition, modern conveniences and infrastructure that have been developed in the last 70 years cannot be feasibly implemented on-site. For example, the existing units do not have cable installed for television or internet access. An average of just over one underground lead telephone line per unit is provided, and the lines are not wrapped in conduit and are consequently in poor condition. Installing conduit to re-wire underground telephone service and/or add cable for television and internet access would be difficult under current conditions because of existing unmapped gas, sewer, water, electrical, and irrigation lines underground and the disruption to existing landscaping and improvements.
Under current conditions, during periods of substantial rainfall the common open space areas of the site are prone to flooding. The extensive old growth tree root systems compounded by compacted subsurface conditions provide poor water penetration into the soil, resulting in pooling and standing water. Over time, this condition has caused site erosion, particularly through the center of the site within The Mall and along adjacent building entryways and porches. The resulting erosion has worn away the finished ground surface in areas such that the site’s open space is rutted and uneven in grade and underground pipes have become exposed in places, thus rendering the open space less functionally usable for recreation. In addition, over the years occupants of individual units have claimed some common open space areas (approximating 3.5 acres) for private use through the erection of fences and walls, leaving such areas unavailable for the enjoyment of the community. The conditions are documented in photographs provided in Figure II-5 on page II-10 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
The individual units also do not have electrical systems sufficient to run what are now common household appliances, including modern televisions, stereo equipment, coffee makers, toaster ovens, microwave ovens, plug-in electrical heaters, air conditioners, and hair dryers. Often, no more than two appliances per unit may be operating simultaneously without tripping a circuit breaker, or in some cases, causing a more widespread blackout. Additionally, the quantity of waste water effluent created on-site sometimes exceeds the design capacity of the existing sewer lines, resulting in main line
27 Fifteen Group Land and Development, Letter to Ms. Ana Cubas, Chief of Staff for Councilman Jose Huizar, October 20, 2011. See Appendix FEIR-11 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-210 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments backups and disruption of service. As a result, washer/dryers have been prohibited in individual units due to their excessive discharge relative to sewer line capacity.
Furthermore, although the site is “grandfathered” for purposes of code compliance, it is noteworthy that the existing development would not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, energy codes, or current, upgraded fire codes.
Accordingly, two of the project objectives are to:
To create housing stock in compliance with current building and safety codes and requirements; and
To upgrade and modernize the available housing stock on-site by allowing for upgraded sewer, electrical, and telecommunications systems, as well as updated building materials, floor plans, and amenities to respond to the requirements of modern lifestyles and improve efficiency.
The balance of this comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-5
The Wyvernwood Community is home to nearly 1200 households and a significantly larger number of families. An estimated 8000 people call Wyvernwood home. Most of these families are Latinos and many of them are hardworking but nonetheless low-income people. The development is subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, an affordable housing preservation Ordinance.
Response to Comment No. 15-5
The comment, which expresses an opinion about the composition of the existing Wyvernwood Gardens, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-6
The Wyvernwood apartments is a significant historic resource and contributes significant amounts of green open space to the Boyle Heights Community.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-211 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Wyvernwood is a planned garden community specifically and successfully designed to foster a sense of community within an otherwise isolating urban setting. As the Department points out, the community is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterian [sic] A and, therefore, is a significant historic resource.
The park-like complex of low-scale row houses and apartment buildings surrounded by expansive open space has successfully given birth to an amazing community where neighbors have primary relationships with each other. A place where neighbors are compadres and comadres1 to each other. A community where children run and play and neighbors watch out for each other’s children. A community where elderly people have a support network to age in place.
1 Godparents to each other’s children.
Response to Comment No. 15-6
The comment correctly notes that the existing project site is eligible listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A as the first large- scale Garden Apartment complex in Los Angeles and the first backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), as stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the project site is also eligible under Criterion C as an example of a Depression-era Garden Apartment housing community in Los Angeles, whose site plan and design reflects the urban planning and community design theories that developed out of the Garden City Movement, European Modernism, and Depression Era social concerns.
The balance of the comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-7
Prior to the Fifteen Group’s draconian practice of prohibiting gatherings, on any given Sunday after church one could wonder the common areas and find families BBQing in front of their open doors, neighbors conviviendo with each other. The demolition of the Wyvernwood Community results in the destruction of a significant historic resource i.e. the structures themselves. It also destroys an amazing cultural resource, i.e. a successful experiment in community building within an urban context.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-212 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-7
This comment, which states that the project would demolish a historical resource and cultural resource, is consistent with the analysis presented in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which considers the Wyvernwood Historic District to be a historic resource under CEQA. The comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-8
General Comments Regarding the Project
The Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project is ill-conceived. It attempts to unwisely convert a residential land to ‘mixed use’ while more than quadrupling the existing density. The Project is described as a ‘walkable community’ with a design that ‘promotes sustainability’ while doing exactly the opposite. Notably, the best design that will promote sustainability is the absence of this project, and its absence is the best design to protect the aesthetics, noise, air and water quality, and historic resources from the disastrous effects of this Project.
Response to Comment No. 15-8
The Draft EIR describes numerous ways in which the proposed project would promote environmental sustainability. Examples include the project’s mixed-use nature, the project site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit, the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses, and the incorporation of LEED® features that would make the project eligible to achieve LEED® Silver certification, as stated on pages IV.G-72 through IV.G-73 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. Pages II-38 through II-40 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provide a list that summarizes a few of the features that would be implemented as part of the project to achieve LEED® Silver certification, including water conservation measures, energy conservation measures, and sustainable construction and design elements. In addition, a matrix summarizing these and numerous other sustainable design features that would be implemented by the project is provided in Table II-3 on page II-41 of Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. As stated on page II-40 of the Draft EIR, these features would be implemented by incorporation into the conditions of approval for the project, through mitigation measures, or pursuant to the regulations or design criteria required by the Specific Plan.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-213 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The Draft EIR also describes numerous ways in which the proposed project would provide a walkable and livable community with modern amenities and a high-quality design that promotes both environmental and economic sustainability. As stated on pages IV.G-54 through IV.G-55, the pedestrian-oriented, walkable community would consist of retail and commercial services within walking distance of on-site residences, as well as residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site. The proposed project would improve the existing pedestrian environment by introducing high quality, pedestrian-scaled buildings, varied architecture, and a mix of uses with street frontage improvements, thereby creating an enhanced pedestrian environment and inviting pedestrian activity into the project site. The project would integrate pedestrian-oriented features such as awnings, street lamps, and landscape elements. Landscaped pathways and bicycle routes would also be introduced throughout the site to connect the various project elements and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment. The new streets and pedestrian pathways would provide multiple routes through and around the property and a series of parks and tree-lined streets would create an inviting pedestrian atmosphere. These types of pedestrian amenities currently do not exist on the project site.
The Draft EIR discloses the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts where feasible. Refer to Section VI (Other CEQA Considerations) of the Draft EIR, which includes a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project. As stated therein and discussed in more detail in each respective section in Section IV, the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to visual quality (Section IV.A.1), air quality (Section IV.B), cultural resources (Section IV.C), noise (Section IV.H), traffic (Section IV.K), and solid waste (Section IV.L.3). Contrary to the comment, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to water quality, as discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.
In addition, Section V, Alternatives, includes an analysis of Alternative A, the No Project/No Build Alternative. As shown in Table V-2 on pages V-13 through V-17, Alternative A would have less of an impact with respect to most environmental issues compared to the proposed project with the exception of employment policy consistency, housing policy consistency, internal circulation, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety. However, as stated on page V-27, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose to create a mixed- use community featuring a substantial amount of new housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses to serve the local and regional communities. Furthermore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives that support this underlying purpose. Specifically, with regard to sustainability, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not capitalize on the project site’s proximity to downtown Los Angeles and nearby industrial districts by concentrating new housing density and commercial uses
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-214 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments on the project site, thereby supporting regional mobility goals to encourage development around activity centers, promote the use of public transportation, and reduce vehicle trips and infrastructure costs; provide improvements that support and encourage the use of nearby public transit lines and promote the use of bicycles as well as walking; or improve the energy efficiency of on-site uses by creating a master planned development that meets the requirements for certification at the Silver level under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND®) Rating System.
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
See also Topical Response No. 4 for a discussion of density in relation to the project’s environmental impacts.
Comment No. 15-9
Tell-tale signs of a project that is unwise in its vision include: the necessity of amending the General Plan, in this case from Low Medium II Residential to Medium Residential and Regional Center. Even more telling of the disastrous impact the Project will have on the community is the further need to revise the Medium Residential land use designation itself in order for the Project to comply.
Response to Comment No. 15-9
This comment correctly states the discretionary actions requested by the proposed project, which are listed on pages II-50 through II-51 of Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 13-15, the potential environmental effects that could occur from implementation of these requested actions are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-10
Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views (Draft EIR Section IV)
In its EIR Scoping Document the City of Los Angeles identified that the Project would have a) a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; c) substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and d) create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The EIR, after describing the construction of buildings ranging in two stories to twenty four
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-215 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments stories in height,2 concludes that there will be no significant impact to the community. The data presented contradicts the conclusion.
2 Executive summary I-10
The final EIR must consider that the Wyvernwood Community is a beautifully designed and landscaped development with mature trees, some of which we believe to be California Oaks. The invasion of high rise buildings would result in a significant loss both to the residents and the surrounding community and will substantially degrade the visual character of the site. In making its analysis the Department must be prepared to conclude that there is no way to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development as large as this.
Response to Comment No. 15-10
As discussed in Section I, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and was distributed for public comment to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on June 24, 2008, for a 30-day review period. The Initial Study is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. As set forth in CEQA, the Initial Study does not and is not intended to provide conclusive assessments of the level of significance of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. Rather, the Initial Study serves as a scoping document for the Draft EIR and provides a detailed discussion of the environmental impact areas that could potentially result in significant impacts, thus requiring further analysis in the Draft EIR. The City of Los Angeles determined through the Initial Study that the project could result in potentially significant impacts in a number of issue areas, including Aesthetics (including aesthetics/visual quality, views, light/glare, and shading). Accordingly, Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR analyzes potential project impacts on aesthetics, visual quality, and views. Therefore, contrary to this comment, the data presented in the Draft EIR does not contradict the conclusions of the Initial Study.
With respect to the portion of the comment regarding the mature trees located on the project site, a tree survey of the site identified 696 on-site trees of various species including 29 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees. As shown in the historic photographs of the project site provided in Figure IV.A-4 on page IV.A-9 of the Draft EIR, the existing mature trees were planted as part of the planting and landscaping program for the site development, and thus are not protected by the City of Los Angeles Protected Tree Ordinance. Key features of the project’s landscaping program would include the retention of most of the existing oak and sycamore trees on-site. Following implementation of the landscaping program, the project would replace all trees removed as part of the project at a minimum 2:1 basis, including any removed oak and sycamore trees.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-216 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The significance thresholds that address impacts with regard to aesthetics are discussed on pages IV.A-17 through IV.A-18 in Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, and they form the basis for the analysis therein. As detailed on pages IV.A-15 through IV.A-16 of the Draft EIR, the methodology for the analysis of visual quality/aesthetics is based on substantial evidence to support the conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed project. As stated on pages IV.A-75 through IV.A-76 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would improve the visual quality and character of the project site by replacing older, deteriorated uses with a modern development displaying a high-quality design while maintaining many of the character- defining features that contribute to the unique identity of the project site. The proposed project would also be consistent with applicable guidelines and regulations that govern development on the project site as they relate to visual characteristics. However, the proposed project would result in the elimination of a designated historic resource, the Wyvernwood historic district, from the project site. As historic resources are also considered visual resources by the City for purposes of CEQA, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to aesthetics/visual quality.
It is acknowledged that the commenter disagrees with the conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding aesthetics. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-11
Air Quality (Draft EIR Section B)
Under California’s historic Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, California has made a commitment to abate the mounting rise in global climate warming, including the goal of reducing emissions of CO2 to 35% below 1990 levels. The City of Los Angeles has committed to this target goal as well, through the Green LA Action Plan. The City of Los Angeles has also approved the Green Building Ordinance to require that new buildings comply with the LEED standard. These among a host of federal, state, regional and local laws regulate new development. In this case, the Project fails to demonstrate how it achieves these target goals.
Simply because the Project states that it is based on principles of “smart growth” and “environmental sustainability” does not mitigate the fact that the razing of a large residential community to create new development is not sustainable (Draft EIR, Page IV.B-104). The Project attempts to calculate the emissions as significant only if it is equivalent or larger than 16% of the business-as-usual design, methodology or technology, based on the California Air Resources Board AB 32 Supplemental Functional Equivalent Document to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Although the Draft EIR determines that the Project will break from the business-as-usual emissions by a 30-31% reduction, the Project still City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-217 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments increases emissions from the existing levels by 25%. Thus, there is a net increase of 25% in greenhouse gas emissions that the Project would create that is unavoidable. Better alternatives could be proposed, and the Draft EIR fails to do so. The 25% increase in GHG is significant as well because greenhouse gases have a long-term consequence, unlike criteria pollutants which are estimated by daily emissions.
Response to Comment No. 15-11
The comment correctly identifies that under AB 32, California has committed to the goal of reducing emissions of CO2 to 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32, which identifies the percent reduction in emissions in comparison to “business-as- usual” (BAU) necessary to meet the goals of AB 32. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate as calculated by CARB was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors (e.g., population and employment) specific to each of the different economic sectors. As such, the CARB Scoping Plan and Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document recognize that the population within the State is growing, and so too are emissions without consideration of State mandates (e.g., Pavely Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuels Standards, California Renewables Portfolio Standard, and Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards). Please note that a detailed discussion of these requirements was provided in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. Therefore, whether a project results in an increase of GHG emissions is not the sole determining factor as to whether a project may result in a significant GHG impact.
Once the 2020 BAU emissions estimate was calculated by CARB, the 1990 emissions inventory was subtracted to determine the required reduction: as stated in the Final Supplement to the AB32 Scoping Plan Function Equivalent Document, that reduction was calculated to be 16 percent. Therefore, to demonstrate consistency with the Scoping Plan and AB 32, following the methodology and guidance contained within the CARB documents, project emissions were calculated under the BAU scenario and project with project features and mitigation measures scenario with the resulting difference being compared to the required CARB reduction. As shown in Table IV.B-15 on page IV.B-111 in Section IV.B.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the reduction was calculated to be 31 percent (nearly twice as much as the percentage reduction identified in the Scoping Plan required to comply with AB 32) and impacts were correctly determined to be less than significant.
Contrary to what is stated in this comment regarding requirements for the project to comply with the LEED standard, the Green Building Ordinance was amended on December 15, 2011 (Ordinance No. 181,481) to identify that projects filed on or after
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-218 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
January 1, 2011, must comply with various provisions of the 2010 CALGreen Code instead of LEED certified level. Please note that a detailed discussion of these requirements was provided on page IV.B-91 in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project is required to comply with Ordinance No. 181,481. In addition, as stated on pages IV.G-72 through IV.G-73 of Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would surpass the 2009 LEED certified level by incorporating LEED® features that would make the project eligible to achieve 2009 LEED® Silver certification.
Comment No. 15-12
The Draft EIR determines construction impacts by only calculating GHG emissions, and not criteria pollutants, for on-site demolition and construction activities, off-site hauling, water usage for control of fugitive dust, and construction worker commuting (Page IV.B-108). This failure to consider criteria pollutants is a gap in the Draft EIR, which it justifies speciously by arguing for consistency with the guidance from the SCAQMD. There is no reason to avoid calculating criteria pollutants for impacts caused by the Project, other than to avoid demonstrating that in fact these impacts are significant.
Response to Comment No. 15-12
The criteria pollutant emissions analysis was provided in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR and the GHG analysis was provided in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality— Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. Criteria pollutant emissions calculated for construction of the proposed project (e.g. on-site demolition and construction activities, off- site hauling, water usage for control of fugitive dust, and construction worker commute) were presented in Table IV.B-8 on page IV.B-67 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The reference to consistency with SCAQMD guidance mentioned on page IV.B-108 was made to convey the fact that GHG emissions were calculated following the same methodology as criteria pollutants discussed earlier in the section. As concluded in the Draft EIR, the project would result in construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOX and VOC during the most intense construction periods. As such, project construction would result in a significant regional impact even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. Localized construction impacts were also evaluated in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. As presented in Table IV.B-9 on page IV.B-70 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD LST threshold for PM10 and NO2 during the most intense construction periods even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-219 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-13
The Draft EIR fails to consider the role its Project plays under the rubric set out by the Sustainable Communities Strategy, SB 375. Instead, the Draft EIR prefers to conclude that because the GHG emissions are a 30-31% reduction from business-as-usual, it has no significant impact on the environment, and this is patently not the case. Alternative measures could have been implemented to reduce the 25%net increase in GHG emissions that the Project will cause. As for mitigation measures, the Draft EIR summarily concludes: “with implementation of the project design features described above, impacts related to climate change would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended or required.” (Page IV.B-115) It is challenging to any scientific understanding of global climate change how the 25% increase in net GHG emissions requires no need for mitigation, and that merely the Project’s design features (use of „green roofs‟ and lighting control systems, for example), are sufficient to obviate the need for mitigation. Again, with greenhouse gas emissions, the consequence is long-term. While it is true that CARB is in the process of establishing threshold levels, the Draft EIR attempts to exploit this fact, by arguing its reduction from the business-as-usual model makes its emissions not significant.
Response to Comment No. 15-13
As discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-11, the Draft EIR appropriately applied a better than BAU significance threshold consistent with the CARB’s AB32 Scoping Plan. See Response to Comment No. 3-16 for a detailed discussion of the project design features and mitigation measures designed to reduce overall GHG emissions. As discussed on page IV.B-93 in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, “The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has developed the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (TSPP) in order to provide the public, private consultants, and city staff with standards, guidelines, objectives and criteria to be used in the preparation of a traffic impact study. In December of 2010, LADOT provided an update to the TSPP that emphasized the importance of sustainability, smart growth, and reduction of GHG emissions in addition to traditional mobility consideration when evaluating and mitigated impacts to the City’s transportation system as a result of land use policy decisions. By acknowledging reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a policy goal, the TSPP stands as an implementing mechanism of the City’s strategy to conform to the mandates and requirements of AB32 and SB375.” In response to the requirements set forth by the TSPP the traffic analysis for the Project has included several key Project Design Features that reduce vehicle trips, also serving to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. Additionally, as described on page IV.K-97 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking of the Draft EIR, a project-level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the project shall be prepared aimed at further reducing VMT.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-220 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-14
The South Coast Air Basin in which Los Angeles sits is one of the most polluted basins in the country. It remains out of “attainment,” or the regulatory standard set for minimum public health, for the following criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, and fine particulate matter. All of these pollutants contribute to disastrous health problems, including asthma, toxification, and respiratory disease. Particulate matter because of its small size contributes to heart and lung disease and alters the body’s immune system and defenses. Although the Basin is in “attainment” for the other criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfur dioxides and sulfate, the levels are by no means safe from a public health perspective. The levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are the bare minimum. Due to the high volume of automobiles, vehicular travel, and the fuel combustion of these activities, Los Angeles is home to dense air pollution, and its inhabitants suffer from chronic disease as a result. Children, those with chronic disease, and the elderly are particularly vulnerable. Medical conditions related to chronic pollution are exacerbated by the particularly noxious air pollution of the Basin.
On to this preexisting landscape of dense air pollution comes now the Boyle Heights Mixed Use Community Project, which will add millions of pounds of emissions in criteria pollutants into the Basin during its construction and demolitions processes. The Draft EIR states that construction related emissions of daily and annual PM10 would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds and mitigation would be required. There are of course a number of other emissions that exceed regulatory thresholds, requiring mitigation. The crux of the issue remains that this Project is unnecessary, given that a large, garden-style apartment complex, the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, which is home to many residents, already exists on site. The demolition of this cultural and historic resource creating millions of pounds of additional emissions is unnecessary, and faulty in its vision and understanding of the City of Los Angeles‟ obligations under local, regional, state-wide and federal commitments and regulatory obligations to improve the air quality of Los Angeles, not to make it worse. Permitting the Project to go forward in fact worsens air quality of Los Angeles, and to the detriment of every resident of the Basin. The mitigation measures largely circulate emissions and attempt to use recycling measures as an off-set to what are blatant and clear emissions beyond the thresholds established for criteria pollutants.
Conclusion: The Project is poorly designed, and alternative measures to reduce air pollution and also retain the unique character and existing buildings of Wyvernwood have not been considered. In the current state of air pollution, combined with the forces of global climate change, the cumulative threats posed by the criteria pollutant and GHG emissions of this Project make it untenable and unwise. The Draft EIR fails to demonstrate how these twin perils have been adequately addressed.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-221 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-14
Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion of existing air quality conditions within the vicinity of the project site and acknowledges in Table IV.B-1 that the Air Basin is non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. A summary of ambient air quality in the project vicinity was presented in Table IV.B-2 of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table IV.B-2, ozone levels exceeded the State 1-hour standard an average of three days per year during the 2007–2009 period and only once over the same time period for the national 1-hour standard. Ozone levels exceeded the State 8-hour standard an average of six days per year during the 2007–2009 period and three times per year over the same time period for the national 8-hour standard. PM10 concentrations exceeded the State 24-hour standard an average of four measured days during the 2007–2009 period and no days over the same time period for the national 24-hour standard. PM2.5 concentrations exceeded the national 24-hour standard an average of 12 measured days during the 2007– 2009 period and there isn’t a State standard. Although pollutant levels have vastly improved from an historic perspective (e.g., In 1995, the national 1-hour standard was exceed on 98 days at one or more Basin locations), the Air Basin remains in non- attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
In order to meet the State and national ambient air quality standards, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The 2007 AQMP employs the most up-to-date science, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. Policies and measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the Basin are built upon the 2007 AQMP. It also incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources and area sources. The 2007 AQMP relies on a comprehensive and integrated control approach aimed at achieving the national PM2.5 standard by 2015 through implementation of short- and mid-term control measures and achieving the ozone standard by 2024 based on implementation of a combination of control measures. These reductions are expected to be achieved through implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improvement of existing control technologies.
Project consistency with the AQMP was evaluated on page IV.B-56 of Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, in which it was determined that the project would not exceed the assumption utilized in preparing the AQMP. Specifically, it was determined that: (1) the project would be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections upon which AQMP forecasted emission levels are based; (2) the project would implement all feasible mitigation measures; and (3) project development would be consistent with the land use policies set forth in the AQMP. Although it is acknowledged
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-222 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments that the project would result in a significant increase of short-term and long term air pollutant emissions, the project is consistent with the AQMP and, therefore, the project would not hinder the efforts of the SCAQMD in reducing ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 levels within the Air Basin into attainment.
As discussed above in Response to Comment No. 3-16, the proposed project includes a number of effective project design features and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions. The project is based on principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability, as evidenced in its mixed-use nature, the project site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, the accessibility of public transit, and the availability of existing infrastructure to service the proposed uses. The commenter questions the need for the project “given that a large, garden-style apartment complex, the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, which is home to many residents, already exists on site.” However, one of the key goals of the project is to increase the amount of housing that is close to downtown jobs and well-connected to the region through transit and other modes of non-automotive transportation. Increasing the amount and type of available housing would be expected to contribute to a reduction in air quality emissions via a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
As discussed on page IV.I-74 in Section IV.I.3, Population, of the Draft EIR, by 2030, SCAG forecasts a population increase to 4.44 million persons in the City of Los Angeles Subregion. In the Boyle Heights Area, which is included in the City of Los Angeles Subregion, SCAG forecasts a population increase to 229,092 persons by 2030, from 208,869 persons in 2008. In addition, as discussed on page IV.I-30 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, according to SCAG’s 2008 regional growth forecast, Los Angeles County alone is projected to add about 2.1 million people and about 791,000 households between 2005 and 2035. As the largest city in the County, the City of Los Angeles will receive most of the County’s future growth. It should be noted that the 2007 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment assigned 112,876 units to the City of Los Angeles for the January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014, planning period, or an average of about 15,050 units per year.
In addition, the project would be designed to meet the requirements for certification at the LEED-ND® Silver level and would reduce its energy usage by at least 15 percent below the 2008 Title 24 baseline, or the LAMC requirement at the issuance of building permits which ever yields higher energy reductions. See page IV.B-34 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for an extensive list of project features that would be incorporated into the proposed project. These project features would be incorporated as part of the project to reduce pollutant emissions related to the proposed project. However, even with incorporation of project features and mitigation measures the project would result in a significant increase of short-term and long term air pollutant emissions.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-223 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Construction-related daily maximum regional construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. However, maximum regional emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for VOC and NOX during periods of heavy use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Therefore, regional construction emissions resulting from the project would result in a significant short-term impact. As shown in Table IV.B-9 on page IV.B-70, the project would also remain in exceedance of the SCAQMD LST threshold for PM10 and NO2 during construction.
Regional emissions resulting from operation of the maximum office and maximum retail scenarios are expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX, VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Air quality impacts from project operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures. The potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are analyzed in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, with implementation of the project’s design features and State mandates, impacts with regards to climate change would be less than significant.
Comment No. 15-15
Impact on Cultural Resources (Draft EIR Section IV.C)
The proposed project would demolish and replace this historic resource. Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment complex in Los Angeles and reportedly the largest of its kind in the country at the time. Wyvernwood remains largely intact today and is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The Draft EIR acknowledges the loss of Wyvernwood as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact to a cultural resource. Proposed mitigation measures -- including HABS and photo documentation-- are insufficient to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Under CEQA, it is widely recognized that “[a] large historical structure [in this case, an entire historic district] once demolished, normally cannot be adequately replaced by reports and commemorative markers.”3
3 League for Protection of Oakland’s Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 909.
Wyvernwood Garden Apartments is a Nationally-Significant Historic Resource, designed originally to meet many of the project’s objectives. Built between 1938 and 1941, Wyvernwood was designed by architects David J. Witmer, and Loyall F. Watson, in
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-224 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments collaboration with landscape architect Hammond Sadler. Wyvernwood was intended to provide middle-income and worker housing located close to jobs in downtown and nearby industrial centers. The complex was privately financed by the Hostetter Estate and insured by the newly formed Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Wyvernwood served as a testing ground for the FHA’s new program and a model for other garden apartments to follow, in Los Angeles and throughout the country, illustrating the modern yet affordable housing standards required of FHA-insured projects.
Following progressive garden city planning principles, Wyvernwood originally consisted of 143 two-story buildings carefully arranged on six super blocks.4 The super block allowed individual units to have open vistas in multiple directions. The design created intimate green spaces and courtyards, taking advantage of sunlight for passive heating, natural air for cross ventilation, and the existing topography for open space and drainage.5 [sic] To foster a sense of community, all 1,102 (now 1,187) one-, two- and three-bedroom units were spread out among attached row houses and apartment blocks facing common greens, with detached garages and service areas relegated to the periphery and the rear of the blocks.
4 An additional 9-10 buildings were added to Wyvernwood in the 1950s and 60s, bring the total number of apartment buildings onsite to 152 with 1,187 units (Wyvernwood Apartments – Historical Resources Technical Report).
Wyvernwood was hailed as “America’s largest privately-owned community of rental homes,” widely published at the time in regional and national publications including Architect and Engineer, Architectural Forum, Architectural Record, and California Arts and Architecture, [sic] Locally, the Los Angeles Times featured Wyvernwood in its August 25, 1939 article, “Development Hailed Housing Achievement,” stating, “although every building is surrounded by large garden areas – well planted with beautiful trees – there is no obstruction of air and sunlight on the interiors... every dwelling has cross draft ventilation with at least two exposures and more than half have the benefit of three exposures.”
Wyvernwood is further significant as a primary example of the garden apartment movement within the United States. As already stated, at one point it was the largest example of its type. What Wyvernwood represents in physical form is a distinctly mid-20th century idea of housing, resulting from changing social ideals that called for a healthier approach to residential living. In 2007 the American Planning Association (APA) recognized the important role of garden apartments for their good design, function, sustainability, and community involvement, including an example from Pittsburgh (Chatham Village) on its listing of Great Places in America.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-225 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-15
This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-16
Wyvernwood has stood the test of time. Despite neglect and the need for reinvestment, Wyvernwood already meets a majority of the project’s guiding principles, including a “safe community; high-quality community design; meaningful, usable open space for recreational activities; and affordable housing for low and very low income families.”6
6 Project Description, II-11
Response to Comment No. 15-16
The potential for the existing on-site development to meet the guiding principles of the proposed project is substantially less than that of the proposed project, as discussed below. Moreover, the suggestion that the deficiencies in the site are the result of neglect or lack of maintenance is not supported by the facts. Current ownership has spent more than $7,500,000 on repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements over the past six years, even as plans for modernization of the units have been prepared and studied.28 These costs are just for property upkeep and exclude payroll, management, security, taxes, insurance, and many other costs associated with running an apartment community of this size. Further, on a per apartment basis, these costs are significantly understated because much of the work is done in-house by maintenance staff and the payroll is not included in the $7.5 million in expenditures.
As stated on page II-11 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the first guiding principle of the proposed project is to promote a safe community. Please see Response to Comment No. 15-32. As discussed therein, available evidence shows that crime and safety have been predominant concerns for past and present project site residents. The proposed project would provide a number of design features that would promote safety and security on the project site, including recommendations from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)’s Design Out Crime Guidelines, the City’s leading tool
28 Fifteen Group Land and Development, Letter to Ms. Ana Cubas, Chief of Staff for Councilman Jose Huizar, October 20, 2011. See Appendix FEIR-11 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-226 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments for implementing the techniques of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is a nationally recognized approach to design that is based on the principle that proper design and effective use of buildings and public spaces in neighborhoods can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life for citizens.29 The design of the existing Wyvernwood community conflicts with many CPTED design concepts. For example, many of the buildings do not have porches or other openings adjacent to the open space, so that residents cannot directly monitor and access these areas and provide so-called “eyes on the park”. In contrast, the proposed project greatly increases vehicular and pedestrian access, and arranges the open spaces and parks so that they are easily accessed and monitored by pedestrians, residents, and passing vehicular traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would promote a safe community to a far greater extent than the existing on-site development.
The second guiding principle of the proposed project is to create a high-quality community design. This is interconnected with the fifth guiding principle to provide meaningful, usable open space for recreational activities. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 13-14, the assertion that the present arrangement of Wyvernwood meets these characteristics is erroneous.
The third guiding principle of the proposed project is to develop a project with no net loss of rental housing units for the community. Additionally, the sixth guiding principle is to provide affordable housing for low and very low income families, with first priority given to existing residents. The project site is currently developed with 1,187 units of rental housing. As shown in Table IV.I-13 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, it is estimated that anywhere from 221 to 439 households are paying rents that would qualify them as affordable to “low-income” or “very low-income” households.30 At project completion, 1,200 new rental apartments would be provided, with up to 660 of these units subject to a covenant restricting their rents to levels that are affordable to very low- and low-income families for a period of 30 years. As discussed in Topical Response No. 3, existing tenants would be given first priority to rent the affordable units as part of the Resident Retention Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a net loss of rental housing units, and would in fact increase the number of both rental housing units and
29 National Crime Prevention Council, Basic CPTED Workshop Description, www.ncpc.org/training/ training-topics/crime-prevention-through-environmental-design-cpted-/basic-cpted-workshop-description, accessed March 8, 2012. 30 As discussed in further detail on pages IV.I-35 through IV.I-36 in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the specific number of existing renter households that meet standard “affordability” definitions (as defined in State law and related City housing programs) is unknown, because these definitions are a product of both household income and household size, neither of which are known to the Applicant for all units.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-227 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments affordable housing units on the project site. As such, the proposed project would support the intent behind these guiding principles to a greater extent than the existing on-site development.
The fourth guiding principle of the proposed project is to create a mixture of ownership and rental opportunities. The project site is currently developed with 1,187 units of rental housing and no ownership units. Therefore, the existing on-site development does not implement this guiding principle. Conversely, the project would implement this guiding principle by including up to 4,400 residential units comprised of no less than 1,200 rental units and up to 3,200 condominium units.
The seventh guiding principle of the proposed project is to implement the proposed project in accordance with a phasing plan that minimizes disruptions to existing residents and allows them to relocate within the new project if they choose. The project would achieve this principle through implementation of the Resident Retention Plan, as discussed in Topical Response No. 3. This guiding principle is specifically related to redevelopment of the site, and therefore is not applicable to the existing on-site development.
Comment No. 15-17
Hydrology and Water Quality (Draft EIR Section IV.F)
While the DEIR refers to the City’s proposed Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance, it fails to comply with the actual ordinance, which was adopted by the City Council prior to the DEIR‟s completion. (DEIR ref pg IV.F-20). The Stormwater LID ordinance applies to all development and redevelopment in the City of LA that requires building permits within the City after the ordinance effective date, which was September 28, 2011. (LID Handbook 6/8/11, §1.5.1 p.5 reference to LID Ordinance (available at http://www.lastormwater.org/ siteorg/program/LID/lidintro.htm, last checked 12/8/11) Seeing as the October 20, 2011, the date of the DEIR’s completion, falls after the ordinance’s effective date it is subject to the law. The Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project developers may argue that they did not have enough notice to incorporate the LID plans into the DEIR, but a quick look at the trajectory the LID ordinance will demonstrate awareness by developers and the planning community. The DEIR authors themselves right that the Board of Public Works had approved the ordinance on January 15, 2010. (DEIR pg IV.F-20) The draft Handbook was available to provide DEIR authors with guidance as of June 2011. And, the City Attorney approved the LID ordinance on August 15, 2011.
The Project is exactly the type of development that the Board of Public Works and the City Council had in mind when they adopted the ordinance. It does not fall under any of the enumerated exemptions (LID Ordinance §5 a-f) The new and redeveloped areas will alter
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-228 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the entire 68.8 acres of the project, which is more than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious surface of the existing site (Ibid. §2a). The site would create over 60 acres of impervious surface area, far more than the 2500 foot threshold, and within and environmentally sensitive area which drains to the L.A. River. (Ibid. §3)
As such, the Project developers were failed to create and certify a required LID Plan. (Ibid, §4) The LID Plan was supposed to be submitted along with the stormwater pollution control measures to the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division (WPD) for review and approval prior to submission of a DEIR to the Department of City Planning. (LID Handbook § 2.1.1, p.9)
Response to Comment No. 15-17
As noted on pages IV.F-24, IV.F-32, and IV.F-37 of Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the project is required to comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance and the associated Development Best Management Practices Handbook. As discussed on pages IV.F-24 through IV.F-26 of the Draft EIR, and as required by Mitigation Measure F-15, the project will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with storm water quality mitigation. In accordance with the Development Best Management Practices Handbook, the project’s final construction plans, LID Plan, and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) will incorporate a set of specific BMPs to meet LID requirements. Review and approval of these plans will be required prior to project approvals for building and grading permits.
In response to this comment, the first full paragraph on page IV.F-20 of Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the recent approval of the LID Ordinance. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Comment No. 15-18
Further, the BH Project provides a nod to the existence of LID measures, but wholly fails to adopt the purpose of the ordinance. The LID Ordinance aims to “manage and capture stormwater to the maximum extent possible”… “without any stormwater runoff leaving the site.” (LID Ordinance § 64.72 (C) 4.) In other words, the goal is to infiltrate, capture, treat and re-use most of the water that would run-off the site but for the LID features. While the BH Project developers provide design features and mitigation measures to this end, they ultimately fail to adhere to the ordinance’s purpose due to the net increase in impervious surface and stormwater runoff, as a result. As provided in the DEIR, runoff to the City storm drain would increase from 78.2 to 78.96 cfs and runoff to the County storm drain would increase from 65 cfs to 73.62 cfs. (DEIR pg IV.F-30)
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-229 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-18
The comment provides an incomplete citation of LID Ordinance § 64.72 (C) (4) (a). This section in its entirety reads:
a. Stormwater runoff will be infiltrated, evapotranspired, captured and used, treated through high removal efficiency Best Management Practices, onsite, through stormwater management techniques that comply with the provisions of the Development Best Management Practices Handbook. To the maximum extent feasible, onsite stormwater management techniques must be properly sized, at a minimum, to infiltrate, evapotranspire, store for use, treat through high removal efficiency biofiltration/biotreatment system, without any storm water runoff leaving the Site for at least the volume of water produced by the quality design storm event that results from:
(i) The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture stormwater volume for the area using a 48 to 72-hour draw down time, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or
(ii) The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook Industrial/Commercial, (2003); or
(iii) The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch storm event.
Contrary to the comment, this section of the LID Ordinance does not prohibit a project from increasing the peak storm runoff rate so long as the first 0.75 inch of rainfall from a storm event is captured and treated on-site. As required by Mitigation Measure F-15, the project would implement stormwater BMPs to capture and manage 100 percent of the first 0.75 inch of rainfall from a storm event in a 24-hour period in the following order of priority: infiltration, capture and reuse, City approved bio-filtration/retention system BMPs, or combination of the above. The design of structural BMPs would be in accordance with the LID Section of the Development Best Management Practices Handbook Part B Planning Activities. Further, pages IV.F-24 through IV.F-26 of the Draft EIR identify a list of potential BMPs to be included in project construction and implementation. Thus, the project would comply with the LID Ordinance.
Furthermore, the Storm Water Hydrology Study for the project (Appendix G-1of the Draft EIR), on which the analysis in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR is based, evaluates the pre-developed and post-developed peak storm runoff rates
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-230 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments associated with project development using the Los Angeles County Hydrology Rational Method. This method is used by the County to determine the size and capacity of existing and proposed storm water systems. While the County’s method accounts for the porosity of soils conditions, it does not account for infiltration BMPs associated with LID measures. This is recognized in Section 2 (c) of the Hydrology Study, which states, “The project will include storm water quality measures that may include infiltration devices. These devices could further reduce runoff leaving the site. This analysis, however, does not incorporate such measures in its calculations. As designed, the project already conforms to the drainage requirements set forth by both the City and the County agencies. Any further reduction in flow due to infiltration devices will serve to augment and improve runoff conditions, but are not required to successfully implement the project’s drainage system.” Page IV.F-31 of the Draft EIR also states, “In addition, it is important to note that the project would include stormwater quality measures that may include infiltration devices. These and other devices would further reduce runoff leaving the site. However, the analysis provided above is conservative and does not account for the reduction in flows associated with these project features.” Therefore, the slight increase in peak storm runoff rates presented in the Draft EIR analysis is most likely overstated.
Comment No. 15-19
Last, the Draft EIR either fails to comply or vaguely complies with the LID Ordinance metric for measuring stormwater. The LID Ordinance requires stormwater retention for at least the volume of water produced by a) the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event…using a 48 to 72-hour draw down time as provided by the urban [sic] Runoff Quality Management, WEF manual [sic] of Practice no. 23, b)the [sic] volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbookor [sic] c) the volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch storm event. Instead, the DEIR bases its metric for stormwater retention on the 50 year storm and event (DEIR pg IV.F-30 and Appendix G Stantec Hydrology Study p. 7) .
Response to Comment No. 15-19
Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR addresses the project’s impacts to both surface water quality and surface water hydrology. As each analysis addresses a different characteristic of storm rainfall and drainage, each analysis uses different metrics for calculation. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-18, above, the analysis of water quality impacts in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR identifies BMPs for meeting the metrics associated with the LID Ordinance and the storm water quality aspects of the 0.75-inch or “first flush” storm event included in Mitigation Measure F-15. The analysis of surface water hydrology impacts in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR addresses the flood control aspects of peak
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-231 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments stormwater runoff during a 50-year storm event, as required by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works’ Hydrology Manual and the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide.
Comment No. 15-20
Land Use (Draft EIR Section IV.G)
The conclusion in the DEIR Land Use IV-G that the project is in substantial compliance is inaccurate because of critical inconsistent points used throughout the analysis.
The project does not comply with the existing land use, compatibility of use, or compatibility of design as identified in the community plan. In the Conclusion Regarding Land Use Consistency on Page IV G-73 of the DEIR it states that only with the requested approvals would this project be consistent and only then would “the impacts related to the land use consistency be less than significant.” The DEIR fails to state and include in the analysis that the project has significant impacts to current land-use designation.
Response to Comment No. 15-20
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-15. See Responses to Comment Nos. 13-15 and 13-24.
Comment No. 15-21
The DEIR also states the proposed project is compatible with surrounding development:
“The types of land uses proposed by the new project would not be out of character or otherwise incompatible with surrounding development, as the project area is currently developed with and/or zoned for the development of each types of land uses proposed by the project.” Compatibility of Use on page IV. G-74
The surrounding area has low to medium residential, with limited height commercial and industrial along Olympic with the exception of the Sears Tower on the Southwest corner of Soto and Olympic. The proposed project would be compatible only with the proposed changes not with existing. The DEIR itself acknowledges the incompatibility of the use in the Compatibility of Design section on Page IV. G-75
“The project would increase the density, height, and mass of on-site structures as compared to existing conditions. The project’s increased height and density would be greater than most surrounding uses, with the exception
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-232 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
of the Sears Building located at the southwest corner of Soto Street and Olympic Boulevard”
Response to Comment No. 15-21
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-16. See Response to Comment No. 13-16.
Comment No. 15-22
The Land Use section lists a variety of goals, objectives, policies of the General Plan, Community Plan, and SCAG RTP and Compass Growth Vision which relate to having mixed-use development concentrated along rail. In all but one of the analysis did the DEIR find Not Consistent even though throughout the document the analysis makes the case of satisfying smart growth and transit oriented development principles by stating that the project is 1.25 miles from two MetroRail Gold Line stations. This distance is far greater than .25 mile radius set forth in the city policy for the location of High-Medium density housing (Policy 5, Page IV. G-53 in DEIR).
Response to Comment No. 15-22
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-17. See Response to Comment No. 13-17.
Comment No. 15-23
The Community Plan’s policy that High-Medium density housing be located within the .25 miles radius of proposed MetroRail station stops follows the General Plan Framework policy 3.7.1 which sates the zoning for multi-family density will be identified in the community plan. The proposed project would have a maximum density of 64 dwellings per net acre (Analysis to Policy 3.7.1 Page IV.G-42, DEIR). Based on the Table 3-3 of the General Plan framework and the proposed maximum density the project falls into the High Medium housing characteristic and fails to be within an area where such housing is allowable by the community plan.
Response to Comment No. 15-23
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-18. See Response to Comment No. 13-18.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-233 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-24
A critical goal in the SCAG RTP and Compass Growth Vision is GV P4.3 which states “develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste.” The analysis in this section continues to state the proposed projects being based on principles of smart growth. However it lacks sufficient information as to how the project would implement strategies to eliminate pollution. On the contrary, the proposed project would add to pollution, particularly the air pollution in the area based on information included in the DEIR Traffic, Access, and Parking. The project’s traffic study concluded that even with the implementation of the proposed mitigation there would be significant impacts at six study intersections at one or more peak hours.
Response to Comment No. 15-24
Although the proposed project would result in greater air emissions originating from the project site (see Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR), as discussed in Section IV.B.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it reflects a number of “smart growth” features promoted by SCAG to reduce air emissions on a region-wide basis by concentrating housing close to transit and jobs. This is the underlying intent of GV 4.3. See Response to Comment Nos. 13-14, 13-17, and 15-8 for further discussion of these features. Furthermore, it should be noted that in its comments on the Draft EIR, SCAG concurred with the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would be consistent with GV 4.3. See Response to Comment No. 4-56.
Comment No. 15-25
Open space at Wyvernwood is a primary design feature and contributes to a high quality of life for residents, not equal to or less than the proposed project. The project states the quality and usability of the open spaces would be substantially improved. In fact, the opposite is the case. The project will reduce the amount, quality and usability of open space.
Response to Comment No. 15-25
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the quality of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 15-26
Wyvernwood’s innovative approach toward urban planning and open space design is one of the features that makes the Wyvernwood community unique and significant as a historic district. The property’s extensive landscaping, mature trees, and flowing green space are
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-234 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments integral to the garden city philosophy. Designers called for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, with few through roads so as to create safe play areas and recreational spaces away from traffic. Provisions were made for cars -- then a burgeoning form of transportation -- through a carefully-planned approach of limiting their impact and alternative to a more traditional pattern of development.
Several of the original planning principles for Wyvernwood -- pedestrian-friendly communities, communal open spaces, environmentally-sensitive siting and affordability -- have found renewed interest in New Urbanism and the green building movements today, and are among the project objectives. As stated in the draft EIR, “overall, the project is intended to provide a walkable community with modern amenities and a high-quality design that promotes sustainability.”7 Wyvernwood already meets these project goals with the development largely designed around modern-day sustainability principles.
7 Project Description, II-17
Response to Comment No. 15-26
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-14. See Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 15-27
A primary example of this is the central Mall, designed around an existing natural ravine on site, serving as a 40-foot-wide swale to absorb and channel storm water. Today the swale functions much as it was originally intended and forms the spine of Wyvernwood’s 80-foot wide central landscaped mall, the east/west axis by which the overall development was subsequently arranged. The DEIR states “…conditions provide poor water penetration into the soil, resulting in pooling and standing water [and] parts of the Mall are prone to flooding where it does not drain adequately.”8 Analysis within the DEIR acknowledges the majority of storm water areas at Wyvernwood drain directly to catch basins currently onsite, further stating, “No system deficiencies or incidents of flooding have been noted.”9 While deferred maintenance and evasive tree roots have limited the effectiveness of the central drainage channel over time,10 cost-effective remedies can be easily employed to repair this feature to optimal performance and address these perceived deficiencies.
8 IV. Environmental Impact Analysis, IV.J-90, 91 9 Hydrology Study, page 8, Section IV 10 IV. Environmental Impact Analysis, IV.J-91
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-235 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-27
Page IV.F-3 in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, states, “The existing City and County storm drain systems that serve the project site accommodate existing runoff and have no deficiencies.” This statement refers to the absence of flooding associated with inadequately sized storm drains, not localized pooling and standing water which can occur along The Mall. Contrary to the comment, The Mall does not function “much as it was originally intended” in terms of serving as an effective “swale to absorb and channel storm water.” Photographs depicting localized pooling and standing water in The Mall are provided in Figure II-5 on page II-10 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. These conditions indicate that The Mall is not efficient in channeling storm water to the local storm drain system.
The comment appears to imply that the project objectives could be met through an alternative that preserves existing on-site development while repairing the existing drainage deficiencies at The Mall. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 15-28
Throughout the Draft EIR inconsistent data is applied and discrepancies exist in regards to existing and proposed open space calculations. This lack of accuracy leads to an overall lack of confidence in the project’s analysis. For instance, Figure 11-4 of the Project Description states there is 39.98 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood. Yet on page II-35 of the Project Description it states there is 36.43 acres of open space. Figure II-15 of the Project Description states there will be 37.25 acres of proposed open space. Yet on page II-34, the narrative adds up to 42.2 acres of proposed open space. In the Parks and Recreation section, the Draft EIR states, “In total, the project’s public and semi-private open space/recreational areas would be approximately 21.5 acres.”11 In the Aesthetics/ Visual Quality/Views analysis, it states, “…semi-private and private courtyards, plazas, and open spaces would comprise an additional 13.5 acres of open space amenities for a total of approximately 24 acres of useable open space.”12
11 IV.J.4 Public Services – Parks and Recreation, IV.J-101 12 IV.A.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, IV.A-19
The Los Angeles Conservancy (hereinafter the Conservancy), a group who has allied with El Comite de la Esperanza in analyzing the proposed project estimates that there are approximately 50 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood. El Comite concurs with the Conservancy’s assessment that the proposed Project actually provides approximately 24 acres of open space. Given the inconsistent calculations throughout the Draft EIR, the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-236 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments amount of relatively unusable streetscape space, the total proposed building footprint acreage, and the 40 percent increase in imperviousness due to the project, any representations that open space will be more than or “substantially improved” are false.13 The Final EIR should fully reevaluate its analysis and provide accurate data.
13 Project Description, II-34
Response to Comment No. 15-28
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space. See Responses to Comment Nos. 13-22 and 17-13 regarding the Los Angeles Conservancy’s calculation of the amount of existing and proposed ground- level open space. See Response to Comment No. 15-63 regarding the comment’s claim that the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site by 40 percent.
Comment No. 15-29
Mitigation Measures:
The DEIR states no substantial findings to require mitigation measures in the Land Use for the proposed project. This conclusion was reached even though the project is not consistent with the City’s policy on the location of High-Medium density housing only within .25 miles of Metro station stop and without providing adequate information on the existing land use designations. The land-use section needs to be revisited to reflect an accurate analysis with the existing land-use designations. In addition a correction to the analysis of the distance to rail because this project does not meet the intention of smart growth and transit oriented development principles. The inconsistent calculations on open space are also troubling because significant need of green open public space in the Boyle Heights neighborhood.
Response to Comment No. 15-29
This comment is similar to Comment No. 13-24. See Response to Comment No. 13-24.
Comment No. 15-30
Noise (Draft EIR Section IV. H)
In its EIR Scoping Document the City of Los Angeles identified that the Project would have a) a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; c) substantially degrade the existing visual
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-237 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and d) create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The EIR, after describing the construction of two story to twenty-four story buildings,14 concludes that there will not be any significant impact. The data presented contradicts the conclusion.
14 Executive Summary I-10
Response to Comment No. 15-30
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-10. See Response to Comment No. 15-10.
Comment No. 15-31
Employment, Housing and Population (Draft EIR Section I)
Wyvernwood is home to nearly 1200 low income households that are protected in perpetuity by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The Fifteen Group proposes the construction of 660 units (or 15% of the project total) of deed restricted affordable housing and has made an unenforceable commitment to the residents that they will be allowed to remain as tenants at their current rent controlled rents.
Response to Comment No. 15-31
The comment correctly states that the project would include 660 of the planned 1,200 apartments (or 15 percent of the project’s total number of units) as deed restricted affordable housing for low and very low income tenants, as discussed throughout the Draft EIR (e.g., see Table II-2 on page II-22 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). The Applicant has also committed to make additional rental units available to tenants who want to stay, at rents no higher than they would have been under the City’s rent control ordinance. This commitment would be enforceable through the terms and conditions of the proposed Development Agreement and conditions of project approval. The rents in the current development are stabilized under the City’s rent control regulations, however the rents are not protected in perpetuity. As tenants move out, the rents on those units would be reset to market rate. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-238 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-32
Public Services (Draft EIR Section J)
The DEIR fails to properly analyze the Proposed Project’s impacts on public services. An EIR “must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency’s bare conclusions or opinion.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 5 Cal. 3d at 568).
Police
The DEIR’s description of the police services is incomplete and conclusory, at best. The DEIR demonstrates that the crime ratio in Wyvernwood is significantly lower (almost one- third) than citywide, but fails to analyze why and how the proposed project will change this circumstance (DEIR, p. IV. J-5). There is a strong possibility that the reason for Wyvernwood’s relatively low crime ratio is because this community is composed of multi- generational families who know each other and have grown old together over the past 45 years. The family bonds of this community likely have a sociological impact that results in greater respect and protection for one another. Disregarding the character of this community, the DEIR assumes that the proposed project will have no impact on the crime ratio and goes on to merely project an increase in police officers associated with the increase in population. (DEIR p.JIV. J-18). The DEIR goes on to conclude that because “the cumulative growth in the area would occur as a result of infill and/or replacement projects, crime associated with the such development would merely replace the crime potential associated with existing use.” (id., emphasis added). Because the DEIR fails to analyze the unique character of this environment, it fails to properly analyze the potentially significant impact of quadrupling the number of residential units and tripling the commercial space. It is quite possible that the proposed project’s impact would dilute the exisiting [sic] community bonds in Wyvernwood and subject the environment to a higher crime ratio more like the rest of the city.
Response to Comment No. 15-32
The analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts on police protection service in Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the methodology outlined in the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. According to the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance for impacts to police services is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:
The population increase resulting from the proposed project, based on the net increase of residential units or square footage of non-residential floor area.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-239 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The demand for police services anticipated at the time of project buildout compared to the expected level of service available. Consider, as applicable, scheduled improvements to LAPD services (facilities, equipment, and officers) and the project’s proportional contribution to the demand.
Whether the project includes security and/or design features that would reduce the demand for police services.
To determine the demand for police services at project buildout, the number of annual crimes statistically projected to be generated as a result of development of the project’s proposed residential and non-residential uses was estimated. The post-project officer-to-resident ratio was also assessed to determine total anticipated crime rates in the area and the ability of the Hollenbeck Community Police Station to serve the project site. Finally, the project’s proposed security and/or design features and the ability of these features to reduce the demand for police protection services generated by the project were used as a second criterion to evaluate potential impacts associated with police protection.
This comment claims that Wyvernwood has a relatively low crime ratio due to the bonds of the existing community and that the proposed project could result in a higher crime ratio because it would “dilute the existing community bonds,” but it does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts to support this contention. Contrary to the comment, the Draft EIR does not show that “the crime ratio in Wyvernwood is significantly lower (almost one-third) than citywide.” Rather, Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR presents 2007 crime statistics for the entire Hollenbeck Community Police Station service area, which covers approximately 15.53 square miles, including the project site, and serves a population of approximately 234,731 residents in the communities of El Sereno, Lincoln Heights, and Boyle Heights. As shown in Table IV.J-1 on page IV.J-5 of the Draft EIR, based on the Hollenbeck Community Police Station service population of 234,731 residents and approximately 245 sworn officers, the officer-to-resident ratio is approximately one (1.04) officer per 1,000 residents. Citywide, the ratio is approximately two (2.27) officers per 1,000 residents. With regard to crime, the Hollenbeck Community Police Station reported 5,034 crimes in 2007. Based on population, the number of crimes per 1,000 residents was 21, while Citywide the number of crimes per 1,000 residents was 30. Further, based on the number of officers deployed within the Hollenbeck Community Police Station service area, the number of crimes per officer was 20.5 in comparison to a Citywide ratio of 13.3 crimes per officer.
It should be noted that the proposed project would provide additional general fund revenues that could be utilized to increase public safety resources in the Hollenbeck area. Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the net fiscal impacts of the proposed project from the recurring tax and other revenues it would generate, as compared with the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-240 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments average annual cost of City services that would be provided to the project, as well as the net fiscal impact of the existing Wyvernwood development over the same time period to 2032. This analysis showed that the estimated average annual project-generated revenue to the City over the period to 2032 would total about $25.3 million, the annual average cost to the City to provide services to the project would total about $14.3 million, for a net fiscal impact of about $11.0 million per year.31 The analysis also shows that the annual net fiscal impact of continuing operation of the existing Wyvernwood over the same time period is net negative (-$6.3 million) to the City, because Wyvernwood does not generate enough revenue to pay for the cost of the City services it currently requires (i.e., average annual revenues between 2008 and 2032 of $2.2 million versus annual average service costs of $8.5 million) and -$116.4 million cumulatively over the 2008–2032 period. The fiscal impact study further estimates that the project’s “net-net” annual average fiscal impact (i.e., after accounting for City service costs to the project and eliminating the net negative impact of continued operation of the existing Wyvernwood) would be a positive $17.2 million. Cumulatively over the build-out period, the net-net incremental yield to the City from the project would be $188.3 million. Thus, even accounting for the cost of estimated required City services, the project would contribute significant revenues to the City’s general fund which can be utilized to provide additional public services.
In response to this comment, recent crime statistics for the project site and the immediately surrounding area were gathered from CrimeMapping.com.32 The data show that in an approximate six-month period from October 22, 2011, to April 18, 2012, 164 crimes were reported within a 0.5-mile radius of the center of the project site. The types of crimes reported included: assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated domestic violence, shots fired in an inhabited dwelling, burglary (entry of a structure with intent to commit theft or a felony), burglary from a vehicle, burglary from an automobile/passenger van, burglary from a truck or cargo van, attempted robbery, robbery (taking property of another by means of force or fear), strong-arm robbery, petty theft, grand theft, petty theft from a vehicle, grand theft from a vehicle, attempted stolen vehicle, and stolen vehicle. Of these, 43 crimes were reported within or adjacent to the boundary of the project site. The types included: assault with a deadly weapon, shots fired in an inhabited dwelling, burglary
31 All dollar amounts included in this response are stated in constant 2010 dollars, consistent with the information presented in the Draft EIR. 32 CrimeMapping.com was developed by The Omega Group to help law enforcement agencies throughout North America provide the public with valuable information about recent crime activity in their neighborhood. CrimeMapping.com extracts crime data on a regular basis from law enforcement agencies’ records systems and utilizes Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to place the information online.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-241 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
(entry of a structure with intent to commit theft or a felony), burglary from a vehicle, robbery, petty theft, petty theft from a vehicle, grand theft, and stolen vehicle.33
By way of contrast, the incidence of crime at the project site is significantly higher than at other garden community developments that have been cited as comparable sites by project commentators. For example, during the approximate six-month period from October 22, 2011, to April 18, 2012, 84 crimes were reported within a 0.5-mile radius of the approximate center of the Lincoln Place Apartments.34 Of these, four crimes were reported within or adjacent to the boundary of the development site. The types of crimes reported within or adjacent to the boundary of the development site included: burglary (entry of a structure with intent to commit theft or a felony), petty theft from a vehicle, and stolen vehicle. At Village Green, 117 crimes were reported within a 0.5-mile radius of the approximate center of the development site during the same time period.35 Of these, 12 crimes were reported within or adjacent to the boundary of the development site during the same time period. The types of crimes reported within or adjacent to the boundary of the development site included: attempted burglary, burglary (entry of a structure with intent to commit theft or a felony), burglary from a vehicle, robbery, and petty theft from a vehicle. Thus, the crime levels at Wyvernwood are greater than at other similar communities. In addition, violent crimes (e.g., assault with a deadly weapon and robbery) at Wyvernwood occur more frequently compared to the Lincoln Place Apartments and Village Green.
As noted in Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR and further discussed below, crime levels within and surrounding the project site may be due to various existing design elements of the project site that make it difficult to patrol and secure the site, and hinder visibility throughout the site. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a nationally recognized approach to design that is based on the principle that proper design and effective use of buildings and public spaces in neighborhoods can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life for citizens.36 CPTED was first coined by criminologist C. Ray Jeffrey in 1971 and was later used by Oscar Newman, who became a seminal author in the field. Their work helped to provide a framework for urban designers, city planners and architects to use when thinking
33 Source: CrimeMapping, website: www.crimemapping.com, accessed April 19, 2012. Includes crimes reported by Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff. See Appendix FEIR-12 to this Final EIR. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 National Crime Prevention Council, Basic CPTED Workshop Description, website: www.ncpc.org/training/ training-topics/crime-prevention-through-environmental-design-cpted-/basic-cpted-workshop-description, accessed March 8, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-242 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments about how to design safer spaces for both public and private realms. The proposed project would provide a number of design features that would promote safety and security on the project site, whereas the design of the existing Wyvernwood community conflicts with many CPTED design concepts, as discussed below. The following provides a description of a few of the common practices of CPTED based on academic and professional literature and provides an analysis of how they would be integrated into the design of the proposed project compared to the design of the existing Wyvernwood community.
With respect to creating safe neighborhoods, according to the Architectural Design Guidelines used by the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (LACDC), architectural designs should implement the following key strategies:
Access Control;
Surveillance;
Territorial Reinforcement;
Activity Support; and
Image and Maintenance.
Accordingly, architectural designers should (among other things) make sure to:
Provide clear border definitions of controlled space.
Provide clearly marked transitional zones that indicate movement from public to semi-public to private space.
Locate gathering areas to locations with natural surveillance.
Place unsafe activities in safe spots to overcome the vulnerability of these activities with natural surveillance and access control of the safe area.
Design space to increase the perception or reality of natural surveillance.
Eliminate blind spots around the project site where individuals approaching the site cannot be observed.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-243 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Include fencing and landscaping to direct the circulation flow of persons to a select observable pathway.37
In addition, a safe design should carefully plan for a “reduced number of entry points.”38 The existing Wyvernwood community allows for accessibility to a given building through multiple routes. Front doors and ground floor windows provide easy access without limitation. The proposed project’s multi-family buildings would eliminate this issue by having central points of entry and exit, thereby deterring strangers from access because it would be more difficult for them to find ways into the buildings.
With respect to blind spots, the Architectural Design Guidelines produced by the LACDC suggest that designers should “eliminate blind spots around the project site where individuals approaching the site cannot be observed.”39 The garden style of the existing Wyvernwood community lends itself to producing hundreds of blind spots. Even with the use of advanced lighting technologies, addition of mirrors and suitable fencing, there is no way to fully eliminate blind spots throughout the community due to the design of the interstitial spaces and the numerous building configurations with blind staircases and accessways. The guidelines are clear that the blind spots should be eliminated. Other measures could improve current conditions but they would not eliminate the flaws that are inherent in the design of the existing Wyvernwood community. The gaps between buildings allow strangers or intruders to hide in any unlit corner adjacent to a building, shrub, or tree, causing a blind spot for renters and their guests. In addition, because of the configuration of the site on six superblocks and the organization of the residential buildings around the Mall, sight lines through the open space areas are limited, as are streets that can be monitored by passing automobiles. The proposed project would properly route people throughout the community using paved pedestrian walkways, appropriate fencing, and increased lighting at hard corners and intersections so as to eliminate any blind spots.
With respect to private spaces, a space that clearly delineates private from public can create a sense of ownership, which in turn gives renters/owners a vested interest in the space and tells potential intruders that this space is being watched. The garden style design of the existing Wyvernwood community does not provide for a separation between private and public spaces. The interstitial spaces are often perceived as neither public nor
37 Los Angeles Community Development Commission. City of Industry Funds NOFA Round 17. Architectural Design Guidelines. September 29, 2011. Pg. 15-16. 38 Los Angeles Community Development Commission. City of Industry Funds NOFA Round 17. Architectural Design Guidelines. September 29, 2011. Pg. 16. 39 Id.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-244 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments private and hence are underutilized, neglected, and often unsafe. In contrast, the proposed project would include spaces accessible to only tenants, owners, and their guests. The proposed project would also include clearly delineated public open spaces that are surrounded by streets and pedestrian activity.
With respect to the street grid, according to the National Institute of Justice’s Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods, a community’s streets are as important as the buildings themselves. An example of poor street design is provided in the report, the Lockwood Garden Apartments located in East Oakland, California. In these apartments, an “open-air drug market existed…in the middle of the development.”40 It was found that the curvature of the street within the Lockwood Garden Apartments community allowed for lookouts to be posted on each end and allowed for easy getaway. The street network of the existing Wyvernwood community is similar to that of the Lockwood Garden Apartments with two curving streets running from north to south on each end of the community. The design of the proposed project would eliminate these curves by creating a grid-like pattern throughout the community with multiple access points and a free flow or automobile traffic throughout the site, creating more “eyes on the park.”
Furthermore, as discussed on pages IV.J-10-12 of the Draft EIR, the project design features reflect recommendations included in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)’s Design Out Crime Guidelines, the City’s leading tool for implementing the techniques of CPTED. For example, overall building massing, façade articulations, and landscape elements would be designed to provide clear physical and perceptual delineations between public, semi-public, and private spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Design Out Crime Guidelines.
Thus, as stated in Section IV.J.1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR, with implementation of the project design features related to police protection and Mitigation Measures J.1-2 and J.1-3, which would require the Applicant to consult with the LAPD Crime Prevention Unit regarding crime prevention features appropriate for the design of the proposed project and provide a diagram of the property to the LAPD, and in light of the recently improved facilities at the Hollenbeck Community Police Station which will better serve the project area together with the increased general fund revenues to be generated by the project as compared to current conditions, the impact of the project during operation relative to police services would be reduced to a less than significant level.
40 U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods: Comprehensive Changes in Design, Management, and Use. April 1997. Pg. 17.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-245 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-33
Schools
Whereas the DEIR provides ample statistics about existing conditions and projected conditions in schools, it fails to analyze the project features that would reduce the demand for school services. The city of Los Angeles CEQA thresholds, a determination of significance on public schools must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following:
The population increase resulting from the proposed project
The demand for school services compared to the expected level of services available
Whether and the degree to which accommodation of the increased demand would require construction of new facilities, a major reorganization of students or classrooms, major revisions to the school calendar, or other actions which would create on impact on the schools, and;
Whether the project includes features that would reduce the demand of school services
Responding to the third factor, the DEIR describes the student density and overflow accommodations at nearby schools. As an example, the DEIR notes that Roosevelt Senior High recently operated over-capacity and that it returned to the traditional two-semester calendar organization pursuant to LAUSD‟s policy. (DEIR p. IV. J-58) Despite the statistics and example, the DEIR fails to analyze the purpose for the reorganization and revisions and the impact of either on the Wyvernwood community student population. Perhaps the purpose is to reverse low-performance levels of students resulting from over-capacity and teacher- student ratio. Perhaps the reorganization and revision will not do enough to accommodate the learning environment of the project’s new student population. It is unclear; we are left to conjecture about the project’s response to this circumstance because no analysis is provided.
Responding to the fourth factor, the DEIR demonstrates an increase in student population by less than one-third despite a tripling of residential units (DEIR p. IV. J-62 see Table IV. J-9 Estimated LAUSD Student Generation for Existing and Proposed Residential Uses). Intuitively, one would expect the student population to increase proportionately with the increase in residential units. However, the DEIR fails to analyze its counter-intuitive conclusion that the student population will decline as a result of the project development.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-246 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-33
The comment accurately summarizes the thresholds of significance for assessing impacts to schools as provided by the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. These thresholds are noted on pages IV.J-67 and IV.J-68 of Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, and form the basis for the analysis therein. As stated on page IV.J-68 of the Draft EIR, the project does not propose any project design features that would reduce the project’s demand for school services. Rather, impacts to schools are directly related to the project’s proposed number and type of residential units and the amount and type of non- residential floor area.
With regard to the portion of the comment addressing LAUSD’s reorganization of Roosevelt High School, LAUSD’s policy decisions and the quality of education resulting from these decisions are outside the purview of CEQA. Rather, CEQA is concerned with the project’s impact on the physical environment. In accordance with CEQA, the analysis in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR calculates the number of project-generated students and compares this number to LAUSD’s forecasted 2012–2013 capacity at each of the schools that would serve the project to determine whether these schools would have sufficient capacity to accommodate project-generated students, or conversely, whether new school facilities would be required, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The analysis concludes that elementary and middle schools serving the project site would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. However, Roosevelt Senior High School would experience a shortage of seats. Pursuant to SB 50, the Applicant would be required to pay school impact fees to LAUSD at the time building permits are obtained in order to minimize project impacts on schools. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees is considered full and complete mitigation of project-generated school impacts and would ensure that the project’s impacts on schools would be less than significant.
It should be noted that LAUSD recently confirmed that the newly completed Esteban Torres Senior High School actually provides 500 seats of seating capacity relief for Roosevelt Senior High School, rather than the 350 seats assumed in the analysis in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR and the Schools Report provided in Appendix K.2 of the Draft EIR.41 Therefore, with this additional seating, Roosevelt Senior High School would experience a shortage of approximately 119 seats with the project, rather than the 269 seats estimated in the Draft EIR and Schools Report. While the shortage of seats is overestimated in the Draft EIR and Schools Report, the analysis conclusions do not
41 Email correspondence with LAUSD provided in Appendix FEIR-13 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-247 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments change. It should also be noted that according to the latest projections prepared by the California Department of Finance, Kindergarten–High School student enrollment in Los Angeles County is projected to decline by 12 percent (or 191,024 students) over the next 10 years due to continuing declines in birth cohorts and out-migration.42 To the extent that these countywide trends also occur within LAUSD at the same time that new school seating capacity is increasing from LAUSD’s New School Construction Program, there would be additional seating capacity available at the time the project’s dwelling units become occupied.
The comment also questions the Draft EIR’s calculation of project students based on the expectation that the increase in students should be proportional to the increase in the number of residential units. The Draft EIR’s calculation of project students is based on established student generation rates calculated by the LAUSD, which LAUSD uses for purposes of its own school enrollment, projections, and resource allocation planning, as well as the basis for calculation of development impact fees.43 These student generation rates are, in fact, proportional to the number of existing and proposed dwelling units,44 but vary by type of unit, based on detailed analysis conducted by LAUSD concerning the relationship between LAUSD enrollment and new residential construction throughout the school district, and by school type. Thus there are different student generation rates for different types of residential development (i.e., single-family detached; single-family attached, or condos; and multi-family, or apartments), and these rates vary by school type (i.e., Kindergarten-Grade 5; Middle School; and High School). In all cases, these student generation rates are less than 1.00 (i.e., less than 1 student per unit). In addition, for purposes of the Draft EIR analysis, LAUSD provided data about the actual number of students enrolled in its schools matched with project site apartment building addresses, so that site-specific student generation rates could be calculated to reflect existing conditions at Wyvernwood apartments. These site-specific student generation rates are higher than the LAUSD-wide average student generation rates for new apartments. As noted on page IV.J-65 and IV.J-66 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, using a combination of the higher, site-specific student generation rates for all of the project’s apartments and LAUSD-
42 California Department of Finance, California Public K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate Projections by County—2011 Series, www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/k-12/ view.php, accessed April 12, 2012. 43 See Appendix C of Appendix K.2, Schools Technical Report, of the Draft EIR, which includes the LAUSD estimates of students and student generation factors at Wyvernwood Apartments per e-mail from Glenn Striegler, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, LAUSD, to Paul J. Silvern, HR&A Advisors, Inc., October 13, 2009. 44 Separate student generation rates for indirect student demand are also calculated by LAUSD for non- residential uses and these non-residential rates were also applied to the project’s non-residential floor area in the Draft EIR analysis. (See Draft EIR pp. IV.J-72 and Table IV.J-11).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-248 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments wide student generation rates for all of the project’s for-sale units produced a larger, and therefore more conservative, estimate of students potentially generated by the project than would have been the case using LAUSD-wide average rates only.45 The resulting LAUSD student generation rates applicable to the project are shown in Table IV.J-9 on pages IV.J-62 and IV.J-63 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the use of LAUSD student generation rates is consistent with the City’s prescribed methodology for analyzing impacts to schools as set forth in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. Therefore, the methodology in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR is reasonable and appropriate.
In addition, contrary to the comment, the Draft EIR does not conclude that “that the student population will decline as a result of the project development.” As shown in Table IV.J-10 on page IV.J-71 of Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, the project’s residential component would result in a net increase of 134 elementary school students, 69 middle school students, and 94 high school students compared to existing conditions. This does not account for the project’s commercial component, which would generate an additional 20 net new students as shown in Table IV.J-11 on page IV.J-73. As stated on page IV.J-64 in Section IV.J.3, Schools, of the Draft EIR, Senate Bill 50 states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Section 65995 of the Government Code sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay to mitigate a project’s impacts on school facilities under SB 50 and Section 17620 of the California Education Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities resulting from implementation of a project to less than significant levels. At the time of the preparation of the Draft EIR, the LAUSD collected the Level 2 new school construction facility fee at a rate of $3.87 per square foot of new residential construction, $0.47 per square foot of new commercial construction, and $0.09 per square foot of new commercial parking structures.46
45 The Draft EIR does, however, also include supplementary analysis using LAUSD-wide student generation rates only. See the assessment of the project’s public school enrollment and capacity included in Appendix K.2 of the Draft EIR. 46 These fees apply to new floor area added as a result of zone changes, general plan amendments, zoning permits and subdivisions.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-249 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-34
As noted in the DEIR, the Boyle Heights Community Plan aims to encourage sustainable growth patterns and promote the unique character of each neighborhood through the provision of goals, objective and politics. [sic] (Page. IV.J-65) The character of Wyvernwood is a multi-generational one with a significant child and adolescent population. Contrary to promoting the unique character of this community, the Proposed project would considerably reduce the presence of children and adolescence thus, significantly changing the unique character.
Response to Comment No. 15-34
The comment asserts that the project would considerably reduce the presence of children and adolescents, but does not provide any basis for this assertion. It is correct that one of the project goals is to decrease the overcrowded conditions that currently exist on-site. As described in the Draft EIR, the project will provide a range of for-rent and for- sale unit types, and unit sizes, in a variety of configurations. It will also provide on-site commercial services and public open space, and will be served by LAUSD schools at all grade levels. The project will also increase the total number of units to 4,400 from 1,200 today. Thus, there is no basis to assume that the project would not be attractive to families with children and adolescents, or that the number of children on-site will be reduced. More specifically, the schools analysis in the Draft EIR presents a projection that project- generated enrollment in LAUSD schools will increase to 1,347 from 1,050 today, assuming student generation rates for project apartments that are similar to the rates in existing apartments (see Draft EIR, Table IV.J-9, page IV.J-62 and Draft EIR Appendix K, Schools Report, pages 36–38).
Comment No. 15-35
Traffic. Access and Parking (Draft EIR Section K)
Currently there are 1800 total parking spaces on site. The project will require 10,903 to 11,003 spaces under LAMC Section 12.21(a)(4). [p. IV.K-28] This is a significant increase and suggests that the overall levels of traffic that the project will generate will have a substantial impact on the area.
At least 12 intersections are currently operating at LOS E or F (unacceptable levels of service). This project will only make those intersections worse and require more construction to be able to accommodate the traffic. There are CEQA guidelines addressing impacts with regard to transportation/traffic could be used to make arguments: See p. IV.K-44.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-250 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-35
The comment correctly restates the number of parking spaces that would be required by the proposed project per Section 12.21(A)4 (Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements) of the LAMC, as discussed on pages IV.K-27 through IV.K-28 of the Draft EIR. The project would provide parking sufficient to meet parking demand from the uses contained within each phase of the project. Parking demand will be estimated using a shared parking approach recognizing that parking demand for particular land uses don’t always correspond with each other. For example, parking demand for a fine restaurant is lower during the day, while parking demand for an office is high. In the evening, the pattern is reversed. Because uses experience peaks at different times of day, the provision of a parking space does not correspond with the generation of a vehicle trip occurring within a given time period. Additionally, while residents may own vehicles, given the project’s proximity to high service transit, they may choose to commute to work via public transit, and only use their vehicles on the weekends. Thus, the provision of a parking space does not correspond with a trip occurring during a peak hour for that parking space. Additionally, based on observed parking occupancy, the existing project site has less parking available than is needed to serve the existing residents. Thus, if parking were increased at the existing project site, trip generation would not increase, rather parking spaces would satisfy the existing latent demand for off-street parking. It should also be noted that there are approximately 1,799 parking spaces currently provided on the project site, as discussed on page IV.K-8 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR, rather than 1,800 parking spaces as stated by the commenter.
The comment correctly restates that 12 signalized intersections are currently operating at LOS E or F (unacceptable levels) during one or both of the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, as shown in Table IV.K-3 on pages IV.K-18 through IV.K-21 of the Draft EIR. The comment also refers to the thresholds of significance discussion addressing transportation/traffic impacts starting on page IV.K-44 of the Draft EIR. Pages IV.K-44 through IV.K-49 of the Draft EIR provide an explanation of how the general CEQA Guidelines addressing transportation/traffic impacts are interpreted by the City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for this project.
The City of Los Angeles provides specific, detailed methodologies and thresholds for the evaluation and identification of potential traffic/transportation impacts in CEQA documents, as set forth in the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, December 2010 and August 2011) and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006). A comprehensive transportation impact analysis was conducted in the Draft EIR in accordance with these guidelines and criteria. This analysis identified potential project impacts at 22 study intersections and in three neighborhood
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-251 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments areas, including at many intersections that currently operate at LOS E or F. A robust mitigation package has been proposed to alleviate, to the extent feasible, the project’s impact at any significantly impacted location. The mitigation package includes a travel demand management program, the provision of a mobility hub, a set of transit improvements which includes bus shelter improvements, the support of transit service improvements through the purchase of new buses for Metro to operate, physical improvements at select study intersections, signal controller upgrades, signalization of select unsignalized intersections, and funding of the implementation of neighborhood traffic protection plans. The mitigation measures would fully mitigate the project impacts to a level below significance at 16 of the 22 impacted intersections, and the remaining six intersections would be partially mitigated. To the extent impacts remain after the imposition of feasible mitigation, the decision-makers will need to make a statement of overriding considerations to determine that the public benefits of the project outweigh the potential environmental impacts. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
Comment No. 15-36
In addition, Construction traffic: 200 loads per day, generating 400 trips per day, approximately 40 trips per hour. [p. IV.K-51]. Not only will this substantially affect traffic in an already overly congested area by the East LA Interchange and where there are already hundreds of trucks passing by, it will also contribute to greater pollution in the area. Many intersections impacted by the project will also be operating at LOS E or F in the future, a problem this project only contributes to and does not help alleviate. [p. IV.K-62-64].
Response to Comment No. 15-36
The portion of this comment that describes the haul activity that would be generated by the proposed project is consistent with the analysis presented on page IV.K-51 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
With respect to the portion of this comment that states that construction of the proposed project would substantially impact the area by the East L.A. Interchange, Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR included an analysis of project traffic impacts at build out, which would be expected to generate up to 1,934 trips during the P.M. peak hour, as stated on page IV.K-62 of the Draft EIR. Based on this level of project trips at buildout, 22 study intersections were determined to be significantly impacted using City of Los Angeles’ criteria. See Response to Comment No. 15-35, above, for a discussion of the project’s impacts at these 22 study intersections and the proposed mitigation measures. See also Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-252 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
In addition, based on this level of project trips at buildout, no significant impacts to the freeway system, including the East L.A. interchange were identified, using the City of Los Angeles’ adopted impact criteria for analyzing the freeway system. See page IV.K-79 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the Future with Project (Year 2030) conditions. Until buildout, the existing community can be expected to generate fewer trips than at build out, because there will be fewer units. Thus, if 1,934 trips can be accommodated at build out with a limited number of significant impacts, the 40 trips per hour that would be generated during construction would not be expected to cause any significant traffic impacts. While no significant impacts are anticipated with the expected level of construction truck trips, several mitigation measures specifically related to construction impacts have been proposed. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure K-1, which requires the preparation of a construction traffic management plan that will be prepared and submitted to the City of Los Angeles for approval, which would mitigate, to the extent feasible, construction impacts related to construction traffic. The construction traffic management plan would direct that construction parking be located to minimize interference with traffic, schedule construction activities that would affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible, and reroute construction off congested streets to the extent feasible, along with other measures. The construction traffic management plan would be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencement of construction activities. See also Topical Response No. 8 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of impacts from construction.
As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the project is expected to add traffic to intersections operating at LOS E or F. As shown in Table IV.K-11 on page IV.K-67 of the Draft EIR, a total of 22 intersections are anticipated to be impacted by the project, as well as three neighborhood areas. No other impacts were found. As described in Topical Response No. 6, a comprehensive mitigation package has been proposed to alleviate, to the extent feasible, the project’s impact at any significantly impacted location. The mitigation package includes a travel demand management program, the provision of a mobility hub, a set of transit improvements which includes bus shelter improvements, the support of transit service improvements through the purchase of new buses for Metro to operate, physical improvements at select study intersections, signal controller upgrades, signalization of select unsignalized intersections, and funding of the implementation of neighborhood traffic protection plans. The mitigation measures would fully mitigate project impacts to a level of insignificance at 16 of the 22 impacted intersections, and the remaining six intersections would be partially mitigated.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-253 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-37
Most intersections will require mitigation and signals to be installed. “Project is projected to generate approximately 19,460 daily vehicle trips, including 1,933 peak-hour vehicle trips.” [p.IV.K-79]
“Maximum retail scenario would generate about 6,871 daily transit person trips, including approximately 512 a.m. peak-hour trips and 676 p.m. peak-hour trips.” [p. IV.K-86]
Response to Comment No. 15-37
With respect to the portion of this comment that states that most intersections will require mitigation and signals to be installed, see Response to Comment No. 15-35, above, for a discussion of the proposed traffic mitigation measures. See also Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities. It should be noted that, as a condition to any project approval, the Applicant would be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures. The balance of this comment correctly restates the number of daily vehicle trips and peak-hour vehicle trips (as discussed on page IV.K-79 in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR) and the number of transit trips (as discussed on page IV.K-86 in the Draft EIR).
Comment No. 15-38
The amount of vehicle and transit trips makes the EIA’s conclusions that traffic impact would be insignificant suspect. The amount of generated trips is substantial and the project will have a significant impact on traffic and transit ridership. The EIA states that there would be no significant impact on transit, however the EIA at the same time calls for more buses to be added to the line that serves the area, which will require cooperation of Metro. [p. IV.K-99]
Response to Comment No. 15-38
The commenter’s opinion regarding the conclusions in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Contrary to this comment, the Draft EIR does not claim that traffic impacts would be insignificant. See Response to Comment No. 15-35, above, for a discussion of the potential project impacts at 22 study intersections and in three neighborhood areas and the proposed mitigation measures. As stated therein, these mitigation measures would fully mitigate the project impacts to a level below significance at 16 of the 22 impacted
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-254 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments intersections, and the remaining six intersections would be partially mitigated, as stated on page IV.K-106 of the Draft EIR. See also Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR includes a comprehensive analysis of available capacity on transit lines serving the study area. As discussed on pages IV.K-85 through IV.K-86 of the Draft EIR, it was concluded that the project would not add substantial new ridership to the transit lines operating in excess of their capacity. Mitigation Measures K-6, K-7, and K-8 would require upgrades to three transit lines that serve the project area in the form of the purchase of three buses, and subsidies for operation and maintenance costs, so that Metro can increase the frequency of service on these lines during peak periods. These mitigation measures are targeted at removing vehicular trips from specific corridors where Project trips would impact study intersections by improving transit service, thus making it more attractive and efficient for project residents who would otherwise drive, as well as other residents who live along the targeted study corridors who would otherwise drive. These mitigation measures are prescribed to reduce vehicular trips by improving transit service and are not intended to mitigate an impact to the transit system because no such impact was identified. The project is located in an extensively urbanized area, with an especially high rate of transit utilization, as typified by the 2000 US Census data that showed 28 percent of residents of the Census Tract where the Project Site is located take transit to work. Accordingly, mitigation measures focused on reducing total automobile trips and increasing the attractiveness and availability of transit have been deemed to be the most beneficial. The addition of bus service as detailed in Topical Response No. 6 was included to increase peak period service frequency, thereby improving transit service, and attracting people to shift from auto to transit in the corridors because they would have access to more convenient transit service.
Comment No. 15-39
Important to note that the project promises $200,000 for mitigation measures, but “failure to deliver a quorum for two consecutive meetings duly called and approved by the Committee shall constitute a declaration of non-interest in the process and the process shall cease, and all unused funds allocated to that neighborhood shall be returned to the Applicant or its successors.” [p. IV.K-103-104]. Table N.K-19 depicts change from recommended mitigation measures, which appear to be insignificant, with most intersections remaining at a LOS E or F level, which is considered an unacceptable level of service. [p. IV.K-107]
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-255 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-39
Per Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, December 2010 and August 2011), neighborhood traffic management plans are required to engage in a stakeholder outreach process while the plan is prepared, so that the plan reflects the priorities of the stakeholders that would be affected by both neighborhood traffic intrusion, as well as the measures that would be developed in the plan process to alleviate neighborhood traffic intrusion. Mitigation Measure K-17 (see Section IV, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR) provides detailed language about how the plan development and stakeholder involvement process would be conducted. Mitigation Measure K-17 requires the Applicant to fund the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan(s) (NTMP), and for subsequent implementation of traffic calming measures contained in the plan(s). However, if there is insufficient stakeholder involvement, a plan cannot be prepared, and if a plan cannot be prepared, neighborhood traffic mitigation measures cannot be implemented. It can be assumed that if a community is unable to develop a consensus on what measures they would like implemented in a neighborhood traffic mitigation plan, it would likely be because the neighborhood does not find the impacts in need of mitigation, or that the measures to solve any impacts would be too much of an inconvenience to warrant installation. For this reason, Mitigation Measure K-17 includes a clause that indicates the $200,000 to be funded by the Applicant would be returned to the Applicant if there is insufficient stakeholder involvement in the development of the neighborhood traffic management plan (as represented by the citizens oversight committee’s failure to deliver a quorum for two consecutive meetings). However, the intent of Mitigation Measure K-17 is that a neighborhood traffic management plan would be prepared and implemented with stakeholder involvement.
As stated on page IV.K-71 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to impact 22 intersections during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours, or during both peak hours. Table IV.K-19 on page IV.K-107 of the Draft EIR indicates which of these 22 impacted intersections would be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance by the proposed mitigation measures based on application of the City of Los Angeles threshold for the determination of significant project impacts. The City significance criteria is set forth in the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, December 2010 and August 2011) and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, 2006) and relate to the incremental change in conditions caused by a proposed project over the baseline condition. Per the City’s criteria, mitigation of a project impact to a level below significance means mitigating the project’s incremental impact, not necessarily eliminating LOS E or F conditions that are present without the project. As indicated in Table IV.K-19, the proposed mitigation measures would fully mitigate project impacts at 16 of the 22 study intersections and would partially mitigate impacts at the remaining six impacted intersections. No feasible mitigation measures were identified at the six remaining intersections to fully mitigate City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-256 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments project impacts. See also Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
Furthermore, because Boyle Heights is an older, built-out neighborhood of Los Angeles, there are few feasible physical measures available to improve intersections to a LOS of D or better. Significant intersection widenings would be required to improve intersections to this LOS standard, which would require the acquisition of right of way from adjacent parcels, which in turn would negatively affect homes and businesses adjacent to these intersections. Street widenings to achieve LOS D or better would also negatively affect pedestrian safety and the walkability of Boyle Heights as well as the availability of parking for local commercial uses. Furthermore, while the project is required to address project impacts, the project is not required to improve poor operating conditions that are present without the project.
Comment No. 15-40
Utilities and Service Systems (Draft EIR Section L)
Water Supply: To meet its legal burden under CEQA, the water supply section of a DEIR must meet the standards set forth by the California Supreme Court in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412, 430-32 (2007):
(1) Decision makers must be presented with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need;
(2) Future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations (‘paper water’) are insufficient bases for decision-making under CEQA. An EIR for the land use project must address the impacts of likely future water sources, and the EIR‟s discussion must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s availability;
(3) If it is “impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies.”
The DEIR Provides Decision Makers with Insufficient Facts to Evaluate Supplying Water to Project: The DEIR starts out putting the cart before the horse by assuming there will be adequate water to meet the Project’s demand without sufficient facts to evaluate whether
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-257 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments supply will be available. (DEIR, pp. IV.L-46 & 50) Under California law, a WSA is an informational document prepared by a water supplier, at the request of the local agency. (See Cal. Water Code §10910; see also California Water Impact Network v. Newhall Ranch Water District (2008) 161 (Cal.App.4th 1464, 1487-88) [The lead agency has a separate (from the water provider’s WSA) and independent responsibility to assess the sufficiency of water supplies for the proposed project.] After receiving the WSA, the local agency may include it in the EIR, but the local agency is required to make an independent decision, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. (Cal. Water Code §10911(c); see also CWIN, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 1487) [The power to ‘evaluate’ WSA necessarily invests the lead agency with the authority to consider, assess and examine the quality of the information in the WSA and endows the lead agency with the right to pass judgment upon the WSA. While the lead agency must include the WSA in the EIR, the lead agency is not required to accept the WSA’s conclusions. The lead agency may in evaluating the WSA accept or disagree with the water provider’s analysis or may request additional information from the water provider. In any event, the lead agency is required by statute to make the ultimate determination, based on the entire record, whether water supplies are sufficient.])
Response to Comment No. 15-40
The first portion of this comment correctly summarizes certain principles for analytical adequacy of future water supplies under CEQA in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412, 430–32 (2007). It should be noted, however, that the Vineyard case also held that “CEQA should not be understood to require assurances of certainty regarding long-term future water supplies at an early phase of planning for large land development projects” (Vineyard at 432) and “CEQA…does not require a city or county, each time a new land use development comes up for approval, to reinvent the water planning wheel. Every urban water supplier is already required to prepare and periodically update an ‘urban water management plan,’ which must, inter alia, describe and project estimated past, present, and future water sources, and the supply and demand for at least 20 years into the future. (Wat.Code, §§10620–10631.) When an individual land use project requires CEQA evaluation, the urban water management plan's information and analysis may be incorporated in the water supply and demand assessment required by both the Water Code and CEQA ‘[i]f the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan.’ (Wat.Code § 10910, subd. (c)(2).) Thus the Water Code and the CEQA provision requiring compliance with it (Pub. Resources Code, §21151.9) contemplate that analysis in an individual project's CEQA evaluation may incorporate previous overall water planning projections, assuming the individual project's demand was included in the overall water plan.” (Vineyard at 434–435.)
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-258 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Moreover, the Newhall case cited in the comment found that a WSA approved by a water provider may in fact constitute the “final” opinion of the provider as to the sufficiency of the current water supply and/or final determination as to the provider's plans for acquiring or developing additional water supplies. Such finality, however, does not mean the WSA is “final” for the purposes of judicial intervention by way of mandamus review. The court was clear that a lead agency may, in evaluating the WSA, accept or disagree with the water provider's analysis or may request additional information from the water provider. In any event, the lead agency is required by statute to make the ultimate determination, based on the entire record, whether water supplies are sufficient. (Newhall at 409–410.)
The Draft EIR’s conclusion that there will be adequate water to meet the project’s water demand is consistent with the findings of the WSA prepared for the proposed project by LADWP and adopted by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners on November 3, 2009. The WSA, attached as Appendix M.1 to the Draft EIR, was prepared in accordance with California State Water Code Sections 10910-10915. Consistent with the express holding in the Vineyard case, the WSA analyzes the project within the context of the operative Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP), the principal water supply planning document for the City. The UWMP projects future water demands based on historical trends in billing data, projections of water conservation, and demographic projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The UWMP identifies anticipated new water supplies needed to meet new demand, and outlines initiatives to provide necessary water supplies, including conservation measures and other strategies, to meet the City’s growing water demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 25-year planning horizon. The WSA also accounts for unique conditions at the time the WSA is prepared, such as restrictions on State Water Project (SWP) pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta imposed by a federal court. Pages 5 and 27 of the WSA state that anticipated water demand from the project falls within the UWMP’s projected water supplies for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through the year 2030 and within the UWMP’s 25-year water demand growth projection. Therefore, the conclusion of the WSA and Draft EIR that adequate water supplies are available to serve the proposed project is supported by substantial evidence. As the lead agency for the proposed project, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department concurs with the conclusions of the WSA prepared by LADWP.
It should also be noted that a number of important changes have occurred since LADWP prepared its 2005 UWMP that further bolster the conclusion that there will be adequate water to serve the proposed project. First, LADWP developed more focused strategies in 2008 to address the water reliability issues associated with the lower snowpack on record in the Sierra Nevada (in 2007), it was the driest year on record for the Los Angeles Basin (in 2007), there was an increase in water required for environmental
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-259 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments mitigation and enhancement in the Owens Valley, San Fernando Groundwater Basin contamination, and reduced imported water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) due to a prolonged water shortage and environmental restrictions on Delta exports. Second, a number of new requirements were added to the Urban Water Management Planning Act, such as addressing California’s new mandate of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. And third, LADWP developed a new water demand forecast based on a more rigorous analysis of water use trends and measurement of achieved water conservation.
The 2010 UWMP projects a 15 percent lower water demand trend than what was projected in the previous 2005 UWMP. It outlines plans to significantly increase water conservation and local water supplies by the year 2035. This will allow the City to reduce water purchases from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California by half. Thus, the information both within the WSA and the record as a whole supports the conclusion that there will be adequate water to serve the project.
Comment No. 15-41
The DEIR knowingly adopts Los Angeles Department of Water & Power’s (LADWP) underestimates of water demand written into its Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA’s demand analysis bases existing and projected demand on prescribed water use rates, rather than billing records. This error fails to account for higher than average occupancy or infrastructural compromises such as leaks. Though the DEIR corrects this problem by estimating demand on billing data, the DEIR authors ultimately rely on the WSA’s demand estimates which are 31% lower. (DEIR p. IV.L-25 citing Census data (Sec. IV-. I. 3., Population). As a result, the DEIR skews facts about the Project’s water supply needs from the outset.
Similarly, the WSA’s conservation projections err in projecting demand based on prescribed water use rates further skewing facts about needed conservation. While the WSA relies on an impressive array of conservation measures, it is questionable that a project which nearly quadruples the number of dwelling units and more than doubles the square-footage of commercial and institutional space would demand little more than double the water supply. (App.M.1 p. WSA, p.8) Instead of using prescribed water rates to increased demand, authors should use a combination of current census data and historic billing rates to predict more accurate conservation potential.
Response to Comment No. 15-41
The Draft EIR does not “skew facts about the Project’s water supply needs from the outset.” The discussion on page IV.L-25 in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-260 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments explicitly states that actual domestic water consumption is believed to be 31 percent higher than what is estimated in the WSA, based on billing records for the project site from 2006, 2007, and 2008. The difference in the existing water use relative to the water use calculated using LADWP factors is likely attributable to a higher percentage of irrigated surfaces, irrigation techniques, leakage of the aging water pipes, antiquated toilets and faucets which use more water, and significantly higher than average existing unit occupancy rates as evidenced by the Census data for the project site (see Section IV.I.3, Population, of this Draft EIR). Because the existing on-site uses would be removed under the project, the existing water consumption is applied as a credit against future water consumption to determine the net increase in water demand that would be generated by the project (see Table IV.L-7 on page IV.L-45 of the Draft EIR). Therefore, a higher estimate of existing water use results in a lower estimate of project’s net increase in water demand. Because Draft EIR assumed the lower estimate of existing water consumption from the WSA, the Draft EIR provides a conservative assessment of project impacts that likely overstates the net increase in water demand that would be generated by the project.
There is no reason to expect that the current higher than typical water usage would continue once the project is built. There would be improved irrigation systems, better irrigation techniques, elimination of the aging water pipes, and replacement of the toilets and other plumbing fixtures with water-conserving models. Moreover, one of the express goals of the project is to reduce the current overcrowded occupancies by creating a supply of covenanted affordable housing that would enable residents to pay below-market rents, thus eliminating the need for double and triple occupancies. See Section IV.I.3, Population, of the Draft EIR. In addition, it is expected that the other housing product types to be included in the proposed project will consume water at rates that are more typical throughout the City.
In accordance with standard LADWP methodology, the WSA’s estimate of the project’s indoor water use is based on sewer generation factors promulgated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation. These sewer generation factors are pre-determined average sewer flow for different types of uses such as residential dwelling units shown as gallons per day per dwelling unit, and commercial uses shown as gallons per day per square footage or other applicable units. There is a direct relationship between indoor water use and sewer flow. The sewer generation rates for multi-family residential dwelling units were determined based on the water consumption data from LADWP, the 90 percent sewage-to-water ratio (90 percent indoor water use and 10 percent outdoor water use), the number of bedrooms and average number of persons per bedroom unit, and water savings due to installing water efficient toilets. LADWP believes that applying the sewer generation factors to the detailed land use types for both existing and proposed uses provides an appropriate estimate of future net water demand. The use of historic billing rates to estimate the project’s water demand would not be
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-261 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments appropriate because, as stated above, such rates are influenced by conditions that would no longer occur on the project site upon implementation of the project, such as inefficient irrigation techniques, leakage of the aging water pipes, antiquated toilets and faucets which use more water, and higher than average unit occupancy rates as evidenced by the Census data for the project site.
The WSA also accounts for the application of water conservation measures, based on additional conservation commitments by the Applicant, and estimates that these conservation measures would reduce the project’s net increase in water demand by approximately 276 acre-feet per year (AFY) (see Table IV.L-7 on page IV.L-45 of the Draft EIR). The calculations for these conservation measures are provided in Table II on page 9 of the WSA (included as Appendix M.1 of the Draft EIR). As shown, a water saving factor is applied to each of the proposed number and type of plumbing fixtures (such as toilets) to estimate the amount of water saved. A water savings factor shows how much water can be saved in gallons per day per unit for residential uses or per plumbing fixture for commercial uses, when taking into account the Applicant’s committed use of more efficient fixture types. Residential water saving factors are based on factors such as the number of people per dwelling unit, number of uses of a plumbing fixture per day, duration of uses per day, and the difference between the baseline and water efficient flow rates. Some of the commercial water saving factors are from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) estimates, and some are estimated similar to residential water saving factors, applying number of uses and duration per day. The water savings factor for each type of plumbing fixture is based on the Handbook of Water Use and Conservation by Amy Vickers, MWD—Save A Buck Program, and LADWP estimates. These water savings factors are average factors for the City of Los Angeles based on the average occupancy rate and weather.
LADWP has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in water conservation since 1990. These conservation investments include various active programs such as high efficiency toilet rebates, commercial/industrial water audits, and education and public outreach. Water conservation in 2009 represents the highest levels of conservation so far, which reflects a combination of active conservation programs, heightened public education and outreach, and mandatory conservation measures. In an effort to quantify its water conservation efforts, LADWP developed a statistical Conservation Model that correlates total monthly water use in the City with population, weather, the presence of mandatory water conservation, and economic recessions. According to the Conservation Model, during periods of water shortage, even when mandatory water conservation is not in place, there is more conservation occurring due to extensive public education and outreach. The trend toward increased conservation is overwhelmingly positive. Specifically, LADWP
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-262 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments estimates that in 2009, a 25 percent to 29 percent water savings was achieved compared to the 1990 base year.47 A press release from LADWP in February 2011 indicated that single-family residential customers used 24 percent less water in February 2011 when compared to the same month in 2007.48 Water use in February was also down citywide as customers across all sectors achieved a 17 percent reduction, far exceeding the initial goal of 10 percent set in July 2007, when Mayor Villaraigosa first urged residents of Los Angeles to conserve. Thus, there is no information to suggest that the water conservation assumptions are not supportable.
With regard to enforceability, as discussed on pages 3 and 4 of the LADWP Board Approval Letter preceding the WSA, the conservation measures applied in the WSA were developed in consultation with the Applicant. The Applicant provided to LADWP a written commitment to implement the planned water conservation measures, which was attached as Appendix B of the WSA. Furthermore, the conservation measures were incorporated as Project Design Features L.1-2 through L.1-4 in the Draft EIR. As Project Design Features, these conservation measures would be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR) for the proposed project and would be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Comment No. 15-42
The DEIR Inadequately Analyzes the Likelihood of Available Supplies and the Impacts of Uncertain Supplies on the Project, Rendering Supplies Speculative Throughout for Decision-makers: Instead of adequately analyzing the likelihood of available water supplies and the impacts of shortages on the project, the DEIR dumps, obscures, and contradicts information to avoid drawing decision makers to a conclusion that water supplies are speculative.
For instance, the DEIR dumps voluminous records about complex water supply negotiations into the text leaving it to decision makers to parse through details to surmise whether and how much water may be available. For instance, the DEIR liberally references and includes Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) entire 85-page attachment: Official
47 LADWP, 2010 Urban Water Master Plan, Section 2.2., Quantification of Historical Water Conservation, Exhibit 2F, p.42. 48 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (2011) Water Conservation Level Nears 25% Among LADWP Residential Customers in February 2011 [Press release], www.ladwpnews.com/go/doc/1475/ 972803/Water-Conservation-Level-Nears-25-Among-LADWP-Residential-Customers-in-February-2011. See Appendix FEIR-14 to this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-263 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Statement regarding MWD‟s California Water Revenue Bond (2008 Authorization). (App. M.1. App. G. p. 80). While the references and attachment provide detailed information about the scientific and legal pressures on the regional wholesalers water supply, the DEIR fails to analyze how this uncertainty will impact the Project’s water supply.
First, the DEIR provides an incomplete analysis about potential shortages of imported water. The DEIR provides that “based on the hydrological models and accounting for the range of climate change scenarios and reductions associated with the Delta Smelt, average SWP deliveries from the Delta could be decreased between 66 to 69 percent of the maximum delivery amount of 4.133 MAF. The minimum annual delivery (during a single dry year) would range from 6 to 7 percent of the maximum amount allocated for delivery.” (DEIR, p. IV L-47) Note how the DEIR obfuscates this analysis by first providing a decreased average amount of deliveries and then providing an actual amount during a single dry year. Further, note that the DEIR never discusses deliveries during wet years or multiple dry years as is the norm in water supply projects.
Response to Comment No. 15-42
The analysis in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR is based on the WSA prepared for the proposed project by DWP. See Response to Comment No. 15-40 regarding the adequacy of the WSA. As discussed therein, the conclusion of the WSA and Draft EIR that adequate water supplies are available to serve the proposed project is supported by substantial evidence and is not speculative as implied by the comment.
The Draft EIR does not “leave it to decision makers to parse through details to surmise whether and how much water may be available.” The task of supplying water to California’s residents is an exceptionally complex and dynamic issue. Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR includes an Environmental Setting section to enable a meaningful assessment of the proposed project’s impacts to water supply, in accordance with Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines. This section includes a description of existing water supply sources; recent actions that could affect these sources, including restrictions on SWP pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta imposed by a federal court; MWD plans and programs to address these actions and ensure adequate water supply; drought conditions; the relationship between global warming and water supply; water conservation and recycling programs; state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to water supply; and the existing water demand and infrastructure at the project site. Each of these subjects is germane to the analysis of the proposed project’s water supply impacts. Regarding the example provided in the comment, the relevant details from Appendix G of the WSA, entitled “The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,” are summarized in the Environmental Setting section of Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR on pages IV.L-6 through IV.L-20 and pages IV.L-31 through IV.L-34.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-264 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Contrary to the comment, the Draft EIR does not fail to analyze how uncertainty regarding MWD water supplies would affect the proposed project’s water supply. Page IV.L-46 of the Draft EIR states that the project’s estimated net water demand of 445 AFY would be within the available and projected water supplies for normal, single-dry and multi- dry years through the year 2030 and within the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)’s 25 year water demand growth projection, based on the findings of the WSA. As acknowledged by the comment, page IV.L-47 of the Draft EIR goes on to state that average SWP deliveries from the Delta could be decreased to between 66 to 69 percent of the maximum delivery amount of 4.133 million AF. The minimum annual delivery from the SWP (during a single-dry year) would range from 6 percent to 7 percent of the maximum amount allocated for delivery. As a result, MWD continues to develop programs to meet its reliability within its traditional core supplies, collaborate with member agencies to implement a water supply buffer to address uncertainty, and use an adaptive management approach to address other future supply vulnerabilities and uncertainties. MWD will continue to rely on the plans and policies outlined in its Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) and Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) to address water supply shortages and interruptions to meet the full service demands of its member agencies. MWD has also developed a Water Supply Allocation Plan, which prescribes a detailed water supply allocation plan or implementation approach during extreme water shortage in MWD’s service area conditions (i.e., drought conditions or unforeseen cuts in water supplies). The Water Supply Allocation Plan allows for MWD to cut water allocations across the board (i.e., to all member agencies) with adjustments for the member agency’s dependency on MWD’s water supplies and the agency’s water conservation savings from programs and devices. The comment does not take into account MWD’s other supplies, such as the Colorado River, storage, and other programs, and how they would help to mitigate reductions in SWP deliveries, in addition to LADWP’s efforts (described below). For example, MWD has more than 5.0 million acre-feet of storage capacity available in reservoirs and banking/transfer programs, with more than 2.5 million acre-feet currently in storage.
Furthermore, as discussed on page IV.L-47 of the Draft EIR, LADWP has also prepared its plan "Securing L.A.'s Water Supply,” which serves as a blueprint for creating sustainable sources of water for the City of Los Angeles to reduce dependence on imported supplies. This plan incorporates an aggressive multi-pronged approach that includes: investments in state-of-the-art technology; a combination of rebates and incentives; the installation of smart sprinklers, efficient washers and urinals; and long-term measures such as expansion of water recycling and investment in cleaning up the local groundwater supply. This plan also takes into account the realities of climate change and the dangers of drought and dry weather. The primary premise of the plan is that the City will meet all new demand for water due to projected population growth through a combination of water conservation and water recycling. The plan also specifically addresses the current and future SWP supply shortages. The plan specifically concludes
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-265 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments that MWD’s actions in response to the threats to the SWP will ensure continued reliability of its water deliveries. The plan further states that “despite concerns about ongoing water shortages and higher costs, MWD has upheld its pledge to plan for emergencies and natural disasters throughout this region.” MWD estimates its calendar year 2009 non- emergency storage to be 1,092,000 acre-feet in surface and groundwater storage accounts plus 670,000 acre-feet of storage reserved for emergencies. In total, this reserve of water supplies will be used to buffer the severity of a potential shortage. Furthermore, by focusing on demand reduction, implementation of the plan will ensure that long-term dependence on MWD supplies will not be exacerbated by potential future shortages. Based on these efforts by MWD and LADWP, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts on water supply would be less than significant, even given the known uncertainties regarding MWD water supplies.
The discussion in the Draft EIR regarding the decrease of the average SWP deliveries from the Delta and the minimum annual delivery during a single dry year is based on Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 of the State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2007 (page 62). Chapter 7 provides guidance to SWP contractors on how to apply future delivery estimates to water management plans. Table 7.1 provides the average percentage of the maximum SWP delivery from the Delta for average, single-dry, and two-, four-, and six-year multiple dry year scenarios from 2007 to 2027 in five-year increments. The Draft EIR cites the average year values as well as the single-dry (i.e., worst case) values as a point of reference for estimating potential delivery decreases from the Delta. The Draft EIR accurately presents the data in Table 7.1 and does not “obfuscate” the information therein.
The comment incorrectly states that “the DEIR never discusses deliveries during wet years or multiple dry years as is the norm in water supply projects.” In accordance with California State Water Code Section 10910(c)(3), the WSA analyzes whether projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years will meet the proposed project’s estimated water demand. This is stated throughout the WSA (see, for example, pages 1, 2, and 4 of the LADWP Board Approval letter appended the WSA and pages 5 and 27 of the WSA). Based on this analysis, the Draft EIR concludes on page IV.L-46 that the project’s estimated net water demand of 445 AFY would be within the available and projected water supplies for normal, single-dry and multi-dry years through the year 2030 and within the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)’s 25 year water demand growth projection. California State Water Code Section 10910(c)(3) does not require an analysis of wet years because water supplies are greater during these years than during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years, nor is it typical for WSAs to include such an analysis.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-266 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
In response to this comment, the text on pages IV.L-46 and IV.L-47 in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Based on the hydrological models and accounting for the range of climate change scenarios and reductions associated with the Delta Smelt, average SWP deliveries from the Delta could be decreased to between 66 to 69 percent of the maximum delivery amount of 4.133 million AF. The minimum annual delivery from the SWP (during a single-dry year) would range from 6 to 7 percent of the maximum amount allocated for delivery.
Comment No. 15-43
Similarly, the DEIR fails to completely analyze how it reaches the conclusion that LADWP will draw on an average of 200,000-230,000 AF from the Los Angeles Aqueduct. (DEIR, p. IV. L-4) The DEIR provides that LADWP gets 561,000 AF from the LAA, but provides 286,000 AF to environmental mitigation and restoration programs. This leaves LADWP with 275,000 AF, which is more than twice as much as LADWP has taken from the LAA since 2007. It also leaves decision makers questioning: how does LADWP expect to draw twice as much water from the LAA?
Response to Comment No. 15-43
The comment incorrectly states that “LADWP gets 561,000 AF from the LAA.” As shown in Table IV.L-1 on page IV.L-2 of Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, DWP’s total water supply in 2009 was 561,306 AF, of which 137,084 AF came from the LAA. The comment appears to misinterpret the description of the LAA on page IV.L-3 of the Draft EIR that states “[i]n 1970, the second LAA was completed, increasing total delivery capacity of the LAA system to approximately 561,000 AF per year.” Though the LAA system has the capacity to deliver 561,000 AF to LADWP, the total contributions from the LAA to LADWP have ranged from 137,084 AF in 2009 to 466,836 AF in 1998, as shown in Table IV.L-1. Average deliveries from the LAA system have been approximately 239,100 AF of water annually over the last five fiscal years.
The comment correctly references the discussion on page IV.L-4 in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, which states that “LADWP projects that the average annual LAA delivery is expected to be between approximately 200,000 AF to 230,000 AF.” The estimated average LAA delivery to the City is calculated using the LADWP’s runoff forecast models and the LA Aqueduct Simulation Model (LAASM) program. The projected delivery amount of 200,000-230,000 AFY is well within the total capacity of the LAA (561,000 AF)
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-267 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments and is proportionate to average annual deliveries to LADWP from the LAA system over the last five fiscal years (239,100 AF).
As stated in the comment, DWP provides approximately 286,000 AFY for environmental mitigation and restoration programs. As discussed on pages IV.L-3 through IV.L-4 in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, this total is comprised of: 37,000 AFY for enhancement and mitigation projects throughout Owens Valley; 80,000 AFY for other uses in the Owens Valley such as irrigation, town water supplies, stockwater, wildlife and recreational purposes; up to 74,000 AFY for environmental restoration in Mono Basin; and an estimated 95,000 AFY to sustain the Owens Lake dust mitigation program. This water is used at the originating point of the LAA and is separate from the water sent down the LAA to LADWP.
Comment No. 15-44
Then, despite data on water shortage scenarios, the DEIR fails to analyze the impact of shortages on the Project’s water supply. Based on the data above, a simple calculation would show that a 66-69% reduction of MWD’s State Water Project (SWP) allocation (1,911,500 AF) would result in 649,900-592,565 AF divided among MWD’s 26 member agencies. Because LADWP gets a preferential 21.6 percent of MWD’s allocation, the reduction would result in 140,378-127,994 AF. This amount is less than LADWP has relied upon from MWD in every year recorded in Table IV.L-1, with the exception of 1998. Taking the analysis one step further, a simple calculation of 6-7% of MWD’s maximum allocation would result in 114,690-133,805 AF, resulting in 24,773-28,902 AF for LADWP. In fact, LADWP has not received so little water from MWD before. Because LADWP relies so heavily on MWD imports (63.2 percent of its overall supply in 2009), an analysis of water shortages demonstrates that LADWP’s water supplies may not be available to meet the Project’s demand. (see Table IV. L-1, p.IV.L-2)
Response to Comment No. 15-44
See Response to Comment No. 15-42.
Comment No. 15-45
Next the DEIR provides contradictory information regarding reliable climate change data on major supply areas like the SWP. An EIR that contains statements that are “at best confusing and at worse self-contradictory” on key issues is inadequate.” (San Joaquin Raptor Center, supra, 149 Cal. App. at 656 fn. 4) First, the DEIR cites to the Department of Water Resource’s, “2007 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report,” which provides that “depending on the climate change conditions, average yearly SWP Table A deliveries in 2027 would be reduced by 31 to 34 percent.” (DEIR, p. IV.L-22 see summary of attached City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-268 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
2007 Report provided by LAFCO) This report was published on August 28, 2008, which was more than three years before release of this DEIR. Then the DEIR cites to an earlier 2007 Los Angeles Superior Court decision regarding a 2005 case (California Oak Foundation) wherein the court finds that the “City is in no better position [than DWR] to quantify the effects of global warming on the reliability of SWP water and that it is not required to do so under CEQA.” (DEIR, p. IV.L-54, FN31) In short, the DEIR provides contradictory information so as to deny the current state-held understanding that global warming will impact water supplies and water agencies can begin to quantify its effects on the reliability of that supply.
Response to Comment No. 15-45
Contrary to the comment, the Draft EIR does not “deny the current state-held understanding that global warming will impact water supplies and water agencies can begin to quantify its effects on the reliability of that supply.” Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR includes a subsection entitled “Global Warming and Water Supply” on page IV.L-54. As discussed therein, there are complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change that make it difficult to predict what the effects of global climate change will be, particularly at a State or local level. Due to this unpredictability, the secondary effects that global climate change may have on water supplies for a given region are even more difficult to predict.49 While the DWR does provide estimates of the impacts of global climate change an SWP supplies, the science on global warming is still evolving. Furthermore, policy recommendations on how to incorporate potential changes to water supply due to climate change into water resource planning and management are still being developed. As discussed in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, LADWP’s Securing LA’s Water Supply plan takes into account the realities of climate change. However, consistent with studies prepared by DWR, it is considered premature to make an assessment of how climate change will specifically affect water availability for the proposed project.
49 The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a statement of decision (Case No. BS 084677) on August 15, 2007, which upheld a local agency’s Return to a Writ of Mandate and Final Additional Analysis to an EIR for a local development project (California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th) and struck down certification of the EIR for the Gate King project because it did not address legal uncertainties surrounding a water transfer. Among other issues, the statement of decision dealt with the analysis of the potential impact of global warming on water supplies and concluded that it was proper that no quantification of the impact of climate change on the reliability of SWP water was prepared because DWR has indicated in its reports that quantification is premature. The statement of decision indicates that DWR, with the most expertise on water supply in California, has determined that the science on global warming has not reached a point where it can be quantified and incorporated into delivery projections of the SWP. Accordingly, the statement of decision also concludes that the City is in no better position to quantify the effects of global warming on the reliability of SWP water and that it is not required to do so under CEQA.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-269 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
As acknowledged in the comment, Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR provides a discussion regarding DWR’s estimates of how SWP Table A water deliveries may be affected by global climate change. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-42, the SWP is one of several sources of MWD’s overall water supply. MWD continues to develop programs to meet its reliability within its traditional core supplies, collaborate with member agencies to implement a water supply buffer to address uncertainty, and use an adaptive management approach to address other future supply vulnerabilities and uncertainties.
Comment No. 15-46
The DEIR Fails to Adequately Discuss Replacement Sources or Alternatives to Use of Anticipated Water: Like the numerous WSA’s issued by LADWP between May 2008 and May 2010, this WSA is based on outdated and inconsistent information about replacement or alternative water supplies. The WSA relies heavily on the Mayor’s “Securing L.A.’s Water Supply Plan” to show that LADWP could meet all new demand for water due to projected population growth through a combination of water conservation and water recycling.” (DEIR p. IV. L-48) However, on May 17, 2010, shortly after the WSA was approved, the LADWP Board approved revisions to the water supply reliability initiatives outlined in the Mayor’s Plan. Staff recommended the Board defer water supply reliability projects such as increasing water conservation, increasing water recycling, enhancing stormwater capture, cleaning-up San Fernando Groundwater Basin, and developing additional groundwater storage. Because the deferred projects are the ones relied upon in the Mayor’s Plan, the DEIR cannot continue to rely on these replacement sources to offset the Project’s reliance on other speculative supplies. To the contrary, because LADWP issued numerous WSAs relying on these deferred projects, their WSA approvals will cause an even greater strain on imported supplies as projects are implemented. The DEIR should have corrected for this oversight and acknowledged that replacement supplies are speculative as well.
Though the DEIR plainly characterizes some replacement sources as speculative it fails to provide alternatives. Twice, the DEIR refers to Central Basin Municipal Water District’s (CBMWD) thwarted water recycling plan as an alternative supply. First, the DEIR explains that “due the economic feasibility of the second phase of planned construction, CBMWD has suspended its design and construction efforts required to complete the [Southeast Water Reliability Project]….” (DEIR p. IV. L-28, emphasis included) Next, in the “Project Impacts” section of the DEIR, the language provides that “Since the proposed project cannot on its own satisfy the customer demand threshold for economic feasibility, the proposed project is not assured of access to recycled water.” (DEIR p. IV. L-48) Because the DEIR fails to provide information about how CBMWD will overcome the obstacles to getting its project funded and constructed or alternative to this project, the Lead Agency has little reason to deduce that replacement sources are available. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-270 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-46
Contrary to the comment, a LADWP Board Meeting was not held on May 17, 2010. Therefore, it is not possible to verify the “revisions to the water supply reliability initiatives outlined in the Mayor’s Plan” as stated by the commenter. In any case, the LADWP relies on the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), not Securing L.A.’s Water Supply,50 to support its long-term resource planning and to ensure adequate water supplies. The 2010 UWMP serves two purposes: (1) achieve full compliance with requirements of California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act; and (2) serve as a master plan for water supply and resources management consistent with the City’s goals and policy objectives. LADWP’s 2010 UWMP provides water supply and demand projections in five-year increments to 2035, based on projected population estimates provided by the Southern California Association of Governments.
To determine the overall service area reliability, the 2005 UWMP, which forms the basis for the proposed project’s WSA, evaluated three hydrologic conditions: average (or normal weather); single dry year (such as a repeat of the 1976/77 drought); and multi-dry year period (such as a repeat of the 1987-91 drought). The UWMP concluded that in a normal weather year, approximately 66 percent of the total supply will be from existing and planned locally developed supplies. The potential supplies and additional potential conservation represent 14 percent. The remaining 20 percent of supply will be imported water from MWD. Should the potential supplies not be developed due to cost, regulatory, technology, and/or customer acceptance, then the MWD portion of supply would represent 34 percent. During a dry year, existing and planned locally developed supplies represent 46 percent of the total supplies while 15 percent is potential supplies and conservation. The remaining 39 percent is imported water from MWD.
In addition, a water shortage contingency plan was developed by the City to provide for a sufficient and continuous supply of water in case of a water supply shortage in the service area. The City has stages of actions that can be undertaken in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. These stages are imposed depending on the severity of the shortage.
Water supply planning is based on meeting long-term demands. An important part of this planning process is for LADWP to work collaboratively with the MWD to ensure that the City of Los Angeles’ anticipated water demands are incorporated into MWD’s long-term
50 As discussed in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, Securing L.A.’s Water Supply was prepared by the Mayor and LADWP and serves as a template for creating sustainable sources of water for the future of the City to reduce dependence on imported supplies.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-271 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments water resources development plan. This is a continuous regional effort that includes all of MWD’s member agencies, and has resulted in reliable supplemental water supplies for the City from MWD. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-42, MWD has and continues to provide assurances that there is a reliable supply to meet water demands. Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-40, the 2010 UWMP projects a 15 percent lower water demand trend than what was projected in the previous 2005 UWMP, and water conservation measures have been more effective than originally projected. There is nothing to suggest that the deferred water supply reliability projects will have an impact on the ability to supply water to the proposed project. LADWP representatives continue to concur with the conclusions in the WSA.51
The Draft EIR does not rely on the CBMWD’s recycled water project as a basis for determining that water supply impacts are less than significant. As acknowledged in the comment, the Draft EIR recognizes that there is no certainty that this project will be constructed. Therefore, the water conservation that is factored into the estimate of the project’s water demand does not account for a recycled water system. See Response to Comment No. 15-41. However, the Water Conservation Commitment Letter included as Appendix B of the WSA, which is included as Appendix M.1 of the Draft EIR, specifies that “the proposed Specific Plan shall include language to encourage graywater systems within individual buildings of developments.” Therefore, the project includes Project Design Features IV.L.1-5 and IV.L.1-6 to support the use of recycled water at the project site. However, these Project Design Features are not factored into the calculation of the project’s water use.
Comment No. 15-47
Wastewater Analysis: The DEIR fails to adequately address the impacts of the additional construction while simultaneously still meeting the needs of the tenants and the site as a whole. The DEIR use of LADWP’s billing records to find that 354,550 gpd of wastewater was generated states that this high gpd number is likely associated with inefficiencies such as antiquated toilets and leakages. (DEIR, IV.L-63) Yet the report is unclear as to if any of the plumbing would be addressed other than when the units are demolished. This would possibly leave plumbing problems to continue through 2030 – the site’s end completion date. Faulty plumbing could potentially worsen problems such as flooding and in general continue to create inefficiencies that are unaddressed in the DEIR. It is also worth noting that the DEIR is devoid of any mention of the history of wastewater problems the site has experienced due to lack of adequate maintenance.
51 Personal communication with Jin Hwang, Civil Engineering Associate, Water Resources Group, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, April 5, 2012, and Matrix Environmental staff.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-272 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-47
The higher than expected water usage at the project site as indicated by the LADWP’s billing records could be due to a number of factors, including higher than average occupants per units, older plumbing fixtures, and leaky pipes. As indicated in the Sewer Capacity Study included as Appendix M.3 to the Draft EIR, repairs were made to the project’s water system in 2008 and these could be the reason why total water consumption declined that year. Leaky pipes will continue to be addressed as part of routine property maintenance (as was the case in 2008). Although the property will continue to be maintained and repaired over time, and plumbing problems will be remedied as they arise, the project would not include replacement of exisiting plumbing fixtures in exisiting units during the phased construction of the project, nor is this required by CEQA. An analysis of any existing plumbing deficiencies is outside the scope of the Draft EIR. Moreover, there is no evidence of wastewater problems at the site due to a lack of maintenance, nor have there been plumbing problems that created ponding or flooding on site. The suggestion that the deficiencies in the site are the result of neglect or lack of maintenance is not supported by facts. The current ownership has spent more than $7,500,000 on repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements over the past six years, even as plans for modernization of the units have been prepared and studied.52 These costs are solely for property upkeep and exclude payroll, management, security, taxes, insurance, and many other costs associated with running an apartment community of this size. Further, on a per apartment basis, these costs are significantly understated because much of the work is done in-house by maintenance staff and the payroll is not included in the $7.5 million in expenditures. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The proposed wastewater systems associated with the new phased construction will be designed to meet the City’s design requirements and codes.
Comment No. 15-48
Furthermore, the DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts of wastewater discharge on the antiquated facilities during construction. It is unclear whether new constructed buildings will discharge and/or effect [sic] existing lines. The DEIR never discusses the creation of lateral lines. Project Design Feature L.2-3 states that “[a]ll proposed on-site sewer mainlines shall be publicly owned and located either in the public street rights-of-way or easement. The diameter of the new mainline sewers shall vary from 12 to 27 inches.” (DEIR, IV.L-71) While this provides some idea that new sewer lines will be constructed, it
52 Fifteen Group Land and Development, Letter to Ms. Ana Cubas, Chief of Staff for Councilman Jose Huizar, October 20, 2011. See Appendix FEIR-11 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-273 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments does not provide sufficient information to determine if any older lateral lines or other mainline sewers, other than the trunk sewers, will remain operational and if these lines will be inspected and repaired if necessary.
Response to Comment No. 15-48
Pages IV.L-70 and IV.L-71 in Section IV.L.2, Wastewater, of the Draft EIR, include a detailed description of the phased construction of sewer lines. As discussed therein, the proposed sewer system would be completed in a phased manner, adding new public sewers as construction advances. Specifically, new development associated with Phases 1, 2, and 3 and a portion of Phase 4 (which would include all proposed non- residential uses) would be served by the proposed 27-inch trunk sewer that would connect to Sewer Pump Plant No. 606. As existing units are removed with each subsequent phase, wastewater discharge to the Camulos trunk sewer would be reduced. As phases are constructed, flow to the new 27-inch trunk sewer and Pumping Plant No. 606 would increase. The remaining portion of Phase 4 and all of Phase 5 would connect to the existing 30-inch Camulos trunk sewer. At no time would the proposed project increase wastewater discharge to the Camulos trunk sewer above the current site discharge of 172,189 gpd. It is anticipated that upon project completion, wastewater flow from the site to the Camulos trunk sewer would be less than the current flow from the site to this line. In response to this comment, the following additional project design features have been added to page IV.L-82 in Section IV.L.2, Wastewater, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Project Design Feature L.2-7: Existing sewer lines and laterals outside limits of a current phase shall be analyzed prior to construction to ensure adequate capacity is available. Project Design Feature L.2-8: If required, temporary sewers and laterals shall be installed to maintain sewer connections to remaining apartment units. This may involve installation of new sewer lines outside the limits of a current phase and in advance of a future phase.
Comment No. 15-49
Solid Waste Analysis: The DEIR’s most glaring omission is the incomplete analysis of future solid waste diversion in light of the project having no on-site recycling program post- construction. The project design features state the following “Provide recycling containers on-site for the collection and storage of recyclable materials during construction.” The project will also “encourage” the use of recycled content and provide tenants with a “brochure”. (DEIR IV.L-103). The DEIR fails to address how encouraging and only recycling construction materials will reach the city’s goals of 75% waste diversion (DEIR IV.L-100) by
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-274 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
2013, two years prior to the project’s actual construction. The Bureau of Sanitation has a city program designed for multiple-family units in which recycling services are provided. (see http://lacitysan.org/solid_resources/recycling/services/apartment.htm). Yet the DEIR fails to mention that the project has evaluated whether this program is available for future use.
The project itself will generate at least 9,178 extra tons of waste every year (DEIR IV. L.-107). The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts on the surrounding landfills. The DEIR provides at Table IV.L-12 the list of landfills open to the City of Los Angeles and the amount of estimated capacity as of 2009. While the capacity may exist, the sites themselves may close before full capacity is attained based on the respective landfills’ conditional use permits. It is a question of time not of the amount of trash the facilities will hold. The DEIR does state the problems of solid waste disposal due to shortages of in- county sites (see DEIR, IV.L-88) but then fails to properly analyze the potential of waste-by- rail. While there may be sufficient capacity at the Mesquite Regional Landfill or other out-of- county sites, the DEIR fails to address that these may be too cost-prohibitive or logistically difficult in which case they cannot be assumed to be accessible. The DEIR also states that the project’s net solid waste increase would only “represent an approximate 0.39 percent increase in the City’s yearly solid waste disposal quantity based on the 2009 disposal rate…” (DEIR IV.L-107). This statement is misleading. Based on the City’s own efforts to decrease its solid waste output and the project’s continual generation of solid waste without diversion, the project will have an increasing share of percentage of solid waste – solid waste that will continue to be unaddressed.
Response to Comment No. 15-49
Contrary to the portion of this comment that states the project would have no on-site recycling program post-construction, Mitigation Measure L.3-3 on page IV.L-117 in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR, requires that recycling bins shall be provided at accessible locations on the project site available to all building occupants to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable materials. These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as a part of the project’s regular solid waste disposal program. This comment correctly summarizes Project Design Features L.3-3 and L.3-4 on page IV.L-116, which address recycling during construction and the use of recycled-content materials. As discussed on page IV.L-110 of the Draft EIR, in addition to the project features described above, the project would be designed and built to be able to achieve certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-ND® rating system, and thus would include various project design features to reduce operational solid waste generation. These features would be implemented by incorporation into the conditions of approval for the project, through mitigation measures, or pursuant to the regulations or design criteria required by the Specific Plan. See Table II-3 on page II-41 in Section II, Project
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-275 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Description, of the Draft EIR, for a matrix summarizing the project’s numerous sustainable design features, and Project Design Features L.3-1 through L.3-8 on pages IV.L-115 through IV.L-116 of Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the project would participate in the City’s waste diversion programs (e.g., Curbside Recycling Program) to reduce the need for solid waste disposal. Project contractors would also recycle and/or reuse at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition wastes during construction. Thus, the proposed project would promote source reduction and recycling, consistent with AB 939 and the City’s SWIRP, Framework Element, RENEW LA Plan, and Green LA Plan.
This comment also questions how the project would contribute to the City’s waste diversion rate goal of 75 percent by 2013, which would be in effect two years prior to the onset of project construction. This goal, established by the Green LA Plan, is a citywide directive that will be achieved through policy development, and is not a requirement for individual development projects. To meet the new goal for 2013, the Bureau of Sanitation has initiated several new programs, including:
Multi-family recycling available to all buildings (initiated in 2007);
Plastic bag policy recommendation and polystyrene foam ban at City facilities (initiated in 2008);
Construction and demolition recycling requirements (initiated for Public Works projects, and citywide C&D ordinance being considered for adoption in 2009);
Pay-as-you-throw pilot development (planned for 2009);
Residential food scrap pilot (initiated in 2008);
City Departments recycling managed by BOS; and
Proper sharp (needles, lancets, carpules) disposal.53
As described above, the project would incorporate numerous waste reduction features to reduce construction and operational waste, thereby promoting the provisions of the abovementioned programs and promoting compliance with the City’s waste diversion goal of 75 percent by 2013. Additionally, the following additional Project Design Feature
53 City Solid Waste Programs and Policies, City of Los Angeles, www.zerowaste.lacity.org/files/info/ fact_sheet/SWIRPPolicyNprogramsFactSheet_032009.pdf; accessed April 6, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-276 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments has been added to page IV.L-116 in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
Project Design Feature L.3-9: The Applicant shall enroll the residential component of the proposed project in the Multi-Family Residential Recycling Program.
It should be noted that the analysis of the proposed project’s operational solid waste impacts assumes a 0 percent diversion rate (i.e., the calculated amount of project- generated solid waste does not take into account the amount of waste that would be diverted) in order to provide a conservative analysis (see pages IV.L-107 through IV.L-108 in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR).
This comment correctly states that the when accounting for the existing 1,187 residential units to be removed, the project would result in a net increase of 9,178 tons annually over existing conditions, as discussed on page IV.L-107 of the Draft EIR. The statement in the comment that “While the capacity may exist, the sites themselves may close before full capacity is attained based on the respective landfills’ conditional use permits,” reflects the basis on which the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project’s impacts with respect to long-term solid waste disposal would be significant and unavoidable. As stated on page IV.L-109 of Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR, at this time, it is impossible to project the available landfill capacity in 2030 (the project buildout year). Various factors, including future County development and/or expansion of landfills, use of new waste-by-rail facilities, development of new conversion technologies, etc., will ultimately determine the available landfill capacity in 2030. However, it is noted that the 2009 CoIWMP identifies five in-County landfills with projected lifespans extending beyond 2030. In addition, the County will continue to address landfill capacity through the preparation of annual CoIWMPs. The preparation of each annual CoIWMP provides sufficient lead time (15 years) to address potential future shortfalls in landfill capacity. Furthermore, in future years, it is anticipated that the rate of declining landfill capacity would slow considering the City’s SWIRP objective to achieve a 70 percent diversion goal by 2015. While it is anticipated that future iterations of the CoIWMPs would provide for improvements beyond 2024 to serve future waste disposal needs, the Draft EIR conservatively assumed that no new landfills or increases in capacity would occur. Thus, based on this worst case assumption, the County may not be able to accommodate the disposal needs of the project. Therefore, the Draft EIR conservatively concluded that project impacts to solid waste disposal facilities in 2030 would be significant and unavoidable.
The comment correctly states that the project’s net increase in solid waste generation during operation would represent an approximate 0.39 percent increase in the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-277 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
City’s yearly solid waste disposal quantity based on the 2009 disposal rate of approximately 2.379 million tons, as discussed on page IV.L-107 of the Draft EIR. As it is not possible to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the effects that the City’s waste diversion efforts will have on its future solid waste disposal quantity, it would be speculative to calculate the project’s approximate percentage increase on the City’s yearly solid waste disposal quantity. Therefore, the project’s impact on the 2009 disposal rate is calculated because this is the most recent year for which information is available. Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the 2011 disposal rate was made available by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. The 2011 disposal rate at Class III landfills was 2,348,724.22.54 Therefore, the project’s net increase in solid waste generation during operation would represent an approximate 0.39 percent increase in the City’s yearly solid waste disposal quantity based on the 2011 disposal rate of approximately 2.349 million tons, approximately the same percent increase based on the City’s 2009 disposal rate. Contrary to the portion of this comment that states the project would not divert solid waste from landfills, the project would participate in applicable City waste diversion programs (e.g., the Curbside Recycling Program and the Multi-Family Residential Recycling Program) as discussed above.
Comment No. 15-50
Lastly the DEIR does not discuss the most recent city ordinance regarding the disposal of demolition and construction materials. Ordinance 18519 was passed by the City council on December 17, 2010 and became law January 1, 2011. It amended the Los Angeles Municipal code section 66.32 to mandate that all construction and demolition waste must be first delivered to certified construction and demolition waste processing facilities – as listed by the City. There is then no DEIR analysis of the amount of waste that the project will generate with respect to the capacity of these certified demolition waste processing facilities.
Response to Comment No. 15-50
In response to this comment, the following text has been added to page IV.L-100 in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. See Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.
54 County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Information System, Solid Waste Disposal Summary Reports by Facilities (Including Out-of-County Imports) By Jurisdictions By Los Angeles (Reporting Period 2011, http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/download/rpt_04062012_112510_ 830280235_16.pdf, accessed April 6, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-278 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
(h) Citywide Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
On December 17, 2010, the City Council approved Council File 09- 3029, as amended, pertaining to a Citywide Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance (Ordinance No. 181519) that requires all mixed construction and demolition waste generated within City limits be taken to a City certified construction and demolition waste processor. The Bureau of Sanitation is responsible for this new construction and demolition waste recycling policy that became effective February 12, 2011.81A This provision does not apply to Source-Separated Material generated from a project within the City and delivered to a recycling facility, or segregated for on-site recycling. Source-Separated Material is defined as material that has been separated or kept separate from the solid waste stream at the point of generation and has not been commingled with other solid waste or recyclable materials. To qualify as Source-Separated Material, each type of material must be transferred in a separate container to a recycling center. Source- Separated Material includes, but is not limited to, Construction and Demolition Waste such as clean wood, clean concrete or metals.
81A LAMC, Chapter VI, Article 6, Sec. 66.32.
Ordinance No. 181519 was passed to assist the City in meeting its mandated waste diversion requirements under AB 939. Construction and demolition waste processors are temporary sorting facilities that sort materials by type for further processing and recycling.55 They are not waste disposal facilities (like landfills) and therefore do not have finite capacities for permanent waste disposal. Moreover, to the extent the city-wide mandate regarding recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste was anticipated to cause environmental impacts, such impacts would have been properly analyzed in connection with the environmental review of Ordinance No. 181519. Therefore, an analysis of the project’s solid waste generation with respect to the capacity of these certified demolition waste processing facilities is not required.
55 A list of mixed waste processors currently certified by the City can be found at www.lacitysan.org/solid_ resources/pdfs/2012/RecyclingRatesToHaulers012412.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-279 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-51
Alternatives (Draft EIR Section V)
The Draft EIR Contains Narrowly Defined Project Objectives that Favor New Construction over Preservation: 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.”15 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.”16
15 Public Resources Code §21001 (b), (c). 16 Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 30, 41; also see PRC §§ 21002, 21002.1.
Courts often refer to the EIR as “the heart” of CEQA, providing decision makers with an in- depth review of projects with potentially significant environmental impacts and analyzing alternatives that would reduce or avoid those impacts.17 The CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives to be considered in the EIR that would feasibly attain most of basic project objectives but would avoid or “substantially lessen” the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. The lead agency cannot merely adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with significant impacts; it must first adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.18
17 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123. 18 PRC §§ 21081; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 185.
Response to Comment No. 15-51
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 15-52
The list of project objectives guide the development through a range of reasonable alternatives, and determines the feasibility of an alternative, but certain objectives in the Draft EIR clearly favor demolition and forecloses consideration of less harmful alternatives.
One objective specifically aims to “remove existing on-site buildings and improvements,” that the applicant claims encroach upon public water and storm drain easements. Only the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-280 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments easement for a water main owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is detailed in the Draft EIR. The MWD water main and easement runs north-south through the western end of Wvyernwood [sic] aligned with Orme Avenue before it was vacated for the site. However, upon development of Wyernwood [sic], MWD granted an easement back to the developer of Wyvernwood in May 1939 along with a right to construct and maintain one multiple dwelling building, three garage buildings, and as many driveways and sidewalks as the owner liked within the easement area. MWD retains the right to request removal of the garages, driveways and sidewalks if it is necessary to excavate, but no request from MWD to remove the improvements is included in the Draft EIR.19 As for the storm drains, no easement or encroachment is mentioned in the technical reports for hydrology and storm drains, and no illustrations have be supplied as to the location of the purported easement and encroachments.
19 Draft EIR, Appendix M.2, Domestic Water System Study by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., p. 3 of 8. According to this report, the reverse easement deeded by MWD is silent on requirements for the residential building.
As an objective that seems to favor demolition over rehabilitation of the site, and is cited as one of only two “ongoing problems” that the Partial Preservation Alternative does not correct, the project objective to remove an unspecified number of buildings that encroach on unidentified easements precludes the preservation of Wyvernwood.
Response to Comment No. 15-52
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the existing utility easements on the project site. See also Appendix FEIR-2 for diagrams depicting the locations of the existing easements including the tract map for the project site and a recent land survey.
Comment No. 15-53
Partial Preservation Alternative C meets most of the project objectives: Despite project objectives that skew in favor of demolition, the Partial Preservation Alternative C is still able to partially meet most of the project objectives. Refinements to this alternative can address these concerns and further achieve more of the project objectives.
Partial Preservation Alternative C can include some amount of retail or commercial space to meet the underlying purpose of the proposed project for “mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of new housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses.” More housing and civic amenities could be incorporated in residential towers greater than
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-281 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the 7-story buildings proposed in this alternative, particularly along Olympic Boulevard, or within compatible infill construction with subterranean parking that replaces the (8 acres) of surface parking lots currently onsite.
Response to Comment No. 15-53
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 15-54
The Draft EIR contains representations that there is a need to improve site access for emergency vehicles. These allegations are not supported data. If there is a need to improve access, less drastic measures can be made to improve said access for. This is part of a project objective and another ongoing problem which the preservation alternative does not address. Examples of these measures include, adding street signage for Wyvernwood’s interior circulation, coordination and periodic updates with the responding police and fire stations to map access routes and develop an emergency response plan, and if necessary, appropriate widening of select walkways can ensure Wvyernwood [sic] is properly protected and served.
Response to Comment No. 15-54
See Topical Response No. 7 regarding emergency access and circulation, and Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 15-32 regarding the creation of safe neighborhoods according to the Architectural Design Guidelines used by the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission and the less than significant impact of the project during operation relative to police services.
Comment No. 15-55
Allegations are also made that the Wyvernwood Community is unsafe. Need crime statistics. Minor improvements like additional lighting on site and in building stairwells, new mirrors at “blind” corners, and regular maintenance of trees and landscaping may further address public service concerns about safety and security. All of these relatively simple measures could be accomplished despite. Again we note that there is no discernable [sic] increase in crime in the reporting district in which Wyvernwood is located within the Hollenbeck Community Police Station.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-282 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 15-55
See Response to Comment No. 15-32. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation alternative.
Comment No. 15-56
The Final EIR Should Evaluate a Greater Range of Feasible Preservation Alternatives that Retain Wyvernwood’s Eligibility as a Historic District: The Draft EIR meets the bare minimum in its consideration of preservation alternatives. Only Partial Preservation Alternative C would meet many of the project objectives and still retain eligibility as a historic district. Rehabilitation Alternative B is considered a “no project” alternative, demonstrating a disingenuous approach that lacks real consideration of rehabilitation as a viable alternative. Given the scale of this project, there must be a sincere attempt to consider and evaluate a greater range of preservation alternatives within the Final EIR, and therefore reduce the significant impacts of this project. This should include alternative sites where this type of project might “substantially lessen” the impacts while also being more economically viable.
Response to Comment No. 15-56
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. As discussed therein, the full preservation alternative (Alternative B) and the partial preservation alternative (Alternative C) were created as “bookends” to determine the overall feasibility of a rehabilitation consistent with the goals of preservation.
As discussed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, an alternative site was considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). This is because the project goals are intimately tied to the conditions of the Wyvernwood site (i.e., older housing stock and aging infrastructure in need of modernization), the project site’s proximity to the downtown Los Angeles employment hub, and the accessibility of public transit, and thus an alternative location would not meet the underlying purpose of the proposed project. See pages V-3 through V-5 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 15-57
Other alternatives may be available but have not been analyzed within the Draft EIR. The recent work of an architectural studio class at Cal Poly Pomona demonstrates the range of alternatives that could be considered within the Final EIR. Seven teams of twenty-one students developed alternatives that meet many of the project objects while also retaining at least fifty percent of the existing Wyvernwood historic district. Students crafted various
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-283 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments permutations that added new commercial uses along with infill development while retaining much of the central portion of Wyvernwood and its historic character.
Response to Comment No. 15-57
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 15-58
El Comite de la Esperanza would support an alternative that increases density by 225 units with the increased density achieved by re-designing the areas where the garages are currently located to include parking, storage and newly constructed units. El Comite de la Esperanza would also support alternatives that place a reasonable amount of commercial, retail and civic space along Olympic Boulevard and in the portion of the property on 8th Street that was not part of the original development but was acquired by Fifteen Group and now sits vacant.
Response to Comment No. 15-58
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Olympic Boulevard, which runs along the south side of the project site, is a Class II Major Highway that is developed primarily with commercial and light industrial uses. Eighth Street, which runs along the north side of the project site, is a Secondary Highway that is developed primarily with low-density residential uses. The comment expresses support for an alternative that would place a “reasonable” amount of non-residential development along Olympic Avenue or 8th Street, but does not explain what it considers to be a “reasonable” amount of development, or what environmental impacts such an alternative would be designed to avoid or substantially lessen. See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection criteria for project alternatives established by CEQA. Furthermore, the proposed project already concentrates non-residential uses along Olympic Boulevard in order to reduce environmental impacts to the residential uses to the north of the project site. Placing such uses along 8th Street would result in greater impacts with respect to land use compatibility, visual quality/character, and operational traffic. The project would include up to 300,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and office uses and up to 25,000 square feet of civic uses. The project’s residential population would support the project’s neighborhood-serving retail and office uses.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-284 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-59
Large-scale historic garden apartments across the nation and in Los Angeles have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved: The DEIR repeatedly claims the rehabilitation of Wyvernwood, in whole or partially, is financially infeasible. Analysis provided, however, does not substantiate this conclusion. El Comite de la Esperanza concurs with the [sic] The LA Conservancy that good faith effort has not been undertaken to seriously consider rehabilitation as a viable alternative. Throughout the country, other large-scale garden apartment communities have been successfully preserved and rehabilitated, employing creative approaches of ownership, financing and incentives.
In Washington, DC, Mayfair Mansions Apartments were rehabilitated in March 2009 through a phased project. Completed in 1946, Mayfair Mansions is a historic garden apartment community, listed on the DC and National Register of Historic Places. It is significant as one of the first designed for working- and middle-class African American residents. Originally insured through the FHA, the development includes 17 buildings and 569 housing units (409 affordable rental; 160 owner-occupied). $48 million was invested in the rehabilitation. Owners complied with ADA requirements and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as the project used approximately $9.6 million in federal historic tax credits, in addition to federal low-income housing tax credits. Phase one rehabilitation began in 2007 and was completed in 2009, focused on the construction of two buildings at a time. Phase two of the project, currently underway, is focused on the rehabilitation of 160 owner-occupied units, housing residents earning 60 percent or less of the area median income.
In Los Angeles, Lincoln Place in Venice is currently undergoing rehabilitation, a 33-acre garden apartment complex built between 1949 and 1951. Lincoln Place is a significant example of low- and moderate-income rental housing built in Los Angeles following World War II to alleviate the severe housing shortages.20 The project includes a two-phased rehabilitation of 45 buildings and 696 housing units. $56 million is being invested in the rehabilitation. Owners are adhering to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as the project intends to use federal historic tax credits as well as Mills Act financial incentives to help offset the rehabilitation costs. The project also includes sensitive infill construction on land where 7 apartment buildings were previously demolished. The Lincoln Place Apartments offers lessons.
20 Historical Resources Technical Report, page 19, June 2011
Throughout the country, examples like these and others demonstrate how historic garden apartment communities can be rehabilitated, upgraded on an incremental basis, and continue to provide high quality housing and be economically viable. Village Green in Baldwin Hills, although now structured as a condominium ownership, has been
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-285 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments continuously maintained and updated with regular infrastructure improvements (site work, plumbing, electrical, roofing, HVAC, etc.) since it was opened in 1942. Village Green is similar to Wyvernwood, as it also consists of nearly 70 acres, though lower in density with approximately 700 units (in comparison to 1,187 units).
Throughout Virginia, which has the highest concentration of large-scale garden apartments in the nation, many have been successfully maintained and rehabilitated, employing creative approaches toward financing and homeownership (condo and co-op). Colonial Village, for instance, the first FHA-insured large-scale garden apartment housing project in the country, was built between 1935 and 1940. In the late 1970s, a phased development plan was approved for the 55-acre site and 245 buildings, calling for 75 percent of Colonial Village to be preserved while allowing some demolition and new construction to occur. Today Colonial Village continues to thrive and provide high-quality housing while also maintaining its eligibility as a historic district.
Response to Comment No. 15-59
The individual points in this comment concern the financial feasibility of certain project alternatives that include historic preservation of existing dwelling units at the project site. Although it mentions the Draft EIR analysis of the financial feasibility of the historic preservation alternatives, this comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR’s conclusions regarding financial infeasibility were not substantiated. In fact, Draft EIR Appendix N.2, Alternative Financial Feasibility Report provides a detailed analysis demonstrating that these alternatives are not financially feasible. The additional comment that other properties with some characteristics similar to the proposed project and located elsewhere in the nation, or even in the City of Los Angeles, have been rehabilitated is not substantial evidence that it is feasible to historically rehabilitate these project improvements. Absent a direct comparison between the scope of rehabilitation work and assumed costs for the cited examples and those for the project, as well as an understanding of what financing sources were utilized for those projects, whether residents might have been displaced, and any of the other policy issues that would bear on the feasibility of a given alternative (such as the application of any rent control requirements), none of which was included with the comment, the information submitted is anecdotal but not relevant to the feasibility of project alternatives in this case. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 15-60
The estimated rehabilitation costs and financial analysis is unsubstantiated and flawed: Under the Partial Preservation Alternative #3A, $80 million is estimated for the construction cost to rehabilitate 83 existing buildings or 648 units, excluding site work and City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-286 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments soft costs. No specific scope of work or detailed line item analysis is provided to explain the exorbitantly high $124,146 per-unit construction cost. When compared to Lincoln Place, which offers similar-sized units and type of construction, the estimates for Wyvernwood appear to be greatly exaggerated and skewed. For instance, per-unit rehabilitation costs at Lincoln Place is estimated at $53,000 for units rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), and $70,763 for those that also include modernized kitchens and an added bath in 3-bedroom units.21
21 Historical Property Contract Program, City of Los Angeles, Lincoln Place Apartments, May 25, 2011
At Lincoln Place and elsewhere, rehabilitation generally involves upgrades which include improving building and site infrastructure to meet current-day demands, refurbishing interior spaces while keeping character-defining features like hardwood flooring intact, and modernizing kitchens or baths where appropriate, and to install energy- and water-saving features. Such improvements extend the service life of these well-thought-out 60 and 70 year-old buildings for many more decades, and have been previously achieved for much of Los Angeles’ vast building stock from the 1910s and 1920s.
Without supporting information and documentation for the estimated rehabilitation costs, Wyvernwood’s almost double per-unit cost compared to Lincoln Place lacks justification. It also calls into question the accuracy of the overall rate of return and gross margins calculated in the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, as the development cost is based on the unsubstantiated rehabilitation costs. Furthermore, there is no analysis that demonstrates serious consideration of financial incentives such as the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, Low Income Housing Tax Credit or the Mills Act. Overall the arguments that rehabilitation cannot be phased, is financially viable, and would result in tenant displacement due to higher post-rehabilitation rents stem from the undefined rehabilitation costs and flawed financial analysis.
Response to Comment No. 15-60
This comment addresses issues related to the financial feasibility of the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility (Alternative 3A in the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report included in Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR, and Alternative C in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR). The comment incorrectly states that no specific scope of work or detailed line item analysis was provided to explain the construction cost for this alternative in the feasibility analysis. In fact, Appendix B to Appendix N.2, Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, of the Draft EIR includes detailed cost estimates for all of the historic preservation alternatives, including Alternative 3A. These cost estimates were prepared by BenchMark, a highly experienced construction contractor with extensive experience performing historic preservation construction, and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-287 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments based on the detailed analysis of historic rehabilitation work required for each alternative, as presented in Appendix N.1, Alternatives Historic Preservation Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. While it may be the case that rehabilitation costs at Lincoln Place are lower than what has been estimated for the proposed project, this limited comparison does not account for all of the other components of total development cost that impact overall financial feasibility of the project alternatives. In this regard it is important to note that the financial feasibility of Alternative 3A does not concern just the historic rehabilitation costs, but all costs to develop the project’s market rate residential and commercial space, open space amenities, parking, infrastructure, utilities, and environmental mitigation, and to absorb the costs of various project features and commitments, including relocation payments and rent caps on the affordable units, and payment of prevailing construction wages, few if any of which may also apply to Lincoln Place, which was 90 percent vacant at the time of the rehabilitation effort, and which was exempted from rent control requirements. This issue is addressed in more detail in Topical Response No. 2 and Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
The comment is incorrect with regard to an alleged lack of consideration of certain financial incentives, such as the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, Low Income Housing Tax Credit or the Mills Act. As explained in Appendix N.2, Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, of the Draft EIR, these financing incentives were explicitly considered and applied when appropriate (see pp. 29–31). Both the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the Mills Act incentives were explicitly considered and utilized in the analysis whenever applicable to a particular preservation alternative. The federal low- income housing tax credit56 was not applied, because the affordable units in the project that would qualify under that program are interspersed with market rate projects throughout the project, not in free-standing buildings with only affordable units, and thus would not score well under this highly competitive financing program.
Comment No. 15-61
Rehabilitation can be phased to limit tenant displacement and associated costs of relocation: The Draft EIR acknowledges that Partial Preservation Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative that would reduce the greatest number of project [sic] and would have the fewest significant and unavoidable impacts.22 The applicant, however states this alternative would “create a new impact that would be significantly greater than the project in that it would displace the current tenant population.” Resident retention and
56 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, LIHTC Basics, www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/ affordablehousing/training/web/lihtc/basics/, Accessed July 3, 2012.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-288 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments preservation is characterized as an either-or fallacy. The displacement and relocation issue is being represented as something larger and worse than it really is. The applicant cannot legitimately justify demolishing 256 buildings and obliterating history in order to address an unsubstantiated and largely manufactured issue associated with onsite tenant rehabilitation.
22 V Alternatives, V-174
The applicant’s consulting construction contractor23 that provided the preliminary rehabilitation estimates also concluded that phasing the rehabilitation work would “increase two to three times” the estimated cost. While reasons such as the inability to negotiate volume discounts and cost escalation over time are given for the large increase, the timing, scope, and details of the potential phasing are not provided to determine whether cost savings could occur with different types of phasing schedules. Further, this does not take in account the ability to accept bids for overall or phased rehabilitation work, often taken at a single point in time which can address cost containment and savings through volume discounts.
23 Morley Builders
For instance, rehabilitation can occur on a unit-by-unit or building-by-building basis as vacancies occur, as has been the case at Village Green in Baldwin Hills, with the costs absorbed over several years. Alternatively, a grouping of 3-15 buildings can be rehabilitated at a time, which would allow a limited number of families to be relocated to available vacancies in existing or new units within Wyvernwood. Such scheduling could also be phased so that as each trade completes a grouping of buildings, they can move on to the next group, thereby benefiting from economies of scale and worker experience while still not requiring complete relocation of all tenants simultaneously.
Based on analysis provided and the alternatives considered, the applicant asserts that only Alternative #3D can be phased, which includes the retention and rehabilitation of 6 buildings at Wyvernwood, to be reused as a community center. Alternative #3C, which retains only 17 residential buildings and 126 units, the least amount of all the residential rehabilitation alternatives, the applicant apparently believes is too large in scale, stating,, “it would not be possible to phase this scale of renovation, so all existing residents would be eligible for relocation benefits.”24
24 Financial Feasibility of Project Alternatives Technical Report, 17, 18
The applicant states all existing units would need to be vacated at the commencement of rehabilitation work. Phasing the rehabilitation of large-scale housing developments, in Los
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-289 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Angeles and across the country, is not uncommon. This practice ensures an ongoing income stream while making necessary upgrades and improvements. It is unclear how Wyvernwood is unique from other developments in this respect, requiring, as the applicant states, that all aspects of rehabilitation occur within a single point in time. The assertion that Wyvernwood would require complete vacancy is a faulty assumption with no credible analysis to demonstrate this necessity. Estimating $21,722,10025 for relocation is unsubstantiated and we believe not entirely necessary, further calling into question the accuracy of the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report.
25 Financial Feasibility of Project Alternatives Technical Report, 26
Response to Comment No. 15-61
For the portions of this comment that relate to the Draft EIR’s reasonable assumption that it is impractical and cost-prohibitive to phase the construction work for the historic preservation alternatives, see Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. As discussed therein, the degree to which the project alternatives are “feasible” is discussed in detail in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR and is supported by the Financial Feasibility Report, which was prepared for the project alternatives and is included as Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR. With regard to the estimated costs of relocation utilized in the alternatives financial feasibility, the costs were, in fact, fully substantiated in the Draft EIR. See, Appendix N.2, Alternatives Feasibility Analysis, of the Draft EIR, pp. 31–33.
Comment No. 15-62
Other CEQA Considerations
Rehabilitating Wyvernwood is acknowledged as the environmentally superior alternative and can be achieved while meeting the project’s sustainability goals and objectives, including LEED for Existing Buildings certification: The project seeks to attain LEED Silver certification; however, reuse of the existing historic buildings at Wyvernwood is an inherently green and sustainable practice. It is certainly not environmentally sustainable to demolish 256 existing buildings. According to the USGBC, LEED-certified existing buildings now surpass LEED-certified new construction, a trend that is expected to grow.26 When a building is demolished and replaced, research demonstrates that it can take more than 30 years before any cumulative energy savings is achieved through even the most energy-efficient replacement building.27
26 “Huge Growth for LEED retrofits,” www.greenbuildingpro.com, December 8, 2011 27 National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sustainability Program
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-290 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The adverse environmental impact of building 4,400 housing units and up to 325,000 square feet of commercial/retail space is tremendous, requiring enormous expenditures of energy, materials, and nonrenewable resources. Even with proposed recycling and the best case scenario, the project will generate 11 tons of solid waste per day over a period of 15 years (43,560 tons overall with project build out to 2030).28 Further, in comparison to current annual operating solid waste generation at Wyvernwood, the project will result in a net 78 percent increase annually, or 9,179 tons of waste per year. Operational impacts of this project are significant, as stated in the analysis provided, and cumulatively would increase the need for waste disposal capacity at the County’s unclassified landfills.
28 Ultilities [sic] and Service Systems – Solid waste, IV.L-105
Response to Comment No. 15-62
The comment correctly notes that Alternative C, Partial Preservation Alternative— Retention of National Register Eligibility, was selected as the environmentally superior alternative as discussed on pages V-173 through V-174 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. As stated on page V-67, the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would be designed to meet the criteria for LEED® Silver designation for new construction. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
It should be noted that the Draft EIR concluded that the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility would not meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of additional housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development. Furthermore, this Alternative would only partially achieve the project objectives that support this underlying purpose. Moreover, the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility was determined to be financially infeasible. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
A discussion of the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by implementation of the project is provided on pages VI-6 through VI-8 in Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, during ongoing operation of the project, non-renewable fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source and, thus the existing finite supplies of these resources would be incrementally reduced. The consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels for energy use is analyzed in Section XVI(h), Utilities, of Attachment B to the Initial Study provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. As analyzed therein, the project’s estimated electricity and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-291 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments natural gas demand would be within the anticipated service capabilities of LADWP and The Gas Company. The project would also comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which sets forth the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to limit the amount of energy consumed by the project. Furthermore, as part of the LEED® program, the project would be designed to achieve a reduction of energy usage by at least 15 percent below its Title 24 baseline. Other energy efficiency measures include the use of Energy Star–labeled products and appliances (see Project Design Features B.1-3, L.1-2, and L.1-3) as well as light-emitting diode (LED) lighting (see Project Design Feature B.2-1) or other energy-efficient lighting technologies. Thus, long-term impacts associated with the consumption of fossil fuels would not be significant. In addition, project construction and operation would require the commitment and use of slowly renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources and the project’s building site for future generations or for other uses. However, the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. See Response to Comment No. 13-19 for a discussion of the project’s principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability. As a result, the nonrenewable resources would not result in significant irreversible changes to the environment.
The comment acknowledges that the Draft EIR disclosed the proposed project’s construction-related solid waste generation in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR (though the comment slightly misstates the estimate). As stated on page IV.L-105, with recycling, project construction would involve total disposal of approximately 45,498 tons of C&D waste, rather than 43,560 tons overall as indicated in the comment, or approximately 11 tons of solid waste per day. Also, as shown on Table IV.L-16 on page IV.L-108, upon completion the project would generate a total of 11,828 tons annually, resulting in a net increase of 9,178 tons annually over existing conditions. Because existing uses generate approximately 2,649 tons of solid waste per year, this represents a 347 percent increase in annual solid waste generation. As noted in the comment, the analysis in Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR concludes that project and cumulative operational solid waste generation would be significant and unavoidable. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-63
The proposed project will also have significant hydrology impacts, substantially increasing the amount of surface waters diverted to a downstream water body. Analysis within the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Reports incorrectly calculates the percentage increase in imperviousness of the project.29 Instead of a 4.7 percent increase as stated, it is actually a 40 percent increase. The analysis did not include the existing imperviousness,
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-292 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
IMP, of the Wyvernwood site, which is presently 54 percent. The proposed project will be 90 percent imperviousness.
29 Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Reports, 9 of 13
Response to Comment No. 15-63
As discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, project impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. The Storm Water Hydrology Study for the project (Appendix F-1 of the Draft EIR), on which the analysis in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR is based, provides calculations that evaluate the pre-developed and post-developed peak storm runoff rates associated with project development, assess flood control issues associated with peak runoff rates during a 50-year storm event, and provde alignment and sizing of proposed storm drain improvements. These calculations are derived using the Los Angeles County Hydrology Rational Method and are intended to address the flood control aspects of peak runoff during a 50-year storm event. As discussed on Page 3 of the Storm Water Hydrology Study, the County’s Hydrology Manual requires the analysis of peak runoff flow to assume conservative, theoretical “worst case” development conditions based on a site’s corresponding land use category, thereby representing the maximum imperviousness for any type of development. Correspondingly, the County’s Hydrology Manual assigns conservative “worst case” percentages for imperviousness to various land use categories rather than considering the actual developed site conditions of any particular piece of property.
The land use category for the existing project site is “Low Rise Apartment, Condominiums, and Townhouses.” For calculation purposes, the County’s Hydrology Manual assumes that site conditions for “Low Rise Apartment, Condominiums, and Townhouses” are 86 percent impervious. This is in contrast to the existing site’s actual 54 percent imperviousness (as recognized on page 3 of 13 of the Storm Water Hydrology Study). This difference demonstrates the conservative nature of the County’s Hydrology Manual and of the resulting calculations related to storm drain pipe sizes and capacities.
The land use category for the proposed project is “High Rise Apartment, Condominiums,” which assumes that proposed site conditions would be 90 percent impervious. Thus, using the County’s Hydrology Manual rates for imperviousness, the proposed project would increase on-site imperviousness by 4.7 percent (i.e., from 86 percent to 90 percent).
As previously stated, the Storm Water Hydrology Study recognizes that the actual existing condition is approximately 54 percent impervious (page 3 of 13). However, the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-293 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments existing storm drain systems were designed to accommodate an 86 percent impervious condition and could be considered as oversized for the project site’s actual existing condition. The proposed project would utilize the existing storm drain system’s designed capacity for the existing theoretical condition (at 86 percent imperviousness) plus an extra 4.7 percent associated with the proposed project (90 percent imperviousness).
As discussed on page IV.F-26 in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would also incorporate bio-filtration/retention system BMPs that would improve the infiltration capabilities and charateristics of the project site. These improvements would be incorporated into the project’s LID construction plans and would be designed to improve and enhance the ability of the existing soils to accept and infiltrate storm water runoff, significantly enhancing the pervious nature of the proposed project as compared to the existing site conditions.
Comment No. 15-64
The perceived deficiencies at Wyvernwood can be improved without full demolition and replacement. Wyvernwood could attain better performance through green operations and maintenance. In addition to an overall rehabilitation of each unit, upgrades can be made to modernize the electrical and plumbing systems and sustainability features such as low-flow water fixtures, tankless water heaters, and energy-efficient appliances and lighting can be installed. Some ground-floor apartment units can also be adapted to offer ADA-accessible units. The California Historic Building Code is available to provide code flexibility for historic buildings to achieve performance standards equivalent to current building codes while still retaining their historic integrity.
Response to Comment No. 15-64
The project described in the comment is substantially similar to Alternative B: No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which was analyzed as a project alternative in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. As discussed therein, the Draft EIR found that while Alternative B (No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative) would avoid the proposed project’s significant impact to historic resources, as well as other impacts, this alternative: (1) would not attain the majority of the project objectives, including the objective to remove existing on-site buildings and improvements that currently encroach upon public easements for water and storm drain utilities; and (2) would not be financially feasible for the Applicant to implement. It would also be inferior to the project in terms of the provision of affordable housing. See pages V-54 through V-58 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The basis for this conclusion is also discussed in detail in Topical Response No. 2, Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-294 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 15-65
Improvements to the site can also offer an opportunity to upgrade telephone and sewer capacity. Options exist to reroute wastewater from the at-capacity Camulos trunk sewer line to the underutilized Eighth Street line. Existing sustainability features at the site should also be retained and upgraded. For instance, current technologies for bio-swales, coupled with appropriate maintenance, can improve rainwater infiltration and retention at the Mall, designed to act as a swale that uses the site’s natural slope to capture, absorb, and drain water. Other improvements, including native plantings, updated irrigation systems, and proper maintenance, can repair the dead grass, dirt, standing water, and erosion that have occurred in some of the landscaped areas throughout years of ongoing neglect.
Response to Comment No. 15-65
See Response to Comment No. 15-64 and Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 15-66
The Final EIR should fully scrutinize any claimed environmental benefits of the proposed project within a broad context. For instance, financial analysis does not appear to consider the cost savings of not demolishing 256 building or the substantial expenditure associated with regrading the entire site and associated soil export, as currently proposed. Once again, this calls into question the accuracy of the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report.
Response to Comment No. 15-66
The Draft EIR analyzes project impacts consistent with CEQA and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide, including adopted thresholds of significance. The Alternatives Feasibility Analysis in Appendix N.2 to the Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of all costs, income, and associated financial feasibility results for those alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 15-67
Conclusion
What ultimately results in the failure of The Project is its requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act, however, is not the proposed amendments to the General Plan, but rather the failure to consider preservation alternatives that would mitigate and abate the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-295 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments disastrous impacts to historic resources, aesthetics, water and air quality, and the contribution of noise and solid and toxic waste to the area.
This ill-designed Project poses significant and unavoidable threats to the existing community and buildings in the land sited, that cannot be mitigated by the very merit and design of the Project. For the Project to come into implementation, it must prima facie destroy Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, a 1939 development listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historic Resources. Wyvernwood is a significant property for its historic location, as well as its role in providing affordable housing to low-income individuals and families, and for having provided a location for strong community development. Finally, the physical space of Wyvernwood itself provides significant and vast green space conducive to building inter-generational relationships and community, pedestrian-friendly walkways, and lush green space for children to play. These are unique assets, and the Project EIR fails to consider other preservation alternatives to ensure that these assets are preserved.
El Comite de la Esperanza is committed to identifying other potentially feasible alternatives that would meet the Project objectives without laying to waste the Wyvernwood Community.
Response to Comment No. 15-67
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the six alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR were selected based on their potential to reduce or avoid the significant impacts of a project. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, see Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the quality of existing and proposed open space, and see Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan for a discussion of why the project is superior as compared to other alternatives with respect to the provision of affordable housing to low-income individuals and families. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR). This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 15-68
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Boyle Heights Mixed- Use Community Project. Please add the Healthy Homes Collaborative and El Comite de la
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-296 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Esperanza to the notice list for this project as the environmental review process continues and feel free to contact me at [email protected] [sic] or 323/221- 8320 x201 should you have any questions.
Response to Comment No. 15-68
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Healthy Homes Collaborative and El Comite de la Esperanza has been added to the EIR mailing list.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-297 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 16
Fr. Richard Estrada, Founder and Board President Jovenes, Inc. 1208 Pleasant Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90033
Comment No. 16-1
Jovenes, Inc. was created to serve youth by providing opportunities to become integrated, active members of their communities. In recognition of the positive role that the Wyvernwood redevelopment project will play in supporting young people and communities throughout the area, we hereby offer the project our full endorsement.
Response to Comment No. 16-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 16-2
The New Wyvernwood will create a better place for our young people to grow up. Improved park space will provide extensive opportunities for healthy outdoor recreation. Better lighting and visibility, along with a more extensive street network, will help make the site safer and more secure. In addition, the guarantee to set aside 15 percent of all units as designated affordable housing means that The New Wyvernwood will be home to families at a variety of income levels, including those of very limited means.
Response to Comment No. 16-2
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The information provided in this comment, which states that 15 percent of all units would be designated as affordable housing, is consistent with the information presented throughout the Draft EIR (e.g., page II-12 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR).
Comment No. 16-3
The project will also provide residents with important amenities that are currently lacking in Wyvernwood units, which are limited to one bathroom and do not provide adequate parking, sewer or electrical connections. A variety of sustainability features will ensure the project is environmentally responsible, as well.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-298 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 16-3
The information provided in this comment, which describes the existing residential development on the project site, is consistent with the information presented on pages II-7 and II-9 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The sustainability features mentioned in the comment are discussed in detail on pages II-38 through II-40 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 16-4
Equally important, the Wyvernwood redevelopment project will bring critically needed jobs and investment to our community, creating more than 10,000 construction-related jobs and an additional 2,800 permanent jobs following construction. The project’s dedicated local hiring program, the Boyle Heights Jobs Collaborative, will help ensure than many jobs go to local residents, with a special emphasis on Wyvernwood residents and at-risk workers. The economic impact of construction alone is estimated to be $3.6 billion, with an additional economic impact of $598 million each year once the project is complete.
Response to Comment No. 16-4
See Response to Comment No. 12-2 regarding the employment opportunities that would be generated by the proposed project. The comment also states that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately $3.6 billion in annual tax revenue and an additional $598 million each year during operation of the proposed project, which is consistent with the analysis presented on page 4 of the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report included in Appendix J.3 of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 16-5
Finally, we recognize that Fifteen Group has worked actively to collect community feedback on the plan to ensure it addresses the neighborhood’s critical needs. We value and appreciate this commitment.
Response to Comment No. 16-5
This comment, which recognizes the outreach efforts of the Applicant, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-299 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 16-6
The Board of Jovenes, Inc. is confident this forward-looking investment will create tremendous benefits in our community – not only for Wyvernwood residents, but for all of Boyle Heights. We are proud to endorse the Wyvernwood redevelopment project, and ask that it be approved by the city as soon as possible.
Response to Comment No. 16-6
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-300 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 17
Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy Los Angeles Conservancy 523 W. Sixth St., Ste. 826 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Comment No. 17-1
On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local preservation organization in the United States, with over 6,800 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 through advocacy and education.
Response to Comment No. 17-1
This comment, which describes the Los Angeles Conservancy, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 17-2
The proposed project would demolish and replace in whole the historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment complex in Los Angeles and reportedly the largest of its kind in the country at the time. Wyvernwood remains largely intact today and is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Los Angeles Conservancy strongly believes the Draft EIR suffers from deficiencies. Wyvernwood can and should be preserved and rehabilitated as part of the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project.
Response to Comment No. 17-2
The information provided in this comment, which states that the proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing residential development on the project site and summarizes the eligibility of the Wyvernwood Apartments under the California Register of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places, is consistent with the analysis presented on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the specific
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-301 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments deficiencies referenced in the comment. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-3
The Draft EIR acknowledges the loss of Wyvernwood as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact to a cultural resource. Proposed mitigation measures -- including HABS and photo documentation-- are insufficient to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Under CEQA, it is widely recognized that “[a] large historical structure [in this case, an entire historic district] once demolished, normally cannot be adequately replaced by reports and commemorative markers.”1
1 League for Protection of Oakland’s Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 909
Response to Comment No. 17-3
This comment, which is consistent with the analysis presented in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 17-4
I. Wyvernwood Garden Apartments is a Nationally-Significant Historic Resource, designed originally to meet many of the new project’s objectives
Built between 1938 and 1941, Wyvernwood was designed by architects David J. Witmer, and Loyall F. Watson, in collaboration with landscape architect Hammond Sadler. Wyvernwood was intended to provide middle-income and worker housing located close to jobs in downtown and nearby industrial centers. The complex was privately financed by the Hostetter Estate and insured by the newly formed Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Wyvernwood served as a testing ground for the FHA’s new program and a model for other garden apartments to follow, in Los Angeles and throughout the country by illustrating the modern yet affordable housing standards required of FHA-insured projects.
Response to Comment No. 17-4
This comment, which describes the original design and financing process of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-302 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
With regard to the statement in the comment that Wyvernwood was “designed originally to meet many of the new project’s objectives,” see Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 17-5
Following progressive garden city planning principles, Wyvernwood originally consisted of 143 two-story buildings carefully arranged on six super blocks (in total there are 256 buildings including garage structures, etc.).2 The super block allowed individual units to have open vistas in multiple directions. The design creates both large and intimate green spaces and courtyards that take advantage of sunlight for passive heating, natural air for cross ventilation, and the existing topography for open space and drainage.3 [sic] To foster a sense of community, all 1,102 (now 1,187) one-, two- and three-bedroom units were spread out among attached row houses and apartment blocks facing common greens, with detached garages and service areas relegated to the periphery and the rear of the units.
2 An additional 9-10 buildings were added to Wyvernwood in the 1950s and 60s, bring the total number of apartment buildings onsite to 152 with 1,187 units (Wyvernwood Apartments – Historical Resources Technical Report)
Response to Comment No. 17-5
This comment, which describes the original design of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
To the extent that this comment implies that the existing development on the project site is characterized by modern-day sustainability principles, see Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 17-6
Wyvernwood was hailed as “America’s largest privately-owned community of rental homes,” widely published at the time in regional and national publications including Architect and Engineer, Architectural Forum, Architectural Record, and California Arts and Architecture, [sic] Locally, the Los Angeles Times featured Wyvernwood in its August 25, 1939 article, “Development Hailed Housing Achievement,” stating, “although every building
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-303 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments is surrounded by large garden areas – well planted with beautiful trees – there is no obstruction of air and sunlight on the interiors... every dwelling has cross draft ventilation with at least two exposures and more than half have the benefit of three exposures.”
Response to Comment No. 17-6
This comment, which describes publications referencing the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
To the extent that this comment implies that the existing development on the project site is characterized by modern-day sustainability principles, see Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 17-7
Wyvernwood is further significant as a primary example of the garden apartment movement within the United States. As already stated, at one point it was the largest example of its type. What Wyvernwood represents in physical form is a distinctly mid-20th century idea of housing, resulting from changing social ideals that called for a healthier approach to residential living. In 2007 the American Planning Association (APA) recognized the important role of garden apartments for their good design, function, sustainability, and community involvement, including an example from Pittsburgh (Chatham Village) on its listing of Great Places in America.
Response to Comment No. 17-7
This comment, which discusses the garden apartment movement, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 17-8
In many ways Wyvernwood has stood the test of time. Despite ongoing deterioration and the need for reinvestment, as acknowledged within the Draft EIR, Wyvernwood already meets a majority of the project’s guiding principles, including a “safe community; high- quality community design; meaningful, usable open space for recreational activities; and affordable housing for low and very low income families.”4
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-304 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
4 Project Description, II-11
Response to Comment No. 17-8
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-16. See Response to Comment No. 15-16.
Comment No. 17-9
a. Open space at Wyvernwood is a primary design feature and contributes to a high quality of life for residents.
The proposed project states the quality and usability of the open spaces would be substantially improved. We strongly believe the opposite, that the project will in fact diminish the amount, quality and usability of open space. Wyvernwood’s innovative approach toward urban planning and open space design is what makes it unique and significant as a historic district. The property’s extensive landscaping, mature trees, and flowing green space are integral to the garden city philosophy. Designers called for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, with few through roads so as to create safe play areas and recreational spaces away from traffic. Provisions were made for cars -- then a burgeoning form of transportation -- through a carefully-planned approach of limiting their impact and alternative to a more traditional pattern of development.
Response to Comment No. 17-9
Contrary to this comment, the proposed project would not reduce the amount, quality, and usability of open space. With respect to the quantity of open space, as stated throughout the Draft EIR and specifically on page II-34 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level, including courtyard space (7.45 acres), paseos (1.11 acres), streetscape space (10.37 acres), unfenced yard space (7.84 acres), and publicly accessible open space (10.48 acres), would be 37.25 acres, compared to 36.43 acres of comparable (i.e., non- enclosed) space (comprised of 17.25 acres of unfenced yard space, 9.71 acres of interstitial open space, and 9.47 acres of publicly accessible open space) that currently exists on the project site. The total amount of existing open space at the ground level is 39.98 if 3.55 acres of fenced yard space is included. However, unlike the existing ground- level open space, the proposed ground-level open space does not include fenced yard space or any other type of fully enclosed space. It should be noted that the semi-private open space, such as courtyards, would only be available to the residents of each building/complex within which each facility is located. See also Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-305 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
As discussed in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the demolition, re-configuration, and re-design of contributing resources proposed by the project would result in significant impacts to the Wyvernwood Historic District such that the District could no longer convey its historic significance. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level and are considered significant and unavoidable.
The balance of this comment describes the garden city philosophy design of the existing residential buildings. See Response to Comment Nos. 13-14 and 15-32 for a discussion of the ways in which urban design and planning theory have evolved such that separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, with few through roads, is no longer thought to create safe play areas and recreational spaces. This portion of the comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 17-10
Remarkably, several of the original planning principles for Wyvernwood -- pedestrian- friendly communities, communal open spaces, environmentally-sensitive siting and affordability -- have found renewed interest in New Urbanism and the green building movements today, and are among the project objectives. As stated in the Draft EIR, “overall, the project is intended to provide a walkable community with modern amenities and a high-quality design that promotes sustainability.”5 In many ways Wyvernwood already meets these project goals with the existing 1939 development largely designed around modern-day sustainability principles.
5 Project Description, II-17
Response to Comment No. 17-10
The comment correctly restates the overall intention of the proposed project as discussed on page II-17 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment No. 15-8 regarding the extent to which the proposed project would provide a walkable, sustainable community in comparison to existing on-site development.
Comment No. 17-11
A primary example of this is the central Mall, designed around an existing natural ravine on site to serve as a 40-foot-wide swale to absorb and channel storm water. Today the swale functions much as it was originally intended and forms the spine of Wyvernwood’s 80-foot wide central landscaped mall, the east/west axis by which the overall development was
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-306 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments subsequently arranged. The DEIR states “…conditions provide poor water penetration into the soil, resulting in pooling and standing water [and] parts of the Mall are prone to flooding where it does not drain adequately.”6 However, analysis within the DEIR acknowledges the majority of storm water areas at Wyvernwood drain directly to catch basins currently onsite, further stating, “No system deficiencies or incidents of flooding have been noted.”7 While deferred maintenance and evasive tree roots may have limited the effectiveness of the central drainage channel over time,8 cost-effective remedies can be easily employed to repair this feature to optimal performance and address these perceived deficiencies.
6 IV. Environmental Impact Analysis, IV.J-90, 91 7 Hydrology Study, page 8, Section IV 8 IV. Environmental Impact Analysis, IV.J-91
Response to Comment No. 17-11
This comment is a duplicate of Comment No. 15-27. See Response to Comment No. 15-27.
Comment No. 17-12
b. Proposed project does not provide equivalent or higher quality open space
The Draft EIR repeatedly states the project will provide more open space than what currently exists and of higher quality. However, throughout the Draft EIR multiple discrepancies exist in regards to existing and proposed open space calculations. These inconsistencies lead to an overall lack of confidence in the project’s analysis and accuracy. For instance, Figure 11-4 of the Project Description states there is currently 39.98 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood; contradicting this data on page II-35 of the Project Description, it states there is currently 36.43 acres of open space. Figure II-15 of the Project Description states there will be 37.25 acres of proposed open space; yet on page II-34, the stated narrative calculates to 42.2 acres of proposed open space. In the Parks and Recreation section, the Draft EIR states, “In total, the project’s public and semi-private open space/recreational areas would be approximately 21.5 acres.”9 In the Aesthetics/ Visual Quality/Views analysis, it states, “…semi-private and private courtyards, plazas, and open spaces would comprise an additional 13.5 acres of open space amenities for a total of approximately 24 acres of useable open space.”10
9 IV.J.4 Public Services – Parks and Recreation, IV.J-101 10 IV.A.1 Aesthettics [sic]/Visual Quality/Views, IV.A-19
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-307 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 17-12
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 17-13
The Draft EIR divides up the overall open space into many different types and categories, which makes it difficult to assess in terms of comparison to existing open space conditions. Excluding buildings, parking lots and other hardscape surfaces, the Conservancy estimates there is approximately 50 acres of existing open space at Wyvernwood. Applying the same type of analysis and using what was provided within the Draft EIR, in comparison, the Conservancy believes the proposed project actually provides about 24 acres of open space.
Response to Comment No. 17-13
The commenter’s categorization of the open space acreage is not supported by factual analysis. Assuming the comment is referring to ground-level open space only, as shown in Figure II-4 on page II-8 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, there is a total of 39.98 acres of ground-level open space on the existing project site. This includes 3.55 acres of fenced yard space, for a total of 36.43 acres of non-enclosed ground-level open space. As shown in Figure II-15 on page II-35 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide 37.25 acres of ground-level open space on the project site, all of which would be non-enclosed. These calculations are based on professional field surveys and engineering-level site plans prepared for the proposed project. The comment disputes these calculations and provides different estimates of existing and proposed ground-level open space, but does not explain how these estimates were derived. Therefore, a meaningful response cannot be provided. See also Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the calculation of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 17-14
Additional analysis within the Draft EIR, when properly evaluated, also does not support the claim that the project will provide greater open space than what currently exists. For instance, hydrology analysis indicates the proposed project will have significant impacts, substantially increasing the amount of surface waters diverted to a downstream water body. This is due to an increase in impervious surfaces, which again does not support statements that the proposed project would result in more open space. Analysis within the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Reports incorrectly calculates the percentage increase in imperviousness of the project.11 Instead of a 4.7 percent increase, as stated, it
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-308 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments is actually a 40 percent increase. The analysis does not take into account the existing imperviousness (IMP) of the Wyvernwood site, which is presently 54 percent. The proposed project will increase to 90 percent imperviousness.
11 Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Reports, 9 of 13
Response to Comment No. 17-14
See Response to Comment No. 15-63 regarding the calculation of impervious surface area and Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation of existing and proposed open space. It should also be noted that several types of open space considered throughout the Draft EIR consist of impervious surfaces or a mix of pervious and impervious surfaces (e.g., recreation rooms, patios, courtyards, paseos, roof gardens, and private balconies). Therefore, the fact that an area or surface is impervious does not mean that it is not open space.
Comment No. 17-15
Given the inconsistent open space calculations throughout the Draft EIR and flawed analysis elsewhere, we do not believe it is accurate or fair to state that open space will be increased or “substantially improved” than what currently exists on the project site.12 The Final EIR should fully reevaluate its analysis and provide consistent and accurate data.
12 Project Description, II-34
Response to Comment No. 17-15
See Topical Response No. 5 regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 17-16
II. The Draft EIR Contains Narrowly Defined Project Objectives that Favor New Construction over Preservation
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.”13 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.”14
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-309 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
13 Public Resources Code §21001 (b), (c). 14 Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 30, 41; also see PRC §§ 21002, 21002.1.
Response to Comment No. 17-16
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 17-17
Courts often refer to the EIR as “the heart” of CEQA, providing decision makers with an in- depth review of projects with potentially significant environmental impacts and analyzing alternatives that would reduce or avoid those impacts.15 The CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives to be considered in the EIR that would feasibly attain most of basic project objectives but would avoid or “substantially lessen” the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. The lead agency cannot merely adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with significant impacts; it must first adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.16
15 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123. 16 PRC §§ 21081; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 185.
Response to Comment No. 17-17
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide. See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-310 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-18
The list of project objectives guide the development through a range of reasonable alternatives, and determines the feasibility of an alternative, but certain objectives in the Draft EIR clearly favor demolition and foreclose consideration of less harmful alternatives. In some instances, statements within the Draft EIR misstate project objectives, again indicating preference for new development. For instance, the applicant states its objective to feature “substantial amount of new housing stock.”17 The objective within the Draft EIR actually as stated is to “increase the amount and quality of the housing stock.”18
17 Page V-88 18 Page 11-12
Response to Comment No. 17-18
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives under CEQA. Contrary to the comment, page V-88 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR does not misstate the project objectives. The discussion on this page refers to the underlying purpose of the proposed project, not a project objective. As stated on page II-12 of Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, “the underlying purpose of the proposed project is to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of new, upgraded, and modernized housing stock integrated with retail, office, and neighborhood-oriented uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development, with no net loss of rental housing, and no involuntary displacement of existing residents.” As discussed in Topical Response No. 2, the use of the term “new” in this context refers to the creation of “additional housing,” and was not meant to indicate a requirement that all housing be “new construction.”
Comment No. 17-19
One objective specifically aims to “remove existing on-site buildings and improvements,” that the applicant claims encroach upon public water and storm drain easements. As an objective that seems to favor demolition over rehabilitation of the site, and is cited as one of only two “ongoing problems” that the Partial Preservation Alternative C does not correct, the project objective to remove an unspecified number of buildings that encroach on unidentified easements is a contrivance to discourage the preservation of Wyvernwood.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-311 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 17-19
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives under CEQA and Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-20
The California Supreme Court has explained that an EIR must avoid an artificially narrow statement of project objectives.1 An objective is a goal, not the means to an end. This contrived objective should be r9evised to comply with CEQA by reflecting a legitimate project goal. For example, the objective could be restated as the protection or enhancement of public water and storm drain easements.
19 In re Bay Delta (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143.
Response to Comment No. 17-20
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives under CEQA.
Comment No. 17-21
If restated, there should be supporting backup analysis as justification. Specifically only the easement for a water main owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is detailed in the Draft EIR. MWD retains the right to request removal of the garages, driveways and sidewalks if it is necessary to excavate, but no request from MWD regarding removal of the improvements or to correct encroachment on their easement is included in the Draft EIR.20 As for the storm drains, no easement or encroachment is mentioned in the hydrology or storm drain technical reports and no illustrations have be supplied as to the location of the purported easement and encroachments.
20 Draft EIR, Appendix M.2, Domestic Water System Study by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., p. 3 of 8. According to this report, the reverse easement deeded by MWD is silent on requirements for the residential building.
Response to Comment No. 17-21
See Topical Response No. 2 for further discussion of the existing utility easements on the project site. See also Appendix FEIR-2 of this Final EIR for diagrams depicting the locations of the existing easements including the tract map for the project site and a recent land survey.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-312 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-22
Despite this stated project objective, there is no corresponding preservation alternative provided that addresses this perceived issue with the MWD easement, in terms of removing the buildings and structures which encroach upon the easement. Our understanding is this affects approximately 25 residential buildings and garage structures. Their removal could still maintain eligibility as an historic district while addressing this specific project objective. Further, this could demonstrate how Partial Preservation Alternative C comes even closer to meeting nearly all of the project objectives.
Response to Comment No. 17-22
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the existing utility easements on the project site. See also Appendix FEIR-2 for diagrams depicting the locations of the existing easements including the tract map for the project site and a recent land survey. The maps indicate that the infrastructure conflict cuts across an east/west line through virtually all of the project site. Removal of the conflicting structures would result in a significant loss of housing units, mostly in the central part of the project site. The preservation alternatives could be modified to eliminate the infrastructure conflicts, but this would only further reduce their feasibility by reducing the overall unit counts (resulting in additional displacement of existing residents) and reducing the overall amount of housing and making the resulting alternative even less likely to meet the project objectives.
Comment No. 17-23
a. Partial Preservation Alternative C partially meets most of the project objectives
Despite project objectives that skew in favor of demolition, the Partial Preservation Alternative C is still able to partially meet most of the project objectives. Refinements to this alternative can address these concerns and further achieve more of the project objectives.
Response to Comment No. 17-23
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. The comment does not indicate what refinements could be implemented that would address the issues of financial feasibility and conflicts with other policy considerations such as tenant displacement. The analysis in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR concludes that Alternative C would not meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of additional housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses to serve the local
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-313 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development. Furthermore, this Alternative would only partially achieve the project objectives that support this underlying purpose. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-24
Partial Preservation Alternative C can include some amount of retail or commercial space to meet the underlying purpose of the proposed project for a “mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of new housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses.” More housing and civic amenities could be incorporated in residential towers greater than the 7-story buildings proposed in this alternative, particularly along Olympic Boulevard, or within compatible infill construction with subterranean parking that replaces the approximately 8 acres of surface parking lots currently onsite.
Response to Comment No. 17-24
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including a version of Alternative C that adds more development as suggested in the comment. In addition, as discussed in Section II, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, under the subheading of Alternatives, to the extent that additional commercial uses were assumed to be part of new development under an Alternative such as Alternative C, it would of necessity reduce the number of affordable units and overall housing units, thereby making this alternative less likely to conform with the project’s objectives.
Comment No. 17-25
Similarly, less drastic measures can be made to improve site access for emergency vehicles. Adding street signage for Wyvernwood’s interior circulation, coordination and periodic updates with the responding police and fire stations to map access routes and develop an emergency response plan, and if necessary, appropriate widening of select walkways can ensure Wvyernwood [sic] is properly protected and served.
Response to Comment No. 17-25
See Topical Response No. 7 regarding existing circulation deficiencies for emergency response vehicles.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-314 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-26
Despite a lack of discernable [sic] increase in crime statistics within the reporting district in which Wyvernwood is located (Hollenbeck Community Police Station), relatively simple measures could be accomplished to address the project objective for maximum safety. This could include minor improvements such as additional lighting on site and in building stairwells, new mirrors at “blind” corners, and regular maintenance of trees and landscaping.
Response to Comment No. 17-26
See Response to Comment No. 15-32.
Comment No. 17-27
III. The Final EIR Should Evaluate a Greater Range of Feasible Preservation Alternatives that Retain Wyvernwood’s Eligibility as a Historic District
The Draft EIR is inadequate in its consideration of preservation alternatives. Only Partial Preservation Alternative C attempts to meet some of the project objectives and still retain eligibility as a historic district. Rehabilitation Alternative B, which does not include any new construction, is considered a “no project” alternative, demonstrating a disingenuous approach that lacks real consideration of rehabilitation as a viable alternative. Given the scale of this project, there should be a sincere attempt to consider and evaluate a greater range of preservation alternatives within the Final EIR to reduce the significant impacts of this project.
Response to Comment No. 17-27
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and the range of preservation alternatives considered in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The consideration of Alternative B as a “no project” alternative does not reflect a “disingenuous approach that lacks real consideration of rehabilitation as a viable alternative.” Rather, it reflects the acknowledged fact, as the comment points out, that this alternative does not include any new construction. Nor does it involve a discretionary approval from the City since it assumed that any new construction complies with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Since there will be no new construction and a retention of the current improvements and site configuration, it is best categorized as “no project.”
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-315 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-28
Other alternatives may be available but have not been analyzed within the Draft EIR. The recent work of an architectural studio class at Cal Poly Pomona demonstrates the range of alternatives that could be considered within the Final EIR. Seven teams of twenty-one students developed alternatives that meet many of the project objectives while also retaining at least fifty percent of the existing Wyvernwood historic district. While a fifty percent threshold is not optimal in terms of maintaining eligibility as an historic district, various teams preserved more than sixty percent by crafting various permutations that add new commercial uses along with infill development. Nearly all of the projects retain much of the central portion of Wyvernwood and its historic character.
Response to Comment No. 17-28
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 17-29
IV. Large-scale historic garden apartments across the nation and in Los Angeles have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved
The DEIR repeatedly claims the rehabilitation of Wyvernwood, in whole or partially, is financially infeasible. Analysis provided, however, does not substantiate this conclusion. The Conservancy is concerned that there has not been serious consideration of rehabilitation as a viable alternative. Throughout the country, other large-scale garden apartment communities have been successfully preserved and rehabilitated, employing creative approaches of ownership, financing and incentives.
Response to Comment No. 17-29
The comment provides opinion about the financial feasibility analysis of the project alternatives. Contrary to the comment, serious consideration of whether a project alternative that includes historic rehabilitation, to one degree or another, was provided in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the selection of project alternatives included Alternative B (the No Project/Site Rehabilitation in Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Alternative), Alternative C (the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility), and Alternative D (the West End Preservation Alternative 2), all of which propose some degree of historic rehabilitation. A detailed historic preservation impact analysis of the project alternatives is included in Appendix N.1 of the Draft EIR and a detailed financial feasibility analysis of the project
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-316 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments alternatives is included in Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR. See Topical Response No. 2 for further discussion regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-30
In Washington, DC, Mayfair Mansions Apartments were rehabilitated in March 2009 through a phased project. Completed in 1946, Mayfair Mansions is a historic garden apartment community, listed on the DC and National Register of Historic Places. It is significant as one of the first designed for working- [sic] and
Response to Comment No. 17-30
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-59. See Response to Comment No. 15-59. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-31
In Los Angeles, Lincoln Place in Venice is currently undergoing rehabilitation. Lincoln Place is a 33-acre garden apartment complex built between 1949 and 1951 and a significant example of moderate-income rental housing built in Los Angeles following World War II to alleviate the severe housing shortages.21 Conditions here are likely much more severe in comparison to Wyvernwood however, as the complex has suffered for years of deferred maintenance and care. The project includes a two-phased rehabilitation of 45 buildings and 696 housing units. $56 million is being invested in the total project costs. Owners are adhering to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as the project intends to use federal historic tax credits as well as Mills Act financial incentives to help offset the rehabilitation costs. The project also includes sensitive infill construction on land where 7 apartment buildings were previously demolished.
21 Historical Resources Technical Report, page 19, June 2011
Response to Comment No. 17-31
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-59. See Response to Comment No. 15-59. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-317 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-32
Throughout the country, examples like these and others demonstrate how historic garden apartment communities can be rehabilitated, upgraded on an incremental basis, and continue to provide high quality housing and be economically viable. For instance, the largest garden apartment community in Los Angeles, Park La Brea, has successfully managed to maintain its historic buildings and character while also upgrading residences, attaining market rate rents, and doing so without completely vacating the overall complex.
Response to Comment No. 17-32
The fact that other properties with some characteristics similar to the proposed project and located elsewhere in the City of Los Angeles have been rehabilitated is not substantial evidence that it is feasible to historically rehabilitate the project improvements, absent a direct comparison between the scope of rehabilitation work and assumed costs for the cited example and those for the project, which is not included with the comment. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-33
Another example is Village Green in Baldwin Hills, converted from rental units to condominium ownership in the 1970s, it has been continuously maintained and updated with regular infrastructure improvements (site work, plumbing, electrical, roofing, HVAC, etc.) since it was opened in 1942. Currently through a Mills Act agreement, leadership is undertaking a 10-year rehabilitation plan to improve infrastructure, all while residents remain in their homes. Village Green is similar to Wyvernwood, as it also consists of nearly 70 acres, though lower in density with 629 units (in comparison to 1,187 units).
Response to Comment No. 17-33
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-59. See Response to Comment No. 15-59. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-34
Throughout the D.C.-metro area of Virginia, which has the highest concentration of large-scale garden apartments in the nation, many have been successfully maintained and rehabilitated, employing creative approaches toward financing and homeownership (condo and co-op). Colonial Village, for instance, the first FHA-insured large-scale garden apartment housing project in the City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-318 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
country, was built between 1935 and 1940. In the late 1970s, a phased development plan was approved for the 55-acre site and 245 buildings, calling for 75 percent of Colonial Village to be preserved while allowing some demolition and new construction to occur. Today Colonial Village continues to thrive and provide high-quality housing while also maintaining its eligibility as a historic district.
Response to Comment No. 17-34
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-59. See Response to Comment No. 15-59. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-35
a. The estimated rehabilitation costs and financial analysis is unsubstantiated and flawed
Economic analysis within the Draft EIR is not considered paramount under CEQA. The applicant, however, relies heavily on this type of analysis to demonstrate why various alternatives are infeasible. CEQA defines feasibility as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.”22 In order to prove economic infeasibility the applicant must provide specific “evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.”23
22 CEQA Guidelines, § 15364 23 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167, 1181
Response to Comment No. 17-35
This comment correctly quotes CEQA Guidelines §15364. The Financial Feasibility Report that was prepared for the project alternatives (see Appendix N.2 of the Draft EIR) includes substantial evidence demonstrating that some alternatives are financially infeasible due to severe negative profitability results. A discussion of the financial feasibility thresholds is provided on pages 21–23 of the Financial Feasibility Report. As discussed on page 22 of the Financial Feasibility Report, the analysis was performed using two industry-standard metrics: (1) unleveraged (i.e., without financing included) internal rate of return; and (2) gross margin, which measures the relationship between profit and total development cost. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-319 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 17-36
Economic analysis appears skewed in several instances. For example, under the Partial Preservation Alternative C, $80 million is estimated for the hard construction costs to rehabilitate 83 existing buildings or 648 units, excluding site work and soft costs. No specific scope of work or detailed line item analysis is provided to explain the exorbitantly high $124,146 per-unit construction cost. When compared to Lincoln Place, which offers similar-sized units and type of construction, the estimates for Wyvernwood appear to be much higher. For instance, per-unit costs at Lincoln Place are estimated at $53,000 for rehabilitation-only units, and $70,763 for those that also include modernized kitchens and an added bath in 2-bedroom units.24
24 Historical Property Contract Program, City of Los Angeles, Lincoln Place Apartments, May 25, 2011
Response to Comment No. 17-36
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-60. See Response to Comment No. 15-60. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-37
At Lincoln Place and elsewhere, rehabilitation generally involves upgrades which include improving building and site infrastructure to meet current-day demands, refurbishing interior spaces while keeping character-defining features like hardwood flooring intact, modernizing kitchens or baths where appropriate, and to install energy- and water-saving features. Such improvements extend the service life of these well-thought-out 60 and 70 year-old buildings for many more decades.
Response to Comment No. 17-37
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-60. See Response to Comment No. 15-60. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-38
Without supporting information and documentation for the estimated rehabilitation costs, Wyvernwood’s almost double per-unit cost comparison to Lincoln Place lacks justification. It also calls into question the accuracy of the overall rate of return and gross margins
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-320 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments calculated in the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, as the development cost is based on the unsubstantiated rehabilitation costs. Despite the statement that “available financial incentives for historic preservation are accounted for in the feasibility analysis,”25 no available analysis demonstrates serious consideration of financial incentives such as the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the Mills Act, or charitable tax deductions that could occur through façade and/or conservation open space easements. Further, financing that other types of affordable housing has secured, such as HUD assistance, is not addressed.
25 Appendix N.2, Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, Page 2
Response to Comment No. 17-38
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-60. See Response to Comment No. 15-60. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-39
Overall the various arguments that state rehabilitation cannot be phased, is financially infeasible, and would result in tenant displacement due to higher post-rehabilitation rents, stem from the unspecific rehabilitation costs and flawed financial analysis.
Response to Comment No. 17-39
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-60. See Response to Comment No. 15-60. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-40
b. Rehabilitation can be phased to limit tenant displacement and associated costs of relocation
The Draft EIR acknowledges that Partial Preservation Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative that would have the fewest significant and unavoidable impacts.26 However, the analysis states this alternative would “create a new impact that would be significantly greater than the project in that it would displace the current tenant population,” and presents resident retention and preservation as an either-or fallacy. We strongly believe the displacement and relocation issue under Partial Preservation Alternative C is being represented as more problematic than it really is, as the applicant has not
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-321 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments demonstrated compelling analysis that supports the need to completely vacate Wyvernwood under a rehabilitation scenario.
26 Appendix N.2, Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, Page 2
Response to Comment No. 17-40
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-61. See Response to Comment No. 15-61. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 17-41
The applicant’s consulting construction contractor27 that provided the preliminary rehabilitation estimates concluded that phasing the rehabilitation work would “increase two to three times” the estimated cost. While reasons such as the inability to negotiate volume discounts and cost escalation over time are given for the large increase, the timing, scope, and details of the potential phasing are not provided to determine whether cost savings could occur with different types of phasing schedules. Further, this does not take in account the ability to accept bids for overall or phased rehabilitation work, often taken at a single point in time which can address cost containment and savings through volume discounts.
27 Appendix N.2, Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report, Page 2
Response to Comment No. 17-41
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-61. See Response to Comment No. 15-61. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 17-42
As has been the case at Village Green in Baldwin Hills, rehabilitation can occur on a unit- by-unit or building-by-building basis as vacancies occur with the costs absorbed over several years. Alternatively, a grouping of 3-15 buildings can be rehabilitated at a time, which would allow a limited number of families to be relocated to available vacancies in existing or new units within Wyvernwood. Such scheduling could also be phased so that as each trade completes a grouping of buildings, they can move on to the next group, thereby benefiting from economies of scale and worker experience while still not requiring complete relocation of all tenants simultaneously.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-322 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 17-42
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-61. See Response to Comment No. 15-61. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 17-43
To demonstrate the apparent threshold and scale that could support a phased rehabilitation, the applicant asserts that only Alternative #3D can be phased, which includes the retention and rehabilitation of 6 buildings at Wyvernwood, to be reused as a community center. Alternative #3C, which retains only 17 residential buildings and 126 units -- the least amount of all the residential rehabilitation alternatives -- the applicant apparently believes is too large in scale, stating, “it would not be possible to phase this scale of renovation, so all existing residents would be eligible for relocation benefits.”28
28 Financial Feasibility of Project Alternatives Technical Report, 17, 18
Response to Comment No. 17-43
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-61. See Response to Comment No. 15-61. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 17-44
The applicant states all existing units would need to be vacated at the commencement of rehabilitation work. Phasing the rehabilitation of large-scale housing developments, in Los Angeles and across the country, is not uncommon. This practice ensures an ongoing income stream while making necessary upgrades and improvements. It is unclear how Wyvernwood is unique from other developments in this respect, requiring, as the applicant states, that all aspects of rehabilitation occur within a single point in time. The assertion that Wyvernwood would require complete vacancy is a faulty assumption with no credible analysis to demonstrate this necessity. We believe the need for relocation is unsubstantiated and estimating $21,722,10029 for relocation is not entirely necessary if there is a phased rehabilitation, further calling into question the accuracy of the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report. We believe an onsite and phased rehabilitation is feasible and
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-323 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments would greatly reduce the estimated costs associated with any need for limited relocation, and should be reflected within updated analysis.
29 Financial Feasibility of Project Alternatives Technical Report, 26
Response to Comment No. 17-44
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-61. See Response to Comment No. 15-61. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 17-45
V. Rehabilitating Wyvernwood is acknowledged as the environmentally superior alternative and can be achieved while meeting the project’s sustainability goals and objectives, including LEED for Existing Buildings certification
The project seeks to attain LEED Silver certification; however, reuse of the existing historic buildings at Wyvernwood is an inherently green and sustainable practice. It is certainly not environmentally sustainable to demolish 256 existing buildings. According to the USGBC, LEED-certified existing buildings now surpass LEED-certified new construction, a trend that is expected to grow.30 When a building is demolished and replaced, research demonstrates that it can take more than 30 years before any cumulative energy savings is achieved through even the most energy-efficient replacement building.31
30 “Huge Growth for LEED retrofits,” www.greenbuildingpro.com, December 8, 2011 31 National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sustainability Program
Response to Comment No. 17-45
See Response to Comment No. 15-62. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-46
The adverse environmental impact of building 4,400 housing units and up to 325,000 square feet of commercial/retail space is tremendous, requiring enormous expenditures of energy, materials, and non-renewable resources. Even with proposed recycling and the best case scenario, the project will generate 11 tons of demolition and construction solid waste per day over a period of 15 years (43,560 tons overall with project build out to 2030).32 Further, in comparison to current annual operating solid waste generation at Wyvernwood, the project will result in a net 78 percent increase annually, or 9,179 tons of
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-324 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments waste per year. Operational impacts of this project are significant, as stated in the analysis provided, and cumulatively would increase the need for waste disposal capacity at the County’s unclassified landfills.
32 Utilities and Service Systems – Solid waste, IV.L-105
Response to Comment No. 17-46
See Response to Comment No. 15-62 regarding the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by implementation of the project and the proposed project’s construction-related solid waste generation.
Comment No. 17-47
The perceived deficiencies at Wyvernwood can be improved without full demolition and replacement. Wyvernwood could attain better performance through green operations and maintenance. In addition to an overall rehabilitation of each unit, upgrades can be made to modernize the electrical and plumbing systems and sustainability features such as low-flow water fixtures, tankless water heaters, and energy-efficient appliances and lighting can be installed. Some ground-floor apartment units can also be adapted to offer ADA-accessible units. The California Historic Building Code is available to provide code flexibility for historic buildings to achieve performance standards equivalent to current building codes while still retaining their historic integrity.
Response to Comment No. 17-47
This comment is a duplicate of Comment No. 15-64. See Response to Comment No. 15-64.
Comment No. 17-48
Improvements to the site can also offer an opportunity to upgrade telephone and sewer capacity for modern conveniences, such as rerouting wastewater from the at-capacity Camulos trunk sewer line to the underutilized Eighth Street line. Existing sustainability features at the site should also be retained and upgraded. For instance, current technologies for bio-swales, coupled with appropriate maintenance, can improve rainwater infiltration and retention at the Mall. Other improvements, including native plantings, updated irrigation systems, and ongoing maintenance, can repair the dead grass, dirt, standing water, and erosion that have occurred in some of the landscaped areas throughout years.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-325 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 17-48
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-65. See Response to Comment No. 15-65.
Comment No. 17-49
The Final EIR should fully scrutinize any claimed environmental benefits of the proposed project within a broad context. For instance, financial analysis does not appear to consider the cost savings of not demolishing 256 building or the substantial expenditure associated with regrading the entire site and associated soil export, as currently proposed. Once again, this calls into question the accuracy of the Alternatives Financial Feasibility Report.
Response to Comment No. 17-49
This comment is similar to Comment No. 15-66. See Response to Comment No. 15-66. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 17-50
VI. Conclusion
The Conservancy strongly believes that other potentially feasible alternatives exist and should be explored for Wyvernwood while also meeting many of project objectives. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project.
Please add the Conservancy to the notice list for this project as the environmental review process continues and feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 213-430- 4203 should you have any questions.
Response to Comment No. 17-50
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of alternatives in the Draft EIR, and Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. The Los Angeles Conservancy is included on the EIR mailing list.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-326 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 18
Brian R. Turner Senior Field Officer/Attorney, National Trust for Historic Preservation Foundation Jennifer Gates Field Services Director, California Preservation California Preservation Foundation San Francisco Field Office 5 Third St., Ste. 707 San Francisco, CA 94103
Comment No. 18-1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project (Project). The National Trust and California Preservation Foundation are firmly opposed to the proposed Project which calls for the demolition of the entire Wyvernwood Garden Apartments Historic District, a resource listed on the California Register of Historic Resources and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. We strongly advise the City of Los Angeles (City) to adopt Alternatives B or C to protect the community character and heritage of Wyvernwood.
Response to Comment No. 18-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project and support for Alternatives B and C is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The balance of this comment, which describes the historical designation of Wyvernwood and existing open space at the project site, is consistent with the analysis presented on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, and page II-9 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, respectively.
Comment No. 18-2
Completed in 1941, the Wyvernwood Garden Apartment complex was the first large-scale garden apartment complex ever built in Los Angeles. Its site design is entirely intact and represents an excellent example of the design theory of the Garden City Movement. The complex emphasizes the principles of Garden City design providing for circulation and open space in the configuration of its buildings and landscapes. The primarily Spanish- speaking community that currently resides at Wyvernwood has a strong and unique identity, and many families have lived in the complex for multiple generations. Those tenants have strongly opposed the demolition plan since the project was first proposed in 2008. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-327 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 18-2
This comment, which describes the history of the project site and the opposition of some Wyvernwood tenants to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 18-3
The proposed project by Thurman Interim California, LLC, a Delaware-based limted [sic] liability company, would replace 1,187 units of historic rental housing with 4,400 new housing units, including 3,200 condominiums and 325,000 square feet of retail and civic space. Much of the historic open space that makes Wyvernwood unique would be filled in, making the space far less desirable for children and family activities. In addition to impacts to historic resources that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to aesthetics, air quality, noise, traffic, and solid waste.
Response to Comment No. 18-3
The first portion of this comment correctly summarizes portions of Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, specifically the summary of the proposed project on page II-1 and in Table II-4 on page II-47. However, contrary to the comment, the proposed project would include 325,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, office, and civic uses, not just retail and civic uses. The balance of this comment correctly states that the proposed project would potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to visual quality, air quality, cultural resources, noise, traffic, and solid waste, as summarized on pages VI-1 through VI-3 in Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR.
As stated throughout the Draft EIR and specifically on page II-34 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, upon completion of the project, the total amount of open space at the ground level would be 37.25 acres, compared to 36.43 acres of comparable space that currently exists on the project site. Specifically, the recreational areas would include amenities such as play equipment, athletic courts, seating, and open play areas. Therefore, the quality and usability of the on-site open spaces would be substantially improved, rather than “far less desirable” as stated by the commenter. See also Topical Response No. 5 regarding the quality of existing and proposed open space.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-328 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 18-4
Interests of the National Trust and California Preservation Foundation
The National Trust is a private, non-profit corporation that helps people protect, enhance, and enjoy the places that matter to them. Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust protects and defends America’s historic resources, furthers the historic preservation policy of the United States, and facilitates public participation in the preservation of our nation’s diverse heritage. In 2010 the National Trust provided funding to the resident group Comité de la Esperanza to document its concerns in a multimedia project (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bStHGBTv7IU).
The California Preservation Foundation (CPF) is the only statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of California’s diverse cultural and architectural heritage. Established in 1977, CPF works with its extensive network of 1,500 members to provide statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of California’s diverse cultural heritage and historic places.
The National Trust and CPF have participated in a number of mandamus actions enforcing CEQA’s mandate to “take all action necessary” to protect California’s “historic environmental qualities.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21001 (b).) Among the CEQA cases in which the National Trust and CPF have recently participated as amicus curiae are Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587 and Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336.
Response to Comment No. 18-4
This comment, which describes the National Trust and the California Preservation Foundation, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 18-5
Shortcomings of the Draft EIR
We agree with the conclusions of the Draft EIR that the demolition of the Wyvernwood complex would be a “significant adverse effect on an historic resource” and that the mitigation proposed “would not reduce the impact to a less-than significant level.” As such the City should not approve the project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. See Pub. Res. Code § 21002.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-329 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 18-5
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation alternative.
Comment No. 18-6
Contrary to the conclusions of the Draft EIR, we believe that there are feasible alternatives that would meet the project objectives at minimum cost to the project applicant and preserve Wyvernwood as a Historic District. CEQA defines feasibility as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15364. In order to prove economic infeasibility the applicant must provide specific “evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167, 1181
Response to Comment No. 18-6
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation alternative.
Comment No. 18-7
We feel that the Draft EIR is flawed in several respects. Most notably, it lacks a good faith rationale for rejecting as infeasible Alternatives B and C, both of which would preserve the historic qualities of Wyvernwood. For instance, the Draft EIR contains a cost estimate for rehabilitation far out of sync with estimates for similar projects. Its projected $124,146 for the rehabilitation of each unit is not accompanied by supporting documentation and more than double the actual cost for the rehabilitation of the similar sized garden apartment complex at Lincoln Place in Venice.
Response to Comment No. 18-7
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 18-8
The Draft EIR also contains an insufficient analysis for rejecting a viable preservation alternative in Alternative C. At Page V-88 it conspicuously misstates one of the project objectives reciting the developer’s objective to feature a “substantial amount of new housing stock.” (emphasis added). The actual objective as stated at Page 11-12 is to
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-330 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
“increase the amount and quality of the housing stock.” In addition, the Draft EIR suggests that retaining National Register eligibility of the site would necessarily cause curtailed access for emergency vehicles. We feel that there are very simple, cost effective ways to improve emergency vehicle access at minimal cost to the developer and retain the existing site plan. Alternative C could be improved in this respect at a low cost by adding street signage and lighting, as well as sensitive widening of existing pathways.
Response to Comment No. 18-8
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for a discussion of the project objective referenced in the comment. With regard to emergency access, see Topical Response No. 7.
Comment No. 18-9
Conclusion
We urge the City to adopt an alternative that would preserve the historic Wyvernwood complex as we find the project sponsor has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that it will be an impediment to its development, community, and economic objectives. In addition, we seriously question the project sponsor’s goal to sell its project as “sustainable” given that it calls for the wholesale demolition of 256 existing buildings, their materials wasted.
Response to Comment No. 18-9
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
With respect to the portion of this comment concerned with materials generated during the construction phase of the project, see Table II-3 on page II-41 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, for a matrix summarizing the project’s numerous sustainable design features, and Project Design Features L.3-1 through L.3-8 on pages IV.L-115 through IV.L-116 of Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. See also page IV.L-105 of Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. As stated therein and memorialized as Mitigation Measure L.3-1, it is anticipated that much of the waste generated during construction would be recycled to the extent feasible. In addition to LAMC code requirements and project mitigation measures, the Applicant is committed to recycling practices through implementation of design features throughout the project’s design, construction and operational phases. Specifically, project contractors would be required to recycle and/or reuse C&D waste generated during construction so that, overall, at least 50 percent of solid waste would be recycled or reused. The Draft EIR concluded
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-331 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments that with implementation of the project design features and mitigation measures, construction impacts on solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-332 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 19
Steven Keylon Joe Khoury Steve Haggerty Robert Nicolais Dan Frank Dee Dee Chapelle John Keho Robert Creighton Village Green Homeowner’s Association Board of Directors 3500 Rodeo Rd. Los Angeles, CA 90016
Comment No. 19-1
We, the Board of Directors of Village Green, a National Historic Landmark community in Los Angeles, are writing to urge the City of Los Angeles to preserve the thriving and historic Wyvernwood community.
Response to Comment No. 19-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 19-2
Both Wyvernwood and the Village Green were designed as new paradigms for middle- class housing in Los Angeles. Both were carefully and intelligently planned to successfully foster community, provide ample access to fresh air, light, and recreational facilities, using urban planner Clarence Stein’s Garden City principles. Their innovative designs work as well today as they did when they opened in 1939 and 1941. These Garden Apartment communities can’t be duplicated today, and should be preserved.
Response to Comment No. 19-2
See Response to Comment No. 15-4. To the extent that this comment implies that the existing on-site development exemplifies the same core principles that define New Urbanism and the green building movement, such as pedestrian friendly communities, communal open spaces, and environmentally-sensitive siting, see Response to Comment
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-333 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
No. 13-14. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 19-3
While the Village Green is a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, and is a City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument, Wyvernwood doesn’t have the benefit of such designations, but is largely intact and equally eligible.
Response to Comment No. 19-3
This comment is consistent with information presented in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument (see pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR). The balance of this comment, which describes the historical designations of Village Green, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of this analysis or other analyses in the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 19-4
The Draft EIR’s narrow definition of project objectives favors new construction over preservation, while claiming that the new community will come to include “dozens of LEED- approved design features, embracing conservation and environmental responsibility.” However, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Association for Preservation Technology International have established that the most environmentally responsible building is one that is already standing. Furthermore, Wyvernwood’s thoughtfully designed structures allow for cross-ventilation cooling, which is only further encouraged by the mature tree canopy that now shades the oasis of green space.
Response to Comment No. 19-4
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives under CEQA. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
As stated on page II-36 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, following implementation of the landscaping program, it is expected that the number of trees on-site would more than double when compared with existing conditions. With time, these trees
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-334 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments would increase the mature tree canopy. See Response to Comment No. 15-10 regarding the mature trees located on the project site and the key features of the project’s landscaping program related to the retention of on-site trees. Additionally, see Response to Comment No. 15-8 regarding the numerous sustainability features that the proposed project would incorporate. These features would be implemented by incorporation into the conditions of approval for the project, through mitigation measures, or pursuant to the regulations or design criteria required by the Specific Plan. Several of these features, including the following, would serve to reduce heat gain and loss in new structures:
The proposed project would reduce the Heat Island Effect for non-roof areas (excluding streets) using any combination of the following strategies for 50 percent of the site hardscape (including driveways, sidewalks, courtyards, and parking lots:
– Provide shade from the existing trees or landscaping (as measured by the expected canopy at 20 years);
– Provide shade from structures covered by solar panels that produce energy used to offset some nonrenewable resource use;
– Provide shade from architectural devices or structures that have a solar reflectance index (SRI) of at least 29;
– Use hardscape materials with an SRI of at least 29; and/or
– Use an open-grid pavement system (at least 50 percent pervious). (Project Design Feature B.2-1 starting on page IV.B-113 in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR.)
The proposed project would use building overhangs, awnings, louvers, fins, landscaping, etc. on south- and west-facing overhangs and/or use spectrally selective glazing of these facades to reduce solar heat gain. (Project Design Feature B.1-3 starting on page IV.B-63 in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR.)
The proposed project would use green and/or cool roofs that use roofing materials with a solar reflective index (SRI) equal to or greater than the values indicated and/or use landscaped roof areas (“green roofs”) for a minimum of 75 percent of the roof surface. (Project Design Feature B.2-1 starting on page IV.B-113 in Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR.)
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-335 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 19-5
We believe that Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be rehabilitated and sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. The Village Green, which received Mills Act status last December, has entered into a contract with the City of Los Angeles to restore and rehabilitate our 629-unit facility. We have created a 10-year plan to replace the majority of our aging and increasingly failing infrastructure, all while our owners and residents remain in their homes. We believe the same can and should be done at Wyvernwood. Wyvernwood has suffered neglect at the hands of its current owners, but we have shown that this sort of deferred maintenance can be successfully reversed.
Response to Comment No. 19-5
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other historic rehabilitation projects in the City, including Village Green, and the degree to which they are suitable comparisons to the proposed project. Moreover, the suggestion that the deficiencies in the project site are the result of neglect or lack of maintenance is not supported by facts. Current ownership has spent more than $7.5 million on repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements over the past six years, even as plans for modernization of the units have been prepared and studied. These costs are just for property upkeep and exclude payroll, management, security, taxes, insurance, and many other costs associated with running an apartment community of this size. Further, on a per apartment basis, these costs are significantly understated because much of the work is done in-house by maintenance staff and the payroll is not included in the $7.5 million in expenditures.
Comment No. 19-6
Influential architecture critic Lewis Mumford wrote that Garden City communities like Wyvernwood “dared to put beauty as one of the imperative needs of a planned environment: the beauty of ordered buildings, measured to the human scale, of trees and flowering plants, and of open greens surrounded by buildings of low density, so that children may scamper over them, to add to both their use and their aesthetic loveliness,” all of which would be destroyed if the plan to replace this historic cultural resource is approved.
Response to Comment No. 19-6
Contrary to this comment, the proposed project would include a landscaping program that would enhance the open space areas, provide shading at appropriate locations, and complement the building architecture, as stated on page IV.A-37 of
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-336 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Section IV.A.1, Visual Qualities/Views, of the Draft EIR. In addition, as stated on page IV.A-52, entrances to pedestrian paseos and open space and park areas along the project’s perimeter would provide transitional entry points from surrounding uses, inviting pedestrians into the site and toward the central green space and higher-density commercial and retail areas in the central and southern portions of the site. This would represent a change to the existing visual character of the site, which, consistent with the common characteristics of Garden Apartment complexes, is largely disassociated from the surrounding urban fabric. However, the sense of enclosure and privacy that currently characterizes the site would be maintained in the sense that the project would have a planned development appearance with buildings placed in a park like setting. See also Topical Response No. 5 regarding the amount and quality of proposed open space.
Comment No. 19-7
Please evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that can still retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as one of Los Angeles’ most important historic districts. Because only one preservation alternative was considered in the Draft EIR (Alternative C), this undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition to the destruction of an entire community of people proud and passionate to live at Wyvernwood, the project as described would have a negative environmental impact which would take decades to pay off in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Response to Comment No. 19-7
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-337 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 20
Matthew A. [email protected]
Comment No. 20-1
Wyvernwood is not a significant historic place and I look forward to it’s [sic] demolition and replacement with modern living quarters along with retail and office spaces and recreation areas.
I have worked as a real estate agent in Downtown and East LA for 18 years and I support the redevelopment of this property.
Response to Comment No. 20-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Contrary to this comment, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as an historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument, as stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Therefore, it is considered a historic resource under CEQA.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-338 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 21
Ali Abdul Cal Poly Pomona Architecture—2013 3801 W. Temple Ave. Pomona, CA 91768 [email protected]
Comment No. 21-1
I am writing to submit comments on the need for further review and consideration of additional preservation alternatives for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. As a 4th year undergraduate of architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, I have spent the last 10 weeks analyzing the proposed project as part of a studio course, including performing extensive research and analysis on Wyvernwood. Based on my team’s project (see attached pdf), we believe there are definitely a variety of alternatives to whole scale clearance of Wyvernwood that have not been fully considered within the DEIR.
Additionally, we think that maintaining Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic resource can be achieved through feasible preservation alternatives. More analysis is needed and additional preservation alternatives should be considered instead of only Alternative C within the DEIR.
Other mid-to-large-scale garden apartments throughout Los Angeles have fostered strong, stable communities, in large part because of their design (ex: Village Green). The proposed project and preferred alternative will effectively destroy a historic resource and thriving community. Wyvernwood can be saved and rehabilitated with residents in place to address the perceived deficiencies without resulting in the full scale demolition of the entire site and displacement of residents.
Response to Comment No. 21-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 21-2
As students of architecture and most of all, as citizens, we implore that alternatives be considered before any action is taken. Our attached pdf shows a general outline and site plan of the study we have done on location and a proposed alternative. If we as students
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-339 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments could come up with a 55% utilization factor of Wyvernwood, there is no reason why other alternatives can achieve the same or even better results of preserving Wyvernwood.
Response to Comment No. 21-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-340 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 22
Florence Arafiles Cal Poly Pomona 3801 W. Temple Ave. Pomona, CA 91768 [email protected]
Comment No. 22-1
I’m an architecture student at Cal Poly Pomona, and I have just participated in a 10-week design studio considering alternatives to the DEIR. I’d like to submit my comments, which I have attached above.
Response to Comment No. 22-1
This comment, which describes the educational background of the commenter, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 22-2
I am writing to submit comments on the need for further consideration of additional preservation alternatives for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. As a student of architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, I have spent the last ten weeks studying the proposed project as part of a design studio, including performing comprehensive research and analysis on Wyvernwood. Based on my team’s project (see next page), we believe there are viable alternatives to whole scale clearance of Wyvernwood that have not been fully considered within the DEIR.
In addition:
Feasible preservation alternatives exist that can meet many of the project objectives while maintaining Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic resource. In my group’s proposal, we are preserving 72% of the site and we have a net gain of 357 residential units and over 200,000 square feet of retail.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-341 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 22-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 22-3
Overly-narrow project objectives limit the full consideration of preservation alternatives. With a broader perspective, we considered diversity to the program, which include live-work units, flats, townhouses, independent living housing, community spaces, and commercial amenities.
Other mid-to-large-scale garden apartments throughout Los Angeles have fostered strong, stable communities, in large part because of their design; an example of this would be Baldwin Hills Village in Culver City which shares similar design characteristics with Wyvernwood.
Even though my team did not study this option; I believe that Wyvernwood can be rehabilitated with residents in place to address the perceived deficiencies without resulting in the demolition of the entire site and/or displacing residents. In conclusion, I feel that other alternatives to complete demolition should be considered.
[Graphic attached entitled “Apadrinado una Comunidad: Wyvernwood”]
Response to Comment No. 22-3
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. It is assumed that the reference to “Baldwin Hills Village” in the comment refers to the Village Green project. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other historic rehabilitation projects in the City, including Village Green, and the degree to which they are suitable comparisons to the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-342 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 23
DeArmond Bebo [email protected]
Comment No. 23-1
PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!
I have lived at a historic community in LA for over thirteen years, There is nowhere else that I would want to live.
Talking points are great but everyone knows why we should and CAN save important properties.
Let there at least be a BALANCE in our world. Let’s do everything possible to preserve our cultural heritage through our architecture.
Response to Comment No. 23-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-343 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 24
Joe Benites 8941 Haskell Avenue North Hills, Ca 91343
Comment No. 24-1
I am writing in support of the Boyle Heights Mixed Use Community Project being developed by Fifteen Group.
Not only have I known Steven Fink, a Principal in the project, for the last four years and am familiar with his personal involvement in the community outside the project, but am also familiar with the project itself and know the community considerations that have been incorporated.
Years ago I was one of a handful of Hispanics selected for a special program to be trained to build Low and Moderate Income Housing with and for non-profit groups such as the GI Forum and LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens.
It was in this capacity that I learned and practiced the fundamentals of merging community needs with monetary and development goals as well as meeting City, County, State and Federal requirements.
The elements Steven has incorporated into the Project are exemplary and worthy of being incorporated in other Projects in the City of Los Angeles.
Community involvement and transparency has been such that over 200 Boyle heights [sic] residents recently showed up in support of the Project.
The Project incorporates job creation, a mix of housing types for different segments of the population, special elements provided for children and the need for commercial services for the residents.
I am aware that Steven has studied the mistakes made by other Developers in the past and has made certain that the residents now living there are made part of the process and all their needs incorporated into the plan.
Please feel free to call or email me for any further information you may need or require.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-344 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 24-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-345 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 25
Fred A. Berk [email protected]
Comment No. 25-1
It is important to save the better places people have lived than to let them be destroyed by developers who will reduce the people’s living space and attacnment [sic] to their community. Please do what you can to heop [sic] save the Wyvernwood complex.
Response to Comment No. 25-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-346 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 26
Monica Bider [email protected]
Comment No. 26-1
I am emailing to ask that you fight to preserve the Wyvernwood apartments. This is a terrific community, a historic place that represents a Los Angeles that we should be fighting to preserve. It is NOT ecologically sound, nor is it in the interests of ordinary citizens that these buildings me [sic] bulldozed so that development interests can build and earn profits. That’s nuts. Stop the destruction of aspects of the city that are human in scale, house people wonderfully, and are a link to an important past. STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF LOS ANGELES that ordinary citizens live in and love.
Response to Comment No. 26-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-347 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 27
Theresa Bidner [email protected]
Comment No. 27-1
I’m writing you regarding the Wyvernwood apartment complex which is being considered for demolition for a new mixed use development. I have been a resident of Los angeles [sic] all my life, being born in East L.A. and spending most of my life as a resident of the Valley. I truly love this city and it’s [sic] diversity not only in socioeconomic circles but the cultural diversity as well. As an architect I appreciate the diversity of styles and buildings we have in our city. This is one of the reasons we are a leading architectural city in the world and why many come to visit our city.
Wyvernwood is a significant historical place. There are few good examples of Garden Apartment complexes in the city. This style of building is something we need to preserve both for historical reasons but also for the quality of life it provides for its residents. It is my understanding that Wyvernwood is a thriving community. For this reason I urge you to reconsider the proposed development, which appears to be another generic mixed use design that we see all too frequently. I would urge you to consider preserving and rehabilitating the existing complex so our city can retain this historically significant building site.
Response to Comment No. 27-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 27-2
The draft EIR should consider a greater range of preservation alternatives that would retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district and a thriving community.
Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-348 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 27-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 27-3
Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc. As you know the best sustainable action is to retain existing buildings, where possible, and upgrade them. Demolition should be considered the last alternative.
Response to Comment No. 27-3
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-349 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 28
Sherry Breskin Principal, Ramona Opportunity High School (retired) [email protected]
Comment No. 28-1
On many occasions over the past 40 years I have visited Wyvernwood Apartments, Estrada Courts and the Pico-Aliso housing projects in my responsibililties [sic] first as teacher and later as an Administrator in the LAUSD; kids needed a ride home, kids were sick and there was no transportation, or on the invitation of families who had concerns. Recently, after the re-build of Pico-Aliso I noticed such a peaceful and welcoming feeling in the streets, and facilities in around Pico-Aliso--day and night. This was a big improvement. I enquired about the change; I was told the population density had been reduced by 20%, thus the calmness that abounded. Don’t we want this for all our neighborhoods, all our families, all our students. We have started with Pico-Aliso, let’s keep up the good work with Wyvernwood--renewal, maybe but not an increase in density.
Response to Comment No. 28-1
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 4 for a discussion of density in relation to the concepts of environmental sustainability and smart growth.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-350 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 29
Barbara Broide 2001 Malcolm Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 [email protected]
Comment No. 29-1
Please accept this letter of comment in response to the above noted DEIR document that promotes the construction of a new mixed-use project on the grounds of the historic garden apartment development known as Wyvernwood. The proposed project as described would demolish all of the existing residential buildings, including Wyvernwood’s 143 original buildings, would destroy a residential community of 1,187 dwelling units and would destroy the garden-style and park-like setting which is so integral to its unique character. Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles and is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Our City should do everything within its power to avoid the demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 29-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 29-2
It is most unfortunate that the project DEIR document recently completed does not adequately explore alternatives to the project that developers favor and seek to build. The DEIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor demolition over preservation and rehabilitation alternatives. By creating such narrow project objectives, the developer has undermined CEQA’s purpose and skirted the serious consideration of less harmful alternatives. This, despite the fact that large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved. Project alternatives should have presented rehabilitation/preservation alternatives that provide a reasonable rate of return on investment AND that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-351 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 29-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 29-3
The project that is being proposed to replace Wyvernwood would quadruple the site’s density with up to 4,400 housing units (both rental and condominium) and 325,000 square feet of retail, office, and commercial space. For even the greenest new buildings that can be proposed, the environmental impacts of such a scale of demolition and development such as this are immense. The existing buildings should be reused in place to avoid the many impacts of demolition and the environmental costs in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Response to Comment No. 29-3
See Topical Response No. 8 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of impacts from construction. See Topical Response No. 4 for a discussion of density in relation to the concepts of environmental sustainability and smart growth. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 15-62, Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of a preservation alternative (Alternative C, Partial Preservation Alternative— Retention of National Register Eligibility) and concludes that this Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the Partial Preservation Alternative— Retention of National Register Eligibility would not meet the proposed project’s underlying purpose to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of additional housing stock integrated with retail, office, and service uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development. Furthermore, this Alternative would only partially achieve the project objectives that support this underlying purpose. Moreover, the Partial Preservation Alternative—Retention of National Register Eligibility was determined to be financially infeasible.
Comment No. 29-4
And, let us not lose site of the fact that this community consists of people and that the complete demolition of the buildings of Wyvernwood will also result in the complete dismantling of a large community of individuals and families who call Wyvernwood home. The impact of this removal cannot be adequately characterized in any written document. A phased rehabilitation project can preserve the homes of many residents and avoid the
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-352 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments mass dislocation of a demolition-based project. I have no doubt that given the proper incentives, the property owner can present excellent alternatives to demolition and can design a project that preserves Wyvernwood’s garden-like setting and historic status while also sensitively adding to the property’s density and resulting economic return.
Response to Comment No. 29-4
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 29-5
The preservation and rehabilitation of Wyvernwood should be a project embraced by both the City and the developer as part of the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. The DEIR’s “Five Guiding Principles” for the proposed redevelopment project, [sic] are very much a part of the existing Wyvernwood complex. Rehabilitation of existing buildings could address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives, [sic] and would avoid the environmental impacts of new construction of this size.
Response to Comment No. 29-5
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Responses to Comment Nos. 13-14 and 15-62.
Comment No. 29-6
Given the fact that the City Planning Department has not completed an annual infrastructure assessment as part of the Framework Element since the year 2000, it is difficult to determine whether, in fact, the City’s infrastructure can absorb the added density and development proposed in this project. A quadrupling of site density is significant and must not only be evaluated on its own, but also must be reviewed in concert with all other pending developments in the general area for impacts on the City’s sewers, water supply, roadway conditions, schools, libraries and all other public services including police, fire, libraries, etc. Without accurate and timely assessments of these aspects of the City’s infrastructure, it is nearly impossible for the impacts of a proposed project to be adequately evaluated.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-353 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 29-6
The commenter states that the City has not prepared an annual infrastructure assessment since 2000 and that therefore it is difficult to determine whether the City’s infrastructure is able to accommodate the proposed project.
These arguments are essentially the same as those made by the petitioners in Lucille Saunders, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. On January 13, 2011, Judge John A. Torribio of the Superior Court of Los Angeles entered his final judgment in this case rejecting the petitioners’ arguments and finding in favor to the City.
In his final judgment, Judge Torribo determined, among other things, that the City had no obligation to produce any sort of annual report regarding infrastructure. The Judge specifically found that the City’s General Plan Framework Element “does not impose any mandatory duties” regarding infrastructure reporting. In any event, the Judge found that the City had substantially complied with the Framework element.
A copy of the final judgment and the above declarations are attached as Appendix FEIR-15 to this Final EIR.
In addition, ongoing updates to the General Plan for the City of Los Angeles, comprised primarily of updates to the 35 Community Plans, ensure continued monitoring of infrastructure as does compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in the review of individual projects. In this context, this EIR analyzes and addresses the proposed project’s potential impacts to City infrastructure, including cumulative impacts from other related development projects, and includes mitigation measures to ensure that the project can be accommodated by existing City infrastructure and is otherwise consistent with the General Plan and Community Plan. See Section IV.J, Public Services, Section IV.L, Utilities and Service Systems, and Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR.
Comment No. 29-7
Any final EIR for this project should seriously explore and present a number of feasible rehabilitation alternatives for the property. I would suggest that the property owners consult with the LA Conservancy in the definition of alternatives and seek information from other developers who have successfully rehabilitated similar types of properties.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-354 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 29-7
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-355 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 30
Bridget Brookman [email protected]
Comment No. 30-1
This structure houses residents who have been as much a part of Los Angeles as the building itself. Leave this alone, and find another large empty lot for the developers to build upon. The people have spoken and our voices should be much more compelling (as your constituents) than the rhetoric of the developers.
Response to Comment No. 30-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-356 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 31
Ray Busmann 1670 Griffith Park Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90026 [email protected]
Comment No. 31-1
I strongly oppose the demolition of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartment complex.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Other large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved.
Response to Comment No. 31-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 31-2
Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size.
Wyvernwood is a significant part of Los Angeles history. We owe it to those who came before us and those who will come after us to preserve this amazing project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-357 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 31-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-358 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 32
Estefania Caceres [email protected]
Comment No. 32-1
I am writing to you to let you know that i [sic] do not want the mixed use community project to go into effect for the following reasons. First, and for most [sic] the air pollution in Los Angeles is very dirty and really bad. I can see the change in the air wich [sic] each day that goes by and it is hard to deal with sometimes but with the construction there will be many more unknown molecules in the air that will irritate me evn [sic] more.
Response to Comment No. 32-1
The Draft EIR includes a number of project features and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce construction emissions from the proposed project. However, as concluded in Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR even with incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would result in short-term regional and localized construction air quality impacts. As discussed on page IV.B-46 of the Draft EIR, no notable impacts related to toxic air contaminant emissions during construction are anticipated to occur for the proposed project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 32-2
As a resident of Boyle Heights i [sic] do not want to see the beautifull [sic] graceious [sic] trees that the Wyvernwood Apartments has be destroyed the ;[sic] and is [sic] barely taking form and looking very Beautiful, [sic] green, and lushes [sic].
Response to Comment No. 32-2
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Section IV.A.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality/Views, of the Draft EIR, which analyzes potential project impacts on aesthetics, visual quality, and views, including impacts from tree removal. As discussed therein, following implementation of the landscaping program, the project would replace all trees removed as part of the project at a minimum 2:1 basis, including any removed oak and sycamore trees.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-359 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 32-3
Secondly, the noise level is going to go up and i [sic] am going to hear nothing but the tearing down of tress.[sic] Also homes that took time too [sic] build being torn down and the engines with there [sic] pollution and noise. For example when i [sic] wake up in the morrnings [sic] iam [sic] not going to be able too [sic] hear the cars already on the other side of my home but added to that iam [sic] going to hear bangs, honks and rushing energy no more calm enviorment [sic].
Response to Comment No. 32-3
Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s noise impacts during construction and operation. As discussed therein, the City’s comprehensive noise ordinance, found in Chapter XI of the LAMC, sets forth sound measurement and criteria, minimum ambient noise levels for different land use zoning classifications, sound emission levels for specific uses, hours of operation for certain uses, standards for determining when noise is deemed to be a disturbance, and legal remedies for violations. Mitigation Measure H-2 on page IV.H-46 of Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR requires that exterior noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and national holidays per Section 41.40 of the LAMC. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays. In addition, Project Design Feature H-2 on page IV.H-43 would ensure that most project construction-related truck trips would be scheduled during the first eight hours of the permitted construction work period (7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.). Nevertheless, even with implementation of the project design features and compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable, as stated on page IV.H-47 of the Draft EIR. However, it should be noted that none of the sensitive receptors would experience significant noise impacts for the entire duration of the construction period (i.e., all phases), as stated on page IV.H-31 of the Draft EIR. With respect to potential noise impacts during operation, as analyzed in pages IV.H-32 through IV.H-40 in Section IV.H, Noise, of the Draft EIR, composite noise level impacts due to the proposed project operation would be less than significant.
Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of impacts from the proposed project’s construction-related air emissions. As discussed therein, the project includes a number of project features and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce construction emissions from the proposed project. Many of the measures are recommended by the City of Los Angeles and the SCAQMD. However, even with incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would result in short-term regional and localized construction air quality impacts during construction. No notable impacts related to toxic air contaminant emissions during construction are anticipated to occur for the proposed project.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-360 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
The commenter’s concerns regarding noise and air quality impacts during construction will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response 9 for a general summary of the project-related construction impacts.
Comment No. 32-4
Thirdly, the traffic and increased tenssion [sic] is going to upset the mothers that have to walk their children too [sic] school puting [sic] the mom at a high possability [sic] she will be grumpy. I dont [sic] believe some little children want there [sic] mom too [sic] be upset.
Response to Comment No. 32-4
The traffic impacts from the proposed project are analyzed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of this analysis or other analyses in the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 32-5
Fourthly and most impotant [sic] i [sic] am greatfull [sic] that you took the time to read my letter and that i [sic] know that my letter will encourge [sic] you too [sic] please take it into consideration to stop this madness that going to accure [sic] in my home town.
P.S [sic] Also i [sic] would like to tell you that ,i [sic] know for a reason [sic] that the people would agree with me.
Response to Comment No. 32-5
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-361 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 33
Terry Carter [email protected]
Comment No. 33-1
I know a school custodian who has lived for years in the Wyvernwood apartments. He is a dedicated father who believes that education is the key to his children’s future and is a model tenant.
I also know a friend who used to own a condo in the Village Green -- truly an oasis in Los Angeles and a great example of the kind of housing we used to build.
Please, please, please don’t destroy Wyvernwood. It could be as beautiful as Village Green -- for probably a lot less money. And you would be preserving some of our best examples of what good housing can be.
Response to Comment No. 33-1
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-362 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 34
Carol Cetrone [email protected]
Comment No. 34-1
I am opposed to the destruction of this very special, green place. It would be such a great loss to those who live there and also to the entire Los Angeles community. We are lucky to have this historic property. Please OPPOSE the demolition of Wyvernwood Garden Apartments !!
Response to Comment No. 34-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 34-2
Wyvernwood is a significant historic place. Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles. It was hailed as a major achievement when built, and its innovative design hasfostered [sic] a thriving community for generations.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 34-2
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-363 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 34-3
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved. Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Response to Comment No. 34-3
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 34-4
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation. An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
Response to Comment No. 34-4
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 34-5
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-364 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 34-5
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-365 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 35
Sally Charette Acton, CA Los Angeles Conservancy member [email protected]
Comment No. 35-1
Please help conserve the Wyvernwood garden apartments. It’s clear that this community is more important to the fiber of our city than yet another mixed use development. Put that development in a spot that’s not already being used by our citizens to its best advantage. Invest in the future of those families who call Wyvernwood home.
It’s our chance to make a difference and preserve some precious Los Angeles history at the same time.
Response to Comment No. 35-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-366 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 36
Cathy S. Cleveland, Ph.D. [email protected]
Comment No. 36-1
I strongly oppose the $2 billion housing project proposed for Boyle Heights that would result in the demolition of the remarkable historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. It is unconscionable that a community so rich in culture and diversity is continually ravaged by parties whose priorities seem to be driven more by quick financial gain than the preservation of the amazing history and culture of Los Angeles.
Response to Comment No. 36-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 36-2
I strongly oppose the $2 billion housing project proposed for Boyle Heights that would result in the demolition of the remarkable historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. It is unconscionable that a community so rich in culture and diversity is continually ravaged by parties whose priorities seem to be driven more by quick financial gain than the preservation of the amazing history and culture of Los Angeles.
I understand that modernization can lead to better living conditions in some cases; however, I do not believe - especially in this case - that the only way to improve the Boyle Heights community is a large-scale housing project requiring the demolition of Wyvernwood. It has been shown time and time again with other restoration projects throughout our city and others that beautiful historical buildings and communities can be effectively renovated to meet community needs. This type of thoughtful restoration project can accomplish improved housing goals without the negative effect that complete demolition would have on the families who have lived in the Wyvernwood apartments for generations.
I work as a professor at East Los Angeles College and am also an active member of the Los Angeles Conservancy. Many of my ELAC students and their families will be directly and negatively affected by this terrible proposed scarring of their community. Why is it that
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-367 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments areas rich in Hispanic culture are continually targeted for demolition rather than restoration? Please do not forget perspective – what many look like an improvement to one party is most certainly not always seen that way by another. Many families that have lived in Wyvernwood for generations do not in any way see the demolition of their long-time homes as an improvement.
From a broader community perspective, the ongoing demolition of historic buildings in a city as beautiful and diverse as Los Angeles has deservedly tarnished our reputation as trusted preservationists. The need of a few financially-motivated [sic] individuals to seek out the shiny and new is anything but a benefit to our city. Money and government support to improve and increase housing should instead be directed toward the renovation of the incredible historic buildings standing empty in many of the urban neighborhoods, such as Boyle Heights. These buildings stand waiting for forward-thinking organizations and individuals to adopt and renovate them specifically for such purposes. Our city and county governmental bodies should play the role of protectors and innovators, and provide the resources for renewal projects rather than supporting the destruction of history, culture, and vibrant sub-communities within our city.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you will do the right thing and help find an alternative creative solution rather than the proposed demolition of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments.
Response to Comment No. 36-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the RSO and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. As discussed therein, the Resident Retention Plan for the project would ensure that tenants who want to remain in the project will be able to do so, minimizing displacement. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-368 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 37
Cynthia [email protected]
Comment No. 37-1
If there are [sic] still living there, where will they move to? There are already plenty of people who are homeless. Will the tenants be relocated?
Response to Comment No. 37-1
See Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-369 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 38
Tom Davies Los Angeles [email protected]
Comment No. 38-1
As a longtime resident of Los Angeles and a fan of history and architecture, I feel compelled to write to you regarding the possible demolition of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments in Boyle Heights. The loss of such an unique piece of architecture would irrepairably [sic] degrade the city’s historical value and undermine its architectural diversity. For generations, Wyvernwood has provided a distinct living environment for its residents. One need look no further than Village Green and Lincoln Place to find examples of successful rehabilitation of similar garden apartments despite the current economic situation. Issues of the existing buildings’ condition can be addressed through thoughtful upgrades. Demolition is just a bad idea. Please join me in supporting the preservation of this historic site as well as the architectural heritage of Los Angeles.
Response to Comment No. 38-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-370 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 39
Vera del Pozo 3135 Malabar St. Los Angeles, CA 90063 [email protected]
Comment No. 39-1
There should be some options to our statement. I am in the middle of this issue, as a property owner I don’t think someone should be able to tell me what to do, BUT the condition of this complex is very old, very minimal electrical capacity, no internet, and most importantly there is no access for the fire department to all units, and I am very concerned with the safety of the residents.
Response to Comment No. 39-1
The information provided in this comment, which states that the existing residential development lacks various modern conveniences and fire protection access, is consistent with the information presented on pages II-7 and II-9 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-371 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 40
Joyce Dillard P.O. Box 31377 Los Angeles, CA 90031 [email protected]
Comment No. 40-1
The City of Los Angeles INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN, certified in December 2007, is now obsolete. There have been changes to that Plan since certification. In particular, the following report:
The Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant In-Plant Storage Project Environmental Assessment, US Army Corps of Engineers, August 9, 2011 mentions significant changes to the SEWAGE SYSTEM. (We have bolded or underlined parts of the report.)
In Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview
“In 2007, the City implemented measures to reduce the amount of nitrogen compound discharged from its water reclamation plants as mandated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Los Angeles River Watershed”, [sic] an amendment to the Los Angeles River Water Quality Control Plan).
The City now proposes to construct two 7.6 mg basins (proposed project) within the plant’s bermed area to temporarily store 15.2 mg of primary treated wastewater during periods of peak wet weather flows. The basins would be in lieu of the 60 mg tank envisioned in the IRP.”
In Section 2 Purpose & Need 2.1 Background
“Tillman began operations in 1985 in the Sepulveda Basin with the intent to relieve pressure on the major interceptor sewers in the San Fernando Valley as well as to relieve pressure on Hyperion Treatment Plant (Hyperion) by treating sewage from the western portion of the San Fernando Valley. After construction of the first phase of the multi-phase build-out, Tillman began operation with a treatment capacity of 40 million gallons per day (mgd). Phase II was planned for and evaluated within the 1982 Wastewater Facilities Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Phase II began operation in 1991 and provided
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-372 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments an additional 40 mgd of treatment capacity. The EIS/EIR also considered two additional phases, Phase III and Phase IV, resulting in an additional 40 mgd each.”
Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Tillman, beneath the intersection of Magnolia Boulevard and Kester Avenue, the returned flow from Tillman conveyed by the 78-inch diameter AVORS is forced into the 42-inch diameter East Valley Relief Sewer (EVRS). This convergence creates a bottleneck that, during substantial rain events, defined herein as 2- to 10-year rain events, causes overflows of the sewer system. To regulate th [sic] adverse hydraulic conditions during wet weather peak flows, often resulting in downstream surcharges and sewage spills, the City discontinues Tillman’s Phase II treatment process and utilizes the existing Phase II sewer treatment structures for in-plant storage of primary effluent. As a result, Tillman only operates Phase I to produce only 40 mgd of Title 22 recycled water for beneficial use during wet weather peak flows.
In the longer term, the City proposes to resolve the convergence capacity challenge by constructing three new downstream trunk sewers: the Valley Spring Lane Interceptor Sewer (VSLIS), the Glendale-Burbank Interceptor Sewer (GBIS), and the Northeast Interceptor Sewer Phase II (NEIS II). The anticipated cost of all three sewers is approximately 1.2 billion dollars. However, in order to minimize sewage overflows, eliminate regulatory violations associated with sewage overflows, and to reduce risks to public health and safety from sewage overflows, the City seeks to implement short- term solutions.”
“Typical consequences of overflows include the closure of beaches and other recreational areas, inundated properties, and polluted rivers and streams. The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements in 2006, which require public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer system management plans and report all overflows to the State Water Resources Control Board.
The construction of VSLIS, GBIS and NEIS II could occur in the distant future; NEIS II is proposed to be operational in 2022, GBIS in 2029, and VSLIS in 2050. However, there is a need in the shorter term for an interim solution that can be accommodated within the City’s existing limited budget, allows the City to comply with State Water Resources Control Board requirements, and also restores maximum treatment and reclamation capacity as well as relieves sewers downstream of Tillman during 2- to 10-year rain events. The City has conducted several studies to identify and evaluate potential solutions; the results of these studies are summarized in Section 3.0, Alternatives Considered.”
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-373 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
In Section 2 Purpose & Need 2.2 Purpose & Need
The City’s primary purpose for the proposed project is to provide a short-term method to restore maximum treatment and reclamation capacities of Tillman during substantial rain events, defined as up to 10-year rain events, while continuing to attenuate peak wet weather flows to the AVORS-EVRS-NOS confluence. The purpose fulfills a need to protect public health and welfare and minimize water quality impacts by preventing sewage overflows during substantial storm events.”
In Section 3 Alternatives Considered 3.1 Background
“In 2006, the City of Los Angeles prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP EIR addressed the wastewater facilities needed in the year 2020, while integrating future recycled water and urban runoff needs. A project element in the IRP EIR, in part to address restoring maximum treatment and reclamation capacities of Tillman while continuing to attenuate peak wet weather flows to the VORSAVORSEVIS confluence (the primary objective of the proposed project), included the evaluation of a proposed underground 60 million gallon (mg) wastewater storage tank located immediately outside the eastern boundary of Tillman. This proposed 60 mg tank would store primary effluent during substantial storm events.
Since the IRP EIR, the City has reviewed and analyzed the wastewater system needs further. In January 2008, the City prepared the Flow Equalization and Tertiary Filtration Concept Report, which evaluated a number of alternatives to store primary effluent at, or in the vicinity of Tillman, to relieve pressure on the constriction that occurs at the convergence of VORS, AVORS and EVIS, beneath the intersection of Magnolia Boulevard and Kester Avenue. The recommended alternative in 2008 involved the construction of Phase III structures without treatment equipment. Phase III structures would be used for in-plant wet weather storage to relieve the sewer system during substantial storm events by diverting and holding primary effluent for a duration of up to 12 hours, then discharge the effluent back into the AVORS.
In February 2009, the Open Lined Basin Evaluation Technical Memorandum was prepared by the City which identified the currently preferred, and more cost effective action to build in-plant storage in lieu of Phase III structures to store primary effluent at Tillman, and to relieve pressure at the convergence: the construction of two 7.6 mg inplant storage basins to store in total 15.2 mg of primary effluent during substantial rain events
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-374 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
In Section 3.3 Alternatives Evaluated in this EA
“3.3.2 In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative (City-Preferred Alternative)
As discussed above, this alternative identified in the January 2008 Flow Equalization and Tertiary Filtration Concept Report involved the construction of Phase III structures without treatment equipment. The City initiated the Wet Weather Storage Recovery System Project in 2009, and during this study, a new, more cost-effective alternative emerged: construction of an open lined basin within the Tillman site for in-plant storage of excess wet weather flows. This new alternative is estimated to cost approximately $23 million, and therefore results in a savings an estimated $20 to $30 million to the City, when compared to build-out of Phase III facilities to store primary effluent, while still achieving the project purpose and need.
The In-Plant Storage Basins Alterative involves constructing two open concrete- lined basins that would collectively provide 15.2 mg of storage capacity to be used to relieve the sewer system during substantial storm events and would allow the Tillman plant to remain fully operational during wet weather periods, treating 80 mgd. The two new basins would be constructed on the east side of Tillman, within the existing plant boundary, as shown in Figure 3-1, Tillman Site Plan. Tillman is located in the Sepulveda Basin in the San Fernando Valley area of the City of Los Angeles on property leased by the City from the Corps. The total storage volume, and thus the total volume of wastewater that would be at the Tillman plant at any given time under the In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative would be 59.08 mg, given that both Phase I and Phase II components collectively have a total volume of 43.88 mg and the storage basins would hold 15.2 mg of primary effluent.
Details of this alternative include the construction of two 7.6 mg open concrete-lined basins to provide temporary storage of primary effluent with no treatment, a piping and flow control system from the existing primary effluent channel to the two new basins and from the two new basins to the existing AVORS, a new AVORS junction structure, basin washdown systems and modification of the existing primary sedimentation tanks withdrawal piping, as shown in Figure 3-2, Project Overview and Figure 3-3, In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative Details.
The design of the storage basins requires a cut and fill method of construction, with construction of a new maintenance road around the basins. More material would be cut than would be required for fill around the road. All excess material, estimated to be approximately 55,000 cubic yards (cy), would be removed from the Sepulveda Basin, as required by the Lease. Much of this excavation and disposal was accomplished during July 2011. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-375 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Approximately 120 truck trips daily, assuming 18-cy trucks haul away the excess soil, would remove the soil over a period of approximately 6 weeks. Trucks would access Tillman from Interstate 405 (I-405) to the east, travel westbound along Victory Boulevard, and turn south at Densmore Avenue. When exiting Tillman trucks would follow the same route back to I-405 and continue eastbound on Highway 101, Highway 134 and Interstate 210 to the City of Azusa. Removed soil is being disposed of at Waste Management Azusa Landfill located at 1211 West Gladstone Street in the City of Azusa.
Additionally, as shown in Figure 3-2, during construction a laydown/staging area and temporary construction worker parking area would be provided in the northeast portion of the plant, outside of the bermed area of Tillman and immediately south of the Septage Transfer Facility. The construction laydown and parking area would occupy approximately 200,000 square feet of the Sepulveda Recreation Area for a period of less than one year.”
The report mentioned in the Environmental Assessment above:
Flow Equalization and Tertiary Filtration Concept Report is not an approved report or plan.
Response to Comment No. 40-1
As discussed on pages IV.L-60 through IV.L-61 in Section IV.L.2, Wastewater, of the Draft EIR, the project site is located within the Hyperion Service Area (HSA), which is served by the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP), Donald Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) in Van Nuys, and Los Angeles–Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) in Los Angeles. Wastewater from the project site flows to the HTP.
As discussed on page IV.L-65 in Section IV.L.2, Wastewater, of the Draft EIR, the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) addresses the facility needs of the City’s wastewater program, recycled water, and urban runoff/stormwater management through the year 2020. With the improvements identified in the IRP, the total design capacity of the HSA in 2020 would be approximately 570 million gallons per day (mgd), consisting of 450 mgd at HTP, 100 mgd at TWRP, and 20 mgd at LAGWRP.57 While it is anticipated that future iterations of the IRP would provide for improvements beyond 2020 to increase the treatment capacity of the HSA to serve future population needs, the Draft EIR conservatively assumed that no new improvements to the wastewater treatment plants would occur between 2020 and 2030 (the project’s build-out year). Thus, the 2030 design capacity of the HSA is assumed
57 Integrated Resources Plan, City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation and Department of Water and Power, July 2004.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-376 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments to be approximately 570 mgd in the Draft EIR analysis (Draft EIR, page IV.L-75). Even with this conservative assumption, the project’s net increase in wastewater generation of 677,480 gpd in average daily flows (1,661,952 gpd in peak daily flow) would be adequately accommodated by the HSA, as concluded in the Draft EIR (see also Response to Comment No. 5-2).
One of the projects identified in the IRP is the construction of a 60-million-gallon underground wastewater storage tank located adjacent to the TWRP that would provide wet weather/operational storage to temporarily store primary effluent during peak wet weather flows. The purpose of this project is to address flooding that occurs within the sewer system downstream from the TWRP during substantial rain events. While the wet weather storage tank would not increase the design treatment capacity of the TWRP, it would allow the TWRP to operate at maximum capacity during wet weather peak flows.58 Since the IRP, the City has reviewed and analyzed the wastewater system needs further. During this process, a more cost-effective alternative emerged. This alternative involves constructing two open concrete-lined basins that would collectively provide 15.2 mgd of storage capacity to be used to relieve the sewer system during substantial storm events and would allow the TWRP to remain fully operational during wet weather periods, treating 80 mgd. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential environmental impacts of this alternative, referred to as the “In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative,” were analyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in August, 2011. This comment includes numerous statements from that EA. The EA concluded that the In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative would not adversely affect wastewater service or infrastructure.59 In fact, like the storage tank project contemplated in the IRP, the In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative would improve treatment operations at the TWRP by allowing the TWRP to remain fully operational during wet weather periods, treating 80 mgd. Thus, contrary to the comment, the EA does not render the IRP “obsolete.” Furthermore, implementation of the In-Plant Storage Basins Alternative would not change the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project’s net increase in wastewater generation would be adequately accommodated by the HSA.
58 The TWRP has two independently operating treatment components, Phase I and Phase II, each of which can treat 40 mgd, for a total maximum treatment capacity of 80 mgd. The current method of regulating adverse hydraulic conditions during wet weather peak flows is to discontinue Phase II’s treatment process and utilize the Phase II treatment structures for in-plant storage of primary effluent. As a result, the TWRP only operates Phase I during wet weather peak flows. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant In-Plant Storage Project, Environmental Assessment, August 2011. 59 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant In-Plant Storage Project, Environmental Assessment, August 2011.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-377 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 40-2
The City of Los Angeles has not submitted information to the Southern California Association of Governments SCAG known as Local Planning Factors to report on capacity for Water and Sewage in their Metropolitan Planning process. Any Council of Governments reporting does not distinguish the City’s unique needs.
Response to Comment No. 40-2
It is assumed the comment is referring to the Local Planning Factors Survey, also known as Assembly Bill 2158 (AB 2158) Factors, which are factors that could affect a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The RHNA is a housing needs assessment process performed periodically by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to assist in local-level Housing Element and General Plan updates.60 It should be noted that SCAG is not part of the regulatory framework associated with wastewater. As discussed in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR, the current (2007) RHNA61 assigned a housing need of 112,876 units to the City of Los Angeles for the January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014, planning period, or an average of about 15,050 units per year. The proposed project would provide 3,213 net new housing units which would help the City meet the housing need identified in the RHNA. Long-term regional and citywide planning processes are outside the scope of the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The contentions in this comment do not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
It should be noted that Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR analyzes the project’s consistency with all relevant and currently adopted land use plans, including the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the East Los Angeles Enterprise Zone, the City of Los Angeles Walkability Checklist, SCAG’s 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, SCAG’s Growth Vision Report, SCAG’s 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan. In addition,
60 Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/rhna/SCAG_RHNA_Factsheet_0509.pdf, accessed April 4, 2012. The 2007 SCAG RHNA is discussed in Section IV.I.2, Housing, of the Draft EIR. 61 SCAG, “Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan—Planning Period (January 1, 2006–June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six-County SCAG Region,” approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007, www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/pdfs/rhna/RHNA_FinalAllocationPlan071207.pdf. This RHNA was approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on September 7, 2007.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-378 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments the City of Los Angeles has adopted various environmental policies, ordinances and plans, such as the City Solid Waste Management Policy Plan, Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Clean Air Program. These plans, policies and ordinances are discussed throughout Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR in their respective environmental topic sections. Furthermore, as concluded in Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR, adequate water supply and water conveyance infrastructure capacity would be available to serve the proposed project. Additionally, as concluded in Section IV.L.2, Wastewater, of the Draft EIR, adequate wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity would be available to serve the proposed project.
Comment No. 40-3
Total Daily Maximum Loads need to be estimated for the Watershed, Groundwater Basin and effect on the Southern California Bight.
Response to Comment No. 40-3
The project’s potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are analyzed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, which was based in part on the Storm Water Hydrology Study and the Surface Water Quality Study, which are provided in Appendices G-1 and G-2 of the Draft EIR, respectively. As discussed on page IV.F-9 of the Draft EIR, the Clean Water Act sets forth water quality standards and criteria based on a water body’s designated beneficial uses. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires preparation of a 303(d) list (list of water quality limited or impaired water bodies). This list identifies what water bodies that are not achieving water quality standards or receiving beneficial uses and for what pollutants. Once a water body is identified as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the constituent of concern (pollutant) must be developed for that water body. A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL. The EPA oversees the 303(d) program and either the EPA or the State Water Board establishes the TMDL schedule for individual constituents.
The TMDLs for applicable receiving waters have been incorporated into the Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit with which the proposed project must comply. This is memorialized in Mitigation Measure F-1 on pages IV.F-34 and IV.F-35 in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, which states that “[a]s required by the Construction General Permit, during all phases of construction, the Project shall implement BMPs consistent with the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards” and provides examples of BMPs for reducing erosion and sediment control. For example, BMPs such as soil binders, gravel bags, silt fencing, straw waddles, City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-379 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments and desilting inlets could be used to mitigate erosion and sediment control. Additionally, vehicle maintenance protocols, spill prevention measures, solid waste management, liquid waste management, and other measures could be used to establish non-storm water and waste management pollution controls. Regular use of water trucks and stabilization of construction entrances and exits could be used to mitigate and control wind erosion and dust. Together, BMPs such as the examples listed above would implement the requirements of the Construction General Permit, which in turn implements NPDES requirements related to construction. In addition, numerous mitigation measures in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR would require that BMPs be implemented to ensure compliance with applicable regulations including the Clean Water Act, the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City’s LID ordinance (e.g., Mitigation Measures F-3 and F-4). Therefore, although the specific TMDLs identified for the watershed and groundwater basin are not required to be measured or mitigated by the Applicant, numerous mitigation measures (e.g., Mitigation Measures F-1, F-3, and F-4), which reflect existing regulatory requirements, would help to ensure that impacts under the proposed project would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed on pages IV.F-31 through IV.F-32 in Section F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, in accordance with NPDES requirements, a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) would be required to be in place during the operational life of the project to reduce the discharge of polluted runoff from the site. The SUSMP, which is prepared during the proposed project’s final engineering and design phase, would provide an estimate of the TMDL. The proposed project would comply with the provisions of the SUSMP and the LID Ordinance. See Section II, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR for a discussion of the revisions to the Los Angeles Municipal Code related to the LID Ordinance.
Comment No. 40-4
How do the budgetary reductions in Public Services including Fire, Police, Recreation and Parks, Libraries and any other department reflect in this document?
Response to Comment No. 40-4
The potential impacts of the proposed project to public services have appropriately been evaluated based on existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), based on information provided by many City agencies, including: the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (LADRP), the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL), the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a). City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-380 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Furthermore, as it is not possible to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the effects that potential budget restrictions may have on the individual services provided the project site, such impacts are speculative. Notwithstanding, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-381 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 41
Cynthia Friedlob [email protected]
Comment No. 41-1
I support preservation of historic structures such as Wyvernwood (already acknowledged as an historic district), but the situation at Wyvernwood has an additional component: the loss of a well established community. When the alternative of upgrades to the current apartments is available and when that alternative offers significant environmental benefits as opposed to the massive impact of new construction, Wyvernwood’s demolition seems extreme and unnecessary. While I understand that the new plan would create economic gain for the developers, economic gain can’t be the basis of all decisions that affect our city and its residents. History has value, too, including the long history of families who have lived at Wyvernwood. The place, the community, and the environment are all worth preserving.
Response to Comment No. 41-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-382 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 42
Wendy Gish [email protected]
Comment No. 42-1
Wyvernwood is a significant historic place.
As the oldest and largest garden apartment development in Los Angeles, its innovative design has fostered a thriving community. Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 42-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 42-2
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved.
Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Response to Comment No. 42-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-383 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 42-3
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation.
An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
Response to Comment No. 42-3
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 42-4
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district.
Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives.
Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant national light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Response to Comment No. 42-4
With regard to the first portion of the comment, see Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-384 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
With regard to the second portion of the comment, see Response to Comment No. 13-14. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR). See Response to Comment No. 13-19 for a discussion of the project’s principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-385 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 43
Marguerite Greiner [email protected]
Comment No. 43-1
I am extremely sad to hear about plans to demolish the historic Wyvernwood Apartment complex. The last thing L.A. needs is more high-density apartment and retail space. What we do need more of are open, green spaces. The residents of Wyvernwood are against this demolition precisely because they love their park-like setting of these garden apartments. The current setting has fostered a thriving community that has spanned generations. Wyvernwood Apartments are historic and unique, if they are demolished we will be left with an enormous mixed-use development that is not unique, destroys the open green spaces and blocks out the natural light, just so some more developers can get rich. Just think what New York City would be like if the developers had their way and destroyed Central Park to build more apartment buildings and stores? Sure it would create a lot of jobs, but at what long-term cost ? The appeal of Manhattan would never be the same without this beautiful park; and residents would have nowhere to go to enjoy the freedom of open air, trees, lakes and bike paths.
We need to preserve garden apartment complexes like these. High rise apartments and stores we have in abundance - green, open air places to live in that foster community we do not.
Response to Comment No. 43-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the amount and quality of existing and proposed open space.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-386 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 44
Evelyn H. [email protected]
Comment No. 44-1
Please do not tear down this development. Would like to see this remain-appreciate your assistance.
Response to Comment No. 44-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-387 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 45
Hector [email protected]
Comment No. 45-1
Hi Sergio, Please send me a draft of letter so we can add the BHCC support for the project.
Response to Comment No. 45-1
This comment implying support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-388 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 46
Soledad Hernandez
Comment No. 46-1
My name is Soledad Hernandez. I am a resident here in Wyvernwood Apartments and support the new urbanization project the owners [are] proposing.
I support the project because I see it’ll better this community for the future children who will grow up here. It would lower crime activity so children grow up safe and away from negative activity and corruption.
One of my [sic] main reasons I support this project is because it will help create a safe environment for the residents who choose to stay. This project will make everyone feel safer by proceding [sic] with it and having better security to be able to walk at night without having fear of getting robbed, assulted [sic] or threatened.
I hope this letter will help the project get approved by the Planning Department because honestly we need your help to better Wyvernwood. Thank you.
Response to Comment No. 46-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Response to Comment No. 15-32 for additional information on site design as it relates to crime potential and safety.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-389 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 47
Dean Hill [email protected]
Comment No. 47-1
Based on the report it seems that this is another high density project designed to make huge profits for a few well-healed individuals at the expense of a historic development which was intended to benefit ordinary people and foster a sense of community. That intention has been fulfilled for generations. Why destroy it now?
My wife and I lived in Chase Knolls in Sherman Oaks for several years, so I am well acquainted with the wonderful living environment of the garden city communities as well as repeated attempts of developers to disenfranchise residents of meager means. Please consider the true value of properties like this to the community and the city.
Response to Comment No. 47-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the demolition of the existing residential development on the project site, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-390 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 48
Katie E. Horak Associate Architectural Resources Group, Inc. Architects Planners Conservators 65 N. Raymond Ave., Ste. 220 Pasadena, CA 91103 [email protected]
Comment No. 48-1
Please find attached my comment letter for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project DEIR.
If you need a hard copy, please let me know and I would be happy to send one.
Response to Comment No. 48-1
The following responses address the comment letter referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 48-2
I am writing in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. This project would result in the demolition of a National Register of Historic Places-eligible property and the elimination of the thriving Wyvernwood community. I whole heartedly urge the City to act to preserve this significant historic property.
Wyvernwood was the first in a handful of large-scale garden apartment complexes to be constructed in Los Angeles during the Depression and World War II. The importance of the garden apartment property type in the architectural landscape of Los Angeles is not to be understated; it represents an era of multifamily development rooted in the belief that all are deserving of the benefits of careful and deliberate community planning, regardless of income and social standing. Designers and planners of the era drew upon Garden City planning principles, which included super block site planning, low-density development with common garden and recreation space available to all residents, and a complete separation of automobile and pedestrian traffic. In a city such as Los Angeles, where undeveloped land no longer exists and preeminence is placed on maximizing real estate investments, this is a rather luxurious concept; Wyvernwood could not be replicated in today’s city.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-391 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 48-2
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the eligibility of Wyvernwood for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 48-3
The proposed Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project will not only eliminate one of Los Angeles’s largest and purest examples of Garden City planning principles and New Deal-era housing, it will also disrupt the community that resides there now and has, in some cases, for multiple generations. With some investment, Wyvernwood’s buildings and landscape can be repaired, preserved and maintained for generations to come, without the lost revenue of resident relocation and a period of vacancy while the project is constructed. However, the Draft EIR does not sufficiently explore alternatives that both preserve this significant property and meet the project objectives. Recent work at both Lincoln Place and the Village Green, both garden apartment complexes of relatively similar scale to Wyvernwood, has proven that preservation is not only feasible but can also create a return on investment.
Again, please act to preserve this historic property. To eliminate Wyvernwood would represent the loss of one of Los Angeles’s nationally-significant properties and a beloved Boyle Heights landmark.
Response to Comment No. 48-3
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. The balance of this comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-392 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 49
Toby Horn 146 S. Fuller Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036 [email protected]
Comment No. 49-1
Thank you for taking my comments into consideration when doing your best to save the Wyvernwood apartments in East Los Angeles.
The preservation of this setting is critical not only to the history it represents, but the cohesive function its design serves today. [sic] in terms of providing a safe and healing buffer for its residents from the outside world. Too, the garden complex represents Los Angeles at its best in bringing different cultural and ethnic groups together in a mutual haven.
You need only to look at the high rise housing complexes in other parts of the country to see that they are not the best design from either a crime avn [sic] improved life. [sic] oidance [sic] standpoint, nor an aesthetic plus to the community. The Wyvernwood is the precursor to the newly rehabilitated Aliso Village on Mission Road near Macy Street at which LA City learned that privacy, openness and greenery do contribute to a better life.
Older buildings can easily be rehabilitated and are cheaper and use far fewer resources to upgrade them than to build new and less substantial buildings.
Please take these comments into account and recommend that the Wyvernwood apartment complex remain as it is.
Response to Comment No. 49-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Topical Response No. 5 regarding the quality of existing open space. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-393 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 50
Jessica Hough 3167 Rowena Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90027 [email protected]
Comment No. 50-1
Wyvernwood is a thriving community in Boyle Heights as well as a significant historic place. Please save this historic landmark and give people more reasons to care about Boyle Heights. We know that Wyvernwood can be successfully rehabilitated and preserved. There is no reason not to do this. Please put people and our collective heritage over profit. Please do the right thing and help this important cause.
Response to Comment No. 50-1
As stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. The balance of this comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 50-2
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. So far only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Preserving Wyvernwood is as good an option as the proposed plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant national light, fresh air, and green open spaces. Reusing the existing structure is the best course of action for the environment.
Please take action for people, community, and for history. Preserve Wyvernwood.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-394 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 50-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the selection of project alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. The balance of this comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-395 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 51
Jody Hummer [email protected]
Comment No. 51-1
Please save the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. The courtyard apartments of the late 1930s, were built so well, using materials and workmanship that is forgotten today.
Quality plaster and woodwork and tile and ironwork, these elements can never be replaced.... The historic elements are so solid in comparision [sic] to multi-family housing today. Today, builders demolish or gut the interiors of our historic buildings. They use cheap, off the shelf products--- that make our homes look just like every other new building in every other town across the USA, and they will not last over 70 years as the Wyvernwood.
The Wyvernwood, like our other pre-war apartment houses were built to last and the architects tried to create a happy atmosphere for families to live, with open greens, and space to hang laundry, and garden and play and walk and enjoy their lives in a community of neighbors and friends. We are losing these kinds of homes every day in LA, they will never be built again, the developers cannot maximize their profits. Why destroy something that is so useful and beautiful ? I believe if we let the Wyvernwood go, we will know in the future, it was a mistake.
Response to Comment No. 51-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-396 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 52
William H. Johnston [email protected]
Comment No. 52-1
Wyvernwood is historically significant as the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles.
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved. Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces.
Response to Comment No. 52-1
As stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
Comment No. 52-2
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation. An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-397 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 52-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 52-3
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Its innovative design has fostered a thriving community for generations.
Please preserve this historic treasure for future generations.
Response to Comment No. 52-3
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-398 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 53
Catherine Jurca [email protected]
Comment No. 53-1
I am writing in support of preserving the Wyvernwood garden apartment complex. As the first large-scale garden apartment complex in Los Angeles, it is a significant historic and cultural resource in our community, one that the Delaware developer may not fully appreciate. It is impossible to see how even the most extensive mixed-use development plans could not find room for these lovely buildings as part of their proposed residences.
Response to Comment No. 53-1
As stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 53-2
The EIR did not appropriately consider sufficient alternatives to demolition, which to me suggests that it did not fulfill its obligations under CEQA.
Response to Comment No. 53-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 53-3
No project that claims an interest in sustainability can justify demolishing the complex: the environmental costs of demolition and reconstruction far outweigh the benefits of new green buildings, especially when the old buildings can be upgraded.
I hope you will help to preserve this unique architectural treasure.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-399 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 53-3
This comment, which expresses concern regarding the sustainability of the project and expresses opposition to the demolition of the existing residential development on the project site, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-400 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 54
Andrew Lyndon Knighton Joseph A. Bailey II, M.D., Endowed Chair of American Communities Director, CSULA/NEH American Communities Program Associate Professor of English California State University, Los Angeles 5151 State University Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90032 [email protected]
Comment No. 54-1
I write to urge a reconsideration of the plan for the redevelopment of Wyvernwood, and to encourage a renewed respect for its unique historical and architectural significance. My urgency about this matter is informed both by being a Boyle Heights resident and by my position as director of the American Communities Program at California State University, Los Angeles. One of my major research areas as a faculty member at CSULA has been the conservation and redevelopment of historical structures, and especially twentieth- century sites that perhaps may appear of lesser historical concern than buildings of an older vintage.
But these “newer” buildings are indeed architecturally significant, in that they illustrate the utopian rethinking of the very idea of community in the twentieth century. Such ideas, a product of architectural modernism more generally, find a unique expression in the context of southern California. This is part of the reason that it is so gratifying to see that similar garden apartment complexes have been successfully – and quite beautifully – preserved elsewhere in the city, as at Village Green.
Response to Comment No. 54-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and describes the commenter’s professional history, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-401 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 54-2
Wyvernwood is, however, a particularly notable exemplar of the form, not only because of its status as the first such development in the area, but because of its rich cultural significance as well; it is the hub of a vibrant community reaching through generations of Los Angeleno life. It is Wyvernwood’s special design – with its unusual combination of autonomy and collectivity, and its provision of green space integrated into life at the very heart of the metropolis – that has long proven a uniquely potent incubator for community. That community continues to thrive today, but it will likely not survive indifferent redevelopment schemes that clearly reflect priorities other than those that have grounded this rich community for so many decades.
As I have presented the results of my research on twentieth-century architecture to both academic and popular audiences, I have been struck by the way that audiences immediately find ways to relate to these structures. With interest and enthusiasm, all kinds of people readily recognize how these kinds of spaces have shaped their lives and their sense of the American landscape. But I am also struck by the degree to which these same audiences often have yet to realize the delicacy of the history embodied in such sites – we are only just beginning to recognize the value of these increasingly classic buildings. Increasingly, we will judge them to be central to the American experience, and I fear that we will later deeply regret decisions to raze them and to erase the heritage that they represent. I encourage the city of Los Angeles and the potential developers of this site to place themselves at the cutting edge of this emergent understanding of these quite amazing structures and their architectural and cultural significance.
Response to Comment No. 54-2
This comment, which provides opinions of the commenter, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-402 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 55
Marla Koosed [email protected]
Comment No. 55-1
Please consider evaluating a greater range of viable preservation alternatives to retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. To my knowledge only one preservation alternative (Alternaitve [sic] C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Response to Comment No. 55-1
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 55-2
The draft EIR appears to contain narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation. In my view, an overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
Response to Comment No. 55-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 55-3
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-403 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments site of this size and it appears that it could take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Is that really what we want to do moving forward in 2012? Please please please do your part in making a difference and consider options to preserve this treasure of a living breathing community.
Response to Comment No. 55-3
See Response to Comment No. 13-14 regarding the pedestrian-friendly features of the existing site and the proposed project. See Response to Comment No. 13-19 for a discussion of the project’s principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-404 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 56
Diane Levine & Dr. Lawrence Levine [email protected]
Comment No. 56-1
We are strongly against the destruction of the Wyvernwood garden apartments. As should be with all significant historic places, Wyvernwood must be preserved as part of our city’s cultural and architectural heritage.
Both my family and my husband’s family made Boyle Heights their home when they moved to Los Angeles in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s from New York City. This was their community and they have glowing memories of their years growing up there. We have heard so many stories from them about the local area, the daily activities, parties, schools, etc. There was a strong sense of community in the Boyle Heights neighborhood in those early days and our families were integral parts of that community.
Unlike the cities in Europe and even those on our east coast, Los Angeles does not have a large quantity of early historical sites, houses, buildings, etc. It is essential that our residents feel a sense of our city’s history through the preservation of our important historic sites. Tearing these down for a newly constructed multi-purpose center is terribly distressing and contrary to our society’s values and priorities.
Do we toss away seniors when they grow old and ill? Of course not! Do we toss out historical documents if we find them in poor condition? No, we do everything in our power to preserve them. Why not rehabilitate the Wyvernwood as we do for everything of significant value?
Preserve our history, preserve our historical landmarks! We become more community minded if our history is there before our eyes. The two of us urge you to save the Wyvernwood apartments - our parents would definitely agree and we are sure that our future generations will find pleasure in the knowledge that a historical site in the neighborhood where their ancestors grew up and thrived, was saved for posterity.
Thank you for hearing us out and we urge you to do what’s right and rethink the destruction of these beautiful garden apartments.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-405 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 56-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-406 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 57
Edber Macedo Resident of Boyle Heights for over 20 years [email protected]
Comment No. 57-1
Hello sir, as a resident of Boyle Heights who has seen this neighborhood transfrom [sic] from time to time with different moods and trends - I can say that the redevelopment of Wyvernwood is not a transformation for the better. In order to understand this situation of Wyvernwood, one must understand Boyle Heights and its history. This economically and politically disenfranchised community has not always the proper resources at its convinence. [sic] The dense capacity of the community had a tough time making sure it had the proper access to schools, clinics, and clean air. This community has been attempting to change by its own residents and not by an outside corporation whose mission is to create profit. The promise of jobs and new apartments do not make up for the past and current injustices that Mr. Fink and Fifteen Group. claim they will try to erase. In a community that is already affected by pollution from nearby factories and a huge freeway interchange - the demolition and construction of this new project will further harm the neighborhood. Also, as we have seen across the nation in similar cities like New York, Chicago, and Miami - when a new project is created that highlights a new extravagant look, it pulls in a population that is more likely to be wealthier. When that happens, the price of rent goes up in most of the area - which means outside of the proposed redevelopment site - this community cannot afford the consequences of whatever good intentions “urban renewal” means for Boyle Heights. I hope the City realizes that there are far too many gray areas in allowing the redevelopment of these apartments at a time when the already struggling residents of this community cannot take any more surprises with an economy like this. Please take heavy consideration and take a holistic perspective on how this has affected people not corporate profits or city revenue, but at how these attempts to revitalize neglected areas have only proved to be dentrimental [sic] to the most vunerable [sic] of the community. I ask you to please take note of several points below. The city has to make decisions that will always leave one side happy, but in the wake of what has been happening in the country with how people have been seen as nothing more but commodities to corporate interests - please, do the right thing.
Response to Comment No. 57-1
The proposed project’s impacts on air quality are analyzed in Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, and Section IV.B.2, Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. See Topical Response No. 3 for a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. The balance
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-407 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments of the comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 57-2
Wyvernwood is a significant historic place.
Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles. It was hailed as a major achievement when built, and its innovative design has fostered a thriving community for generations.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 57-2
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 57-3
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved.
Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Response to Comment No. 57-3
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-408 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 57-4
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation.
An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district.
Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Response to Comment No. 57-4
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. As discussed therein, the alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing on-site uses. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 57-5
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives.
Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant national light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Response to Comment No. 57-5
See Response to Comment No. 13-14. See Response to Comment No. 13-19 for a discussion of the project’s principles of smart growth and environmental sustainability. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-409 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-410 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 58
Arthur Martinez [email protected]
Comment No. 58-1
Ideally the entire community can be preserved. The existing structures, landscaping and infrastructure can be refurbished to like-new condition meeting current building standards and code at a fraction of the cost of new developement. [sic] Unfortunately this would not be profitable for the developers.
Response to Comment No. 58-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 58-2
Does the plan include training for local residents to employ them in the construction of the new developement? [sic] And will the planned new retail be what we typically see around our City? Nail salons, dollar stores, donut shops, family owned by folks from outside the community who do not hire the locals.
Response to Comment No. 58-2
As discussed on page II-49 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the Applicant would implement the Boyle Heights Job Collaborative (BHJC) (see the Jobs Collaboration Plan in Appendix J.2 of the Draft EIR) that would provide access to career oriented employment focused on residents of the project site and surrounding areas in Boyle Heights. The BHJC would create a pipeline to about 6,400 construction jobs directly associated with the redevelopment of the project site. The BHJC would include 30 percent local and 10 percent at-risk hiring goals for all construction work associated with the project. As discussed in the Jobs Collaboration Plan, all potential BHJC participants will be required to attend an orientation which will provide information about program operations and supportive services available.
The BHJC would provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 10-Hour Construction Industry training at no cost to participants. Typically, unions have their own apprenticeship programs which are training programs in and of themselves. In addition, the BHJC has many pre-apprentice training collaborators available to participants, all of which are listed on the Playa Vista Job Opportunities and Business Services’ City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-411 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
(PVJOBS) most recent newsletter.62 During the BHJC screening process, an assessment of the skills and career goals of the participant would be performed. If the career path is toward a union indentureship, the BHJC would ensure the participant meets all of the eligibility requirements for that union. If the participant does not meet all of the eligibility requirements for that union, the BHJC would assist the participant with attainment of the needed eligibility requirements. If the participant is not interested in union employment and has no experience, the BHJC would refer the participant to one of the training collaborators discussed above.
The specific types of neighborhood-serving retail uses to be included in the project would be determined on the basis of market conditions at the time space is developed. A discussion of the compatibility of uses is provided on pages IV.G-74 through IV.G-75 in Section IV.G, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the general types of land uses proposed by the project would not be out of character or otherwise incompatible with surrounding development, as the project area is currently developed with and/or zoned for the development of each of the types of land uses proposed by the project. For example, low-rise commercial and retail use is prevalent along the Soto Street corridor west of the project site and the Olympic Boulevard corridor south of the project site. Typical uses along these roadways include retail stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and auto repair shops.
Comment No. 58-3
If only there was some way to redevelop the areas immediately surrounding the community. How will tenants be attracted to the new high rise towers when they look out to a view of liquor stores, used tire shops, pawn shops, sleazy motels.
Response to Comment No. 58-3
This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
62 At the time of the publication of this Final EIR, the most recent newsletter was Volume 12, No. 4—Winter. For a list of all the newsletters, see http://www.pvjobs.org/news/newsletters.asp.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-412 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 59
Joyceline B. Martinez 557 N. Kenmore Ave. #9 Los Angeles, CA 90004
Comment No. 59-1
I am a student at Cal Poly Pomona who participated in a studio course who is submitting alternatives to the demolition of Wyvernwood. Attached you will find a letter with my comments to the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 59-1
This comment, which describes the educational background of the commenter, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The following responses address the comment letter referenced in the comment. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 59-2
I am writing to submit comments on the need for further consideration of additional preservation alternatives for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. As a student of architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, I have spent the last ten weeks studying the proposed project as part of a design studio, including performing comprehensive research and analysis on Wyvernwood. Based on my team’s project (see next page), we believe there are viable alternatives to whole scale clearance of Wyvernwood that have not been fully considered within the DEIR.
In addition:
Feasible preservation alternatives exist that can meet many of the project objectives while maintaining Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic resource. In my group’s proposal, we are preserving 72% of the site and we have a net gain of 357 residential units and over 200,000 square feet of retail.
Response to Comment No. 59-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-413 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 59-3
Overly-narrow project objectives limit the full consideration of preservation alternatives. With a broader perspective, we considered diversity to the program, which include live-work units, flats, townhouses, independent living housing, community spaces, and commercial amenities.
Other mid-to-large-scale garden apartments throughout Los Angeles have fostered strong, stable communities, in large part because of their design; an example of this would be Baldwin Hills Village in Culver City which shares similar design characteristics with Wyvernwood.
Even though my team did not study this option; I believe that Wyvernwood can be rehabilitated with residents in place to address the perceived deficiencies without resulting in the demolition of the entire site and/or displacing residents. In conclusion, I feel that other alternatives to complete demolition should be considered.
[Graphic attached entitled “Apadrinado una Comunidad: Wyvernwood”]
Response to Comment No. 59-3
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. It is assumed that the reference to “Baldwin Hills Village” in the comment refers to the Village Green project. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other historic rehabilitation projects in the City, including Village Green, and the degree to which they are suitable comparisons to the proposed project. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the RSO and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. As discussed therein, the Resident Retention Plan for the project would ensure that tenants who want to remain in the project will be able to do so, minimizing displacement.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-414 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 60
Keyur Maru, Student Cal Poly Pomona, Architecture Program
Comment No. 60-1
Please find attached a letter commenting on the DEIR for the Wyvernwood k Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project.
Response to Comment No. 60-1
The following responses address the comment letter referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 60-2
I am writing to submit comments on the need for further consideration of additional preservation alternatives for the Boyle Heights Mixed‐Use Community Project. As a student of architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, I have spent the last ten weeks studying the proposed project as a part of a studio course, including performing exhaustive research and analysis on the Wyvernwood community. Based on my team’s detailed documentation and project development (images follow), we believe there are viable alternatives to whole scale demolition and clearance of the Wyvernwood community that have not been fully considered within the DEIR.
After visiting the Wyvernwood community and analyzing the site configuration, we feel that many feasible preservation alternatives exist that can meet many of the project objectives without destroying significant portions of the community. As a crucial aspect of the study, we have also reviewed Alternative C from the DEIR and we feel that additional preservation alternatives should be considered instead of relying solely on this one.
Response to Comment No. 60-2
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 60-3
In addition to our research, we have also visited and studied other mid‐to‐large‐scale garden apartments throughout Los Angeles which have a successful rate of fostering strong, stable communities, in large part due to their design. In contrast, the proposed
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-415 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments project by the developers will effectively destroy a historic resource and thriving community through demolition and relocation.
Response to Comment No. 60-3
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 60-4
As you will clearly see in the following project alternative design, created by our team, we feel that Wyvernwood can be rehabilitated with residents in place to address the perceived deficiencies without resulting in the demolition of the entire site and/or displacing residents. We have organized a system of infill development that can take advantage of under‐used spaces, such as parking/garage lots in between residential buildings, and convert them into landscaped courtyards surrounding new 8 to 12 unit apartment buildings. Thus, by creating such infill development across the site, we are able to increase the living density.
[Graphic attached showing project location and usage]
Additionally, our project proposes a partial demolition of spaces along Olympic Blvd in order to create a mixed‐use plaza consisting of retail, offices, a community center and residential lofts. On the northeast end of the project, we have proposed new development of senior homes and a senior center. In this way, we are able to preserve over 75% of the Wyvernwood community while achieving many of the objectives of density, mixed‐use retail and office spaces.
In summary, we feel that there is a definite solution that will allow for the rehabilitation of Wyvernwood without resulting in large‐scale demolition or relocation of the existing community and its residents. After ten weeks of in‐depth research and analysis, we have understood the Wyvernwood site and developed a reasonable alternative in addition to those presented in the DEIR that can serve as a mediation between the developers and the Wyvernwood community. This neighborhood of friends and families is a historical part of the Los Angeles and Boyle Heights community and should be given the chance to be preserved and maintain its eligibility as a historic resource.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-416 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 60-4
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative including those suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-417 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 61
Tina McKenzie [email protected]
Comment No. 61-1
I am writing to urge you to prevent the demolition of the historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartment community in Boyle Heights. As a Los Angeles native, it breaks my heart to see the character and history of our city lost when places of such significance are destroyed.
Wyvernwood is most definitely such a place. It was the first large‐scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles when it was opened in 1939 and considered a major achievement for its innovative design.
Since it is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, surely every effort possible must be taken to save it.
Response to Comment No. 61-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 61-2
Recent history has proven that this can be done. Large‐scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and all over the country have been successfully preserved and rehabilitated. Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of garden apartment communities that have rehabilitated their historic buildings while still providing a reasonable return on the investment.
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation, which undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
A greater range of viable preservation alternatives should be evaluated by the EIR to retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (Alternative
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-418 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. And Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces.
No matter how “green” any new buildings might be, the environmental impact of new construction on a site of this size would be huge—taking decades to pay off the costs in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, and toxicity.
I worked at the Conservator at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences in the 1990s and know the importance of preserving things of historical importance. They are irreplaceable—and once they are gone, they are gone forever. Please don’t let this happen to Wyvernwood. It can be rehabilitated and preserved and is just too important to lose.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Response to Comment No. 61-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment. See also Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-419 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 62
Irma Mejia Valley Village, CA [email protected]
Comment No. 62-1
I write to urge you to prevent the demolition of the historic Wyvernwood Garden Apartment community in Boyle Heights. Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles. It was hailed as a major achievement when built, and its innovative design has fostered a thriving community for generations. Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 62-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligiblity for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 62-2
I am concerned that the draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation. An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Viable preservation options are available. Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-420 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
New construction is always more expensive that sustainable preservation work on existing structures. In these difficult economic times, we should choose the option that saves money and helps preserve our city’s unique cultural monuments.
Response to Comment No. 62-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. The balance of the comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-421 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 63
Thomas R. Miller EVP Marketing City National Bank [email protected]
Comment No. 63-1
I am writing to add my own voice to the voices of those who want to see this historic site rehabilitated and incorporated with as much preservation integrity as is possible into proposed plans for redevelopment.
As one of the few – and perhaps grandest – pre-war garden apartment specimens in Los Angeles, Wyvernwood deserves this city’s full attention and support. Without it, one can be sure that the developer involved will wipe yet another Los Angeles/California historic landmark from the map.
Clearly there is precedent for a preservation-minded compromise as illustrated in the rehabilitation/preservation and development of both Lincoln Place and Village Green. Wyvernwood trumps both of these in my opinion given its scale, rich history and vibrant community.
Please support the call for a broad range of true preservation options as this project continues.
Response to Comment No. 63-1
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-422 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 64
Daniel L. Millner Manager UCLA Department of World Arts and Cultures/Dance School of the Arts and Architecture Mailcode 160806 Kaufman Hall, Ste. 150 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1608 [email protected]
Comment No. 64-1
Please work to preserve Wyvernwood Garden Apartments. Wyvernwood is a significant historic place, the first large-scale garden apartment in Los Angeles. It currently fosters a thriving community.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, [sic] and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Response to Comment No. 64-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 64-2
Large scale garden apartments in Los Angeles have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved. I live in Village Green, [sic] and can attest from personal experience the social and economic benefits of garden apartment rehabilitation.
I’m concerned that the EIR does not evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives. This undermines the purpose of CEQA by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
It would be a travesty if Wyverwood [sic] is lost. Please take actions to insure [sic] it is safe.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-423 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 64-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment. See also Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. The balance of the comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-424 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 65
Tracy Moore 966 Third Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90019 [email protected]
Comment No. 65-1
In your discussions about plans for Wyvernwood Garden Apartments, I hope you will consider sifficicient [sic] modifications so that the historic nature of the original buildings is not lost. Mixed-use buildings on insignificant land can be great additions to the community, but when they come at the expense of community and history, they can be very destructive.
I have read the LA Conservancy material about the project. Their suggestions for rehabilitation appear reasonable and practical, allowing the historic apartments to continue on the map that tells the historic story of Los Angeles, which is important to me as a resident of Wilshire Park HPOZ for 5 years and of Los Angeles for 21 years.
The arguments in favor of preservation, other than respect for historic Los Angeles, that are particularly persuasive to me are:
– the basic goals of the project can be met without going to such severe lengths
– the feasibility of following sustainability principles in designing a development plan that will also retain the integrity of the Apartments
Response to Comment No. 65-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-425 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 66
Susan Nakamura 1429 Marcella Lane Santa Ana, CA 92706
Comment No. 66-1
In this day and age where a sense of community is slowly being eroded away, it would be a tragedy to see a long standing community demolished in the name of “progress.” By displacing the people, you are destoying [sic] the community. There must be another way...
Response to Comment No. 66-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-426 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 67
Carol Ng 960 Edgecliffe Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90026 [email protected]
Comment No. 67-1
From about 1975 - 1982, I worked for the County Division of Youth Services and had cause to be in the vicinity of these garden apartments nearly every week. Located in an area known as a “gang territory”, [sic] these apartments stood out as an oasis in a troubled community. The apartments were well-maintained and landscaped, a rarity in this neighborhood. For years, these apartments have been a proud symbol of the possibilities for residents in this community and it would be a travesty to raze this complex. They hold a history of this area beyond being a mere set of buildings.
Response to Comment No. 67-1
This comment, which desribes the commenter’s employment experience and expresses opposition to the demolition of the existing residential development on the project site, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 67-2
Further, I feel the EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives. These buildings were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. The environmental impacts of new construction are huge on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the fabric of the community and to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, to name a few.
I join and commend Council Member Huizar in his objections to any project plan that would demolish the Wyvernwood apartments.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-427 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 67-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. Responses to the comment letter on the Draft EIR submitted by Council Member Huizar are provided in Responses to Comment Nos. 6-1 through 6-18. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-428 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 68
Pamela Palmer, ASLA Landscape Architect Howard Rosen, Architect ARTECHO Architecture and Landscape Architecture 1639 Electric Ave., Ste. A Venice, CA 90291 [email protected]
Comment No. 68-1
I am a landscape architect and my husband is an architect. We are residents of Los Angeles, and have studied the Garden City Movement. We are convinced that Wyvernwood is an extraordinarily successful housing model that should be replicated, and not destroyed. We ask you to do everything possible to preserve this community in its environment.
The garden living complex offers much to society:
Historically, Wyvernwood is listed as a historic District in the California Register of Historical Resources. Collaborating on the design of this Garden Complex were architects (David) Witmer and (Loyall F.) Watson, working with landscape architect, Hammond Sadler. Sadler worked for many years in the esteemed Olmsted office. The thinking of the office was that green space restores and revitalizes the human spirit, while offering the opportunity for recreation and relaxation.
Response to Comment No. 68-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 68-2
Environmentally, the mature landscape at Wyvernwood reduces that heat-island effect that is so prevalent in Los Angeles. Mature trees capture particulate pollution and store storm water run-off. The massing of the buildings and the green space they surround promote interaction among children and families who live in this community.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-429 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 68-2
See Response to Comment No. 19-4.
Comment No. 68-3
While this environment of buildings and landscape is of historic significance and the type of model that we should be aspiring to today, this large scale garden apartment complex has proved that the sense of community has been created by virtue of the type of building and relationship of the building to the landscape.
The social/cultural environment that exists here will be lost if the plan to demolish these buildings is accomplished.
We ask you to do everything possible to sustain this community by promoting a scheme that will preserve the historic, environmental, social and cultural fabric that has evolved at Wyvernwood. Our city needs more housing such as this. We know that building at this density is rare today, so please do what you can to insure that this situation is preserved.
The City of Los Angeles needs to be known as a City of sustainability, one that cares for what exists, preserves what is working and is culturally and environmentally conscientious.
Response to Comment No. 68-3
As analyzed in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the demolition, re- configuration, and re-design of contributing resources proposed by the project would result in significant impacts to the Wyvernwood Historic District such that the District could no longer convey its historic significance. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level and are considered significant and unavoidable. However, see Response to Comment No. 106-6 regarding the ways in which the proposed design would reflect many of the character-defining features that contribute to the unique identity of the site. In addition, see Table II-3 on page II-41 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, for a matrix summarizing the project’s numerous sustainable design features, and Project Design Features L.3-1 through L.3-8 on pages IV.L-115 through IV.L-116 of Section IV.L.3, Solid Waste, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-430 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 69
Ceasar Quinonez [email protected]
Comment No. 69-1 simple [sic] question when is the very first construction truck moving in to start the 1st stage of the wyverwood [sic] apartments [sic] construction or demolition...... we want to see for ourselves that ...the project is going forward...... lol thank you
Response to Comment No. 69-1
As shown in Table II-4 on page II-47 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, it is anticpated that construction of the proposed project would commence in 2015.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-431 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 70
Marissa Rodrigues [email protected]
Comment No. 70-1
This email is in regards to the new mixed-use project in Boyle Heights. Based on research of Boyle Heights, Wyvernwood and the community’s historical significance as well as completion of a group project to develop the area, I believe that there needs to be further consideration of additional preservation alternatives for this project.
Response to Comment No. 70-1
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives.
Comment No. 70-2
Many alternatives were developed by students in this studio course, including the attached, which prove that these proposals are a plausible alternative to fully clearing the entire community of Wyvernwood. We believe that the historical preservation of the community should be focused on more completely in order to save this historic resource.
[La Conexion Wyvernwood Development Project Proposal.pdf attached]
Response to Comment No. 70-2
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including this and other alternatives suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-432 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 71
Scott A. Ross [email protected]
Comment No. 71-1
Please do not permit the Wyvernwood Garden Apartment complex be destroyed. Their architectural and cultural-historical importance to the community surely provides sufficient reason to preserve them!
Response to Comment No. 71-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-433 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 72
Michael Rotcher [email protected]
Comment No. 72-1
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives.
Response to Comment No. 72-1
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See Response to Comment No. 13-14. See also Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-434 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 73
Mike R. Sanders [email protected]
Comment No. 73-1
I am an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Lab and was born and raised in Pasadena Ca. I value Greenery, families and vintage architecture. Children need a place to play! We have enough places to shop, corporations have plenty of opportunities to make money. Lets [sic] give families a chance to grow. Perhaps you could find money to put in more landscaping and beautify the property even more.... that would be a great idea.
Thank you for listening to me.
Response to Comment No. 73-1
This comment expressing opposition to the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As discussed on page II-36 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project would include a landscaping program that would enhance the open space areas, provide shading at appropriate locations, and complement the building architecture. See also Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the amount and quality of existing and proposed open space. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-435 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 74
Gailyn and Aram Saroyan 5482 Village Green Los Angeles, CA 90016 [email protected]
Comment No. 74-1
I am an 11 year resident of Village Green.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything in the letter from our Board here at Village Green re Wyvernwood--its importance and the need for its preservation.
I’d like to personally add that one of the most impressive things (in my experience) about the human-scaled, nature-oriented , [sic] social amenities (right at handl) [sic] lifestyle that our communities were carefully and brilliantly designed to provide is how well the original design serves all ages and stages and types of lives. The community cohesion and sheer satisfaction of living in these environments greatly enhances social stability among the residents. This is especially precious and valuable in the urban setting that is Los Angeles, and a huge contribution to the social fabric of the city. This is one of the main reasons that people feel passionately about these Garden Cities. It’s not even so much about the historic significance (though this issomething [sic] I myself am passionate about). It’s really about a very rare daily life experience. This was the overriding objective of the planners, they were very successful in achieving it---and society can learn a lot from studying these breakthrough designs. This social aspect of the design has never been better achieved than it was, and continues to be, in these valuable historic beacons for sanity and satisfaction in the often chaotic, profit driven reality that is Los Angeles (and all other urban centers.)
Response to Comment No. 74-1
The responses to the specific concerns of the Board of Directors of Village Green are provided in Responses to Comment No. 19-1 through No. 19-7, above. The balance of the comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-436 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 75
Gailyn and Aram Saroyan 5482 Village Green Los Angeles, CA 90016 [email protected]
Comment No. 75-1
I am an 11 year resident of Village Green.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything in the letter from our Board here at Village Green re Wyvernwood--its importance and the need for its preservation.
I’d like to personally add that one of the most impressive things (in my experience) about the human-scaled, nature-oriented, social amenities (right at hand) lifestyle that our communities were carefully and brilliantly designed to provide is how well the original design serves all ages and stages and types of lives. The community cohesion and sheer satisfaction of living in these environments greatly enhances social stability among the residents. This is especially precious and valuable in the urban setting that is Los Angeles, and a huge contribution to the social fabric of the city. This is one of the main reasons that people feel passionately about these Garden Cities. It’s not even so much about the historic significance (though this is something I myself am passionate about). It’s really about a very rare daily life experience. This was the overriding objective of the planners, they were very successful in achieving it---and society can learn a lot from studying these breakthrough designs. This social aspect of the design has never been better achieved than it was, and continues to be, in these valuable historic beacons for sanity and satisfaction in the often chaotic, profit driven reality that is Los Angeles (and all other urban centers.)
Response to Comment No. 75-1
This comment is similar to Comment No. 74-1. See Response to Comment No. 74-1, above.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-437 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 76
Deborah Schankler [email protected]
Comment No. 76-1
It is difficult to be against new development when they make it look sooo [sic] good on their website. Testimonials and everything. I think most people who are concerned about the quality of life for people in Boyle Heights and in Wyvernwood are having a real difficult time with the density and the ratio of people to open space, light, and air. People who live there choose to live there for certain important reasons. Location, access, community, open space, history, and so on...
Response to Comment No. 76-1
See Topical Response No. 4 for a discussion of the relationship between the project’s density and potential environmental impacts. See also Topical Response No. 5 for more information regarding the calculation and quality of existing and proposed open space.
Comment No. 76-2
Why haven’t the owners put in updated landscaping and trees before this time. [sic] Why haven’t they created more parks within the open spaces for some specific uses based on perceived needs of the residents? Like city parks do in many places. Why haven’t the buildings and mechanicals been maintained even better than this? Anyone with eyes can see what it looks like now in person or on google earth. Look at those sad little foundation plantings. Come on. Furthermore, as we have seen in other states, like Michigan - Sometimes developers promise a lot of things before the deal is made. Then they have a million excuses why it cannot happen or they cannot do it. Do you know how much it costs to buy and plant just one king palm as pictured in their sketches of the new development?
Beware - all that glitters may not be gold in this situation... Debby Schankler, Okemos, Michigan
PS Yes, I have relatives that live in Los Angeles, the city, not the Malibu or Orange County areas!
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-438 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 76-2
This comment, which expresses an opinion about the existing state of Wyvernwood, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. Nonetheless, the suggestion that the deficiencies in the site are the result of neglect or lack of maintenance is not supported by facts. Current ownership has spent more than $7,500,000 on repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements over the past six years, even as plans for modernizationof the units have been prepared and studied.63 These costs are just for property upkeep and exclude payroll, management, security, taxes, insurance, and many other costs associated with running an apartment community of this size. Further, on a per apartment basis, these costs are significantly understated because much of the work is done in-house by maintenance staff and the payroll is not included in the $7.5 million in expenditures. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
63 Fifteen Group Land and Development, Letter to Ms. Ana Cubas, Chief of Staff for Councilman Jose Huizar, October 20, 2011. See Appendix FEIR-11 of this Final EIR.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-439 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 77
Flo Selfman [email protected]
Comment No. 77-1
Wyvernwood is a significant historic place.
Opened in 1939 and spanning nearly seventy acres, Wyvernwood was the first large-scale garden apartment development in Los Angeles. It was hailed as a major achievement when built, and its innovative design has fostered a thriving community for generations.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Response to Comment No. 77-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 77-2
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved.
Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Response to Comment No. 77-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-440 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 77-3
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation.
An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
Response to Comment No. 77-3
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
Comment No. 77-4
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district.
Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives.
Wyvernwood is as capable as the preferred plan of providing sustainable design features, through rehabilitation of existing buildings that were designed with abundant natural light, fresh air, and green open spaces. For even the greenest new buildings, the environmental impacts of new construction are immense on a site of this size. It will take decades to pay off the costs to the environment in terms of energy, carbon, water, materials, toxicity, etc.
Response to Comment No. 77-4
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14. It should also be noted that the project would not result in significant impacts to water (see Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.L.1, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR) or toxic waste (see Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR).
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-441 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 78
Nicholas Shambro [email protected]
Comment No. 78-1
As a lifelong resident of Los Angeles, (I’m told that’s called a native) I’ve seen many changes in our wonderful city.
Some made things better others not so nice.
We have an opportunity to make our city nicer by rehabilitating this community rather than replacing it with a less appealing “cookie cutter” designs.
Please consider helping us save just a bit of our beautiful heritage by considering other “out of the box” designs and solutions for this historic resource.
Future generations will thank you.
And we’ll all have a nicer city in which to reside!
Response to Comment No. 78-1
This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-442 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 79
Denise Smith [email protected]
Comment No. 79-1
In regards to the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments... Do we really need another mixed use development plan to replace our historic dwellings? Please preserve the garden apartments and continue to make our city beautiful and historic. Several years ago I met a woman who lived in the apartments who told me how special a place it is. She is probably there still. Please, please keep our special places in our city alive and restore special buildings instead of demolish and replace.
Response to Comment No. 79-1
This comment does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-443 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 80
Joshua Steele 11641 Valley Spring Ln., Apt. 108 Studio City, CA 91604 [email protected]
Comment No. 80-1
I am writing to ask that you support the preservation of the historic Wyvernwood Gardens apartments in Boyle Heights, which were built in 1939. Wyvernwood Gardens is one of several historic garden apartment buildings in the City of Los Angeles that are still occupied. Other historic garden apartment complexes, such as Village Green in Baldwin Hills and Chase Knolls in Sherman Oaks have been designated as historic-cultural structures, and the same should apply to Wyvernwood Gardens.
Response to Comment No. 80-1
As stated on pages IV.C-24 through IV.C-25 in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the Wyvernwood Apartments site was formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district under Criterion 1, and is eligible for designation as a City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-444 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 81
Marcia Thelemaque [email protected]
Comment No. 81-1
I live in the Village Green in Los Angeles, and the thought of losing any beautiful garden village to demolition makes me angry and very, very sad. I certainly hope your stance, and the support of people around the city, will put a stop to this type of insensitive and greedy destruction of Wayvenwood [sic].
Response to Comment No. 81-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-445 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 82
Kay Tornborg [email protected]
Comment No. 82-1
It is time for the City to recognize the many benefits of historic preservation, one of which is the sense of a thriving community for a largely immigrant population that could be de-stablized [sic] in the face of corporate “improvements” that will destroy and replace the sense of context and safety engendered by time.
The negative impact will be felt not only in the Wyvernwood complex but throughout the neighboring areas.
Response to Comment No. 82-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. With respect to the portion of this comment concerning safety, see Response to Comment No. 15-32, above.
Comment No. 82-2
The process of declaring a site ‘historic’ is not a simple one and should not be thrust aside for a ‘better deal.’ History has its own importance and could be capitalized on to bring tourists, which would aid in revitalization of the area and help bring it into the mainstream.
If the duly-elected Councilman, who is in possession of all the facts, thinks it’s a bad idea to tear down Wyvernwood, IT’S A BAD IDEA.
Response to Comment No. 82-2
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. It is assumed that the “duly-elected Councilman” referred to in this comment is Council Member Huizar. Responses to the comment letter on the Draft EIR submitted by Council Member Huizar are provided in Responses to Comment No. 6-1 through No. 6-18, above.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-446 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 83
Comment No. 83-1
I would like to offer my comments on the DEIR concerning redevelopment of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments as a native and life-long resident of Los Angeles. I am also the son of a native Angeleno who spent his life as an architect, and who was intimately involved with many of the now historic buildings in this city – buildings that, at one time or another, were threatened with destruction because developers were only interested in money. I’m happy to say that almost all of those buildings are still around, and they define Los Angeles – the Cinerama Dome, now reintegrated into the very successful Arclight Theatre Complex; the Capital Records Building, still under threat of conversion but at least with physical preservation; the Music Center, one of the icons of downtown; Century City, the symbol of the mid city, and on and on. Although you are assessing environmental impact, I will address emotional and historical impact – which are, after all, part of the human environment in which we live.
Yes, it is necessary for a city to grow and develop, and Los Angeles has certainly grown up since I was a child. But it is also necessary for a city to remember and preserve its history, and in this aspect, Los Angeles is mostly a failure. Go to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and you can see modern skyscrapers standing next to 18th Century landmarks, both existing in harmony and creating a unique character. Even in California, San Francisco is remarkable for having preserved so much of its Victorian era buildings (despite the city nearly being destroyed in 1906), and it too has a special character all its own. In Los Angeles? Apparently, our idea of a landmark is a mall tossed up in the 80s, anything older be damned. This is a national embarrassment, and it has only been through the efforts of dedicated preservationists that things like Olvera Street, Ravenswood, many downtown landmarks of the 30s, and the like are still around. Otherwise, all would have passed under developer’s bulldozers, been plowed into dust and replaced with shiny, identical, anonymous condos.
Response to Comment No. 83-1
This comment, which discusses other buildings in Los Angeles and other cities, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-447 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 83-2
Or maybe not replaced. I have another reason to be very involved with saving Wyvernwood Garden, and it’s this. I am currently a resident of Chase Knolls Apartments, and if you’re not familiar with it you should take a few moments to learn its history. Built in 1946 on a former dairy farm donated by its owner (who also donated the land that became Notre Dame High School), it was threatened with demolition in the 90s. The tenants fought back and fought back hard. It is now an [sic] historical landmark, fourteen acres dotted with the oak trees that gave Sherman Oaks its name. It is a community, and it coexists with the modern developments around it. It is home to a few hundred people. If the developers had had their way, those few hundred people would have had to pack up and leave. If the developers had had their way, these fourteen acres would now be covered with a cookie- cutter glass and wallboard box with no personality. If the developers had had their way, there would no longer be a community on Riverside, between Fulton and Sunnyslope.
Now, how did I come to live at Chase Knolls? Well, I used to live in North Hollywood. I lived there for nearly a decade. Then, one day, a developer swooped in and bought two large apartment complexes, one door down from where I lived. They promised bright, shiny condos, marvelous redevelopment, and on and on. They tore down those apartments, evicted several hundred people, and… nothing happened. They created a great, gaping hole on the street where I lived – they created a brushy, vacant lot strewn with broken glass and shattered dreams that is still empty to this day, six years later. I moved out of my old neighborhood because developers, only interested in money, ripped the heart out of it and made it unlivable. One of the complexes they tore down was built about the same time that Chase Knolls was. It was a perfectly wonderful building, home to many people. Now? It’s nothing. They turned a nice neighborhood into a ghetto with three hundred feet of chainlink fence separating what looked like a war zone from the rest of the neighbors.
Response to Comment No. 83-2
This comment, which discusses another property in Los Angeles and generally expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 83-3
Now, don’t get me wrong – some redevelopment is good; in fact it’s excellent, when it’s done in the right way. The North Hollywood Metro developments are a perfect example. Underutilized commercial and industrial property around a transportation hub was built up
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-448 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments for mixed-use commercial and residential purposes, and it has been a boon to the area. The same is true of all the projects tied to the Metro, particularly in Hollywood, but they have one thing in common. They did not destroy existing residential property to achieve their purposes. They did not displace residents but, rather, created new places for new residents. And, in many cases (the Hollywood and Vine corridor is a perfect example) they preserved existing street-level businesses while building up and out from those core buildings.
The argument to save the fourteen acres of Chase Knolls, built in 1946, was successfully made two decades ago. Wyvernwood, five times as large and seven years older, is even more worthy of preservation, especially because it was built in 1939, the anno mirabilis of Hollywood, but particularly because it is home to multiple generations of Angelenos who should not be displaced from their homes just because some developer thinks he can bulldoze history into the Earth and make more money off of a bland, uninteresting, glass and concrete monstrosity.
Response to Comment No. 83-3
This comment, which discusses other properties in Los Angeles and generally expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Topical Response No. 3 concerning the general applicability of the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a discussion of the Resident Retention Plan.
Comment No. 83-4
If you want to measure the true environmental impact of destroying a place like Wyvernwood, just talk to the people who live there. Then ask yourself this: what would you think if a developer decided that your home needed to go away so that they could toss up another Starbucks or McDonalds or strip mall? When it gets personal, the environmental impact becomes pretty enormous, doesn’t it?
As a second-generation Angeleno, I am offended by the constant destruction of the history of my city. As the son of an architect who created a lot of it, I am doubly offended. Unless and until the developers can create a plan that preserves Wyvernwood, lets the residents stay, and builds a community around the community that is already there, I strongly urge you to reject any and all plans they have submitted.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-449 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Response to Comment No. 83-4
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-450 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 84
Staci Valadez [email protected]
Comment No. 84-1
I’ve been an Angelino for much of my 28 years of exsistance [sic]. My parents and grandparents are also long time residents of Los Angeles. It has always been very important to do what we could in order to preserve the history of this great city. Unfortunately as wonderful as this county is, it also seems to be one of the few counties of its size that care so little about historic preservation. We have seen so many wonderful historic locations torn down, and usually for reasons involving greed shadowed by an excuse of communal growth. As many big US cities and numerous countries around the world have shown us, it is possible to do both. Wyvernwood is an important landmark to the people of LA, there are close to NO complexes with such a unique structure anymore, please consider this while making your decision in regards to this precious land. Help us safe guard what is left of our architechtural [sic] history. Thank you for your time.
Response to Comment No. 84-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-451 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 85
Olivia Vences E. Eighth St. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 85-1
My name is Olivia Vences. I am a neighbor to Wyvernwood and I live on 8th St. I support this project to the fullest and I think it is going to better the community. This project is going to create more jobs to unemployed people in need, better safety and protection, and parks[.] [T]hat is a big factor here at Wyvernwood which is desperately needed. Residents need more security because of all the vandalism. They also need new, better apartments not repaired and old. I hope this project gets aproved [sic] by the Planning Department of the City of Los Angeles for the best [sic] of Wyvernwood. Thank you.
Response to Comment No. 85-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-452 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 86
Robert Vogt [email protected]
Comment No. 86-1
I am writing to you to request that you do whatever you can to preserve the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments from being demolished or destroyed. I have lived in Washington, DC and NY where there is a strong interest in preservation of commercial and residential properties. When I moved out to LA almost 15 years ago, I was dismayed at the way Southern CA allowed historic or significant structures to be destroyed. I think Wyvernwood Garden Apartments qualifies as such and hope you will do what you can to preserve the significance and uniqueness of this complex. Other cities have taken complexes of similar significance and ensure that the complexes are preserved. I live right up the hill from Village Green which has been beautifully preserved and I hope you can do the same for Wyvernwood. It would be a tragedy to let this complex be destroyed and replaced. Please help preserve this landmark.
Response to Comment No. 86-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other property referenced in the comment.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-453 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 87
Shelley Wagers [email protected]
Comment No. 87-1
Wyvernwood is a significant historic place.
Wyvernwood is listed as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources, and it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort should be taken to avoid the complete demolition of a designated historic district.
Large-scale garden apartments in Los Angeles and across the nation have been successfully rehabilitated and preserved. Village Green and Lincoln Place are just two examples of other garden apartment communities that have successfully addressed ways to rehabilitate their historic buildings and still provide a reasonable return on investment.
Response to Comment No. 87-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project and correctly describes the status of Wyvernwood as a historic district on the California Register of Historical Resources and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other properties referenced in the comment.
Comment No. 87-2
The draft EIR contains narrowly defined project objectives that favor new construction over preservation. An overly narrow definition of project objectives undermines the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by precluding consideration of less harmful alternatives.
Response to Comment No. 87-2
See Topical Response No. 1 regarding the adequacy of the project objectives and selection of alternatives. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-454 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 87-3
The EIR should evaluate a greater range of viable preservation alternatives that retain Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic district. Only one preservation alternative (Alternative C) was considered that attempts to meet project objectives and still maintain eligibility as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Wyvernwood’s existing buildings can be sensitively upgraded to address the project’s sustainability goals and objectives.
Response to Comment No. 87-3
The alternatives analyzed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR include two alternatives that would preserve all of the existing on-site uses, two alternatives that would preserve portions of the existing on-site uses, and two alternatives that would remove all of the existing See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including this and other alternatives suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class. See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative. See also Response to Comment No. 13-14.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-455 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 88
Warren Wigh Cal Poly Pomona Architecture 2013 [email protected]
Comment No. 88-1
I am writing to submit comments on the need for further review and consideration of additional preservation alternatives for the Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project. As a 4th year undergraduate of architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, I have spent the last 10 weeks analyzing the proposed project as part of a studio course, including performing extensive research and analysis on Wyvernwood. Based on my team’s project (see attached pdf), we believe there are definitely a variety of alternatives to whole scale clearance of Wyvernwood that have not been fully considered within the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 88-1
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including this and other alternatives suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
Comment No. 88-2
Additionally, we think that maintaining Wyvernwood’s eligibility as a historic resource can be achieved through feasible preservation alternatives. More analysis is needed and additional preservation alternatives should be considered instead of only Alternative C within the DEIR.
Other mid-to-large-scale garden apartments throughout Los Angeles have fostered strong, stable communities, in large part because of their design (ex: Village Green). The proposed project and preferred alternative will effectively destroy a historic resource and thriving community. Wyvernwood can be saved and rehabilitated with residents in place to address the perceived deficiencies without resulting in the full scale demolition of the entire site and displacement of residents.
Response to Comment No. 88-2
See Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative and for further discussion of the other historic rehabilitation projects in the City, including Village Green, and the degree to which they are suitable comparisons to the proposed project. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-456 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment No. 88-3
As students of architecture and most of all, as citizens, we implore that alternatives be considered before any action is taken. Our attached pdf shows a general outline and site plan of the study we have done on location and a proposed alternative. If we as students could come up with a 55% utilization factor of Wyvernwood, there is no reason why other alternatives can achieve the same or even better results of preserving Wyvernwood.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[Project Overview.pdf file attached]
Response to Comment No. 88-3
See also Topical Response No. 2 regarding the feasibility of a preservation and rehabilitation alternative, including this and other alternatives suggested by the Cal Poly Pomona student class.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-457 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 89
Monica Zermeno
Comment No. 89-1
I am writing to inform you that I have read the “Proyecto Comunitario de Uso Mixto Boyle Heights” plan. And I do not support this project because of the following reasons. First of all, the smog here is already very high and building new things and commercial center will only cause more smog.
Response to Comment No. 89-1
Section IV.B.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion of existing air quality conditions within the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, ozone levels, which are often referred to as smog, are presented in Table IV.B-2, Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity, of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table IV.B-2, ozone levels exceeded the State 1-hour standard an average of three days per year during the 2007– 2009 period and only once over the same time period for the national 1-hour standard. Ozone levels exceeded the State 8-hour standard an average of six days per year during the 2007–2009 period and three times per year over the same time period for the national 8-hour standard. Although ozone levels have vastly improved from an historic perspective (In 1995, the national 1-hour standard was exceed on 98 days at one or more Basin locations), the Air Basin remains in non-attainment for ozone (see Table IV.B-1 of the Draft EIR).
In order to meet the State and national ambient air quality standards, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan employs the most up-to-date science, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. Policies and measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the Basin are built upon the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. It also incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources and area sources. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan relies on a comprehensive and integrated control approach aimed at achieving the ozone standard by 2024 based on implementation of a combination of control measures. These reductions are expected to be achieved through implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improvement of existing control technologies.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-458 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Project consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan was evaluated on page IV.B-56 of Section IV.B, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, in which it was determined that the project would not exceed the assumption utilized in preparing the Air Quality Management Plan. Specifically, it was determined that: (1) the project would be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections upon which Air Quality Management Plan forecasted emission levels are based; (2) the project would implement all feasible mitigation measures; and (3) project development would be consistent with the land use policies set forth in the Air Quality Management Plan. Although it is acknowledged that the project would result in a significant increase of short-term and long term air pollutant emissions, the project is consistent with the AQMP and, therefore, the project would not hinder the efforts of the SCAQMD in reducing ozone levels within the Air Basin into attainment.
This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment No. 89-2
Second the traffic will only increase more. The traffic during the afternoons is unbearable; to get from one street to another you have to spend quite some time with all the cars that are there and adding more families and stores means more cars. Thank you for listening.
Response to Comment No. 89-2
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in Section IV.K, Traffic, Access, and Parking, of the Draft EIR. See Topical Response No. 6 for an overview of the Draft EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed improvements to local and area-wide transportation systems and facilities.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-459 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 90
Arlene Carlin Zimmer [email protected]
Comment No. 90-1
As a native Angelina [sic] whose family has been here for more than 100 years, I have seen, experienced and appreciate the history of our very special city. I believe it is imperative that our historic areas be preserved and rehabilitated. Too many of our cherished communities have been destroyed and, as a result, our treasured memories and lessons to be shared with family, neighbors and visitors are silenced. Too often, I have driven to areas in which I have lived and shared with family and neighbors, only to find replacements that lack character and will, most likely, never foster the unique and unequaled sense of community that promotes concern and caring for the neighborhood. Wyvernwood deserves and is entitled to the protection and preservation it must receive.
Response to Comment No. 90-1
This comment, which expresses opposition to the proposed project, does not raise a question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15204, further response is not required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-460 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 91
Maria Garcia 3121 Wynglen Ln., Apt. 1 Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 91-1
My name is Maria Garcia. And I support the re-urbanization project because these apartments are very old, smell bad, are full of vandalism, and because they are so old, we are all more exposed to danger for our kids, and the project that is being planned is really good. I hope that it is soon. Thank you.
Response to Comment No. 91-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-461 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 92
Zaila Guerrero
Comment No. 92-1
It is for me a pleasure to address you with the respect you deserve[.] The objective of this letter is to ask for your support on the project that seeks to be implemented with an end to live better. My name is Zaila Guerrero[.] I have 32 years living [here] but in these years we have seen many car thefts, assaults walking to the market with our kids[.] So they can have a moment of fun we take them to Costello Park where we have had to see gang confrontations but now that the opportunity to live better presents itself we ask that you give us the opportunity to live healthy. We put your decision in the hands of God so that this project runs smoothly with the will of God and yours[.] Hoping that very soon it becomes a reality I say goodbye to you and I ask God to keep you at all moments.
Response to Comment No. 92-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. See also Response to Comment No. 15-32 for additional information on site design as it relates to crime potential and safety.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-462 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 93
Cristina J. 2843 Wynwood Ln. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 93-1
This present [letter] is to support the re-urbanization project because I believe that we should live in a better place[.] Personally, I believe that my apartment needs a radical change, air conditioning, new paint, new kitchens and it would be better to make new foundations because the apartment are already too old and the worst are the rat and cockroach infestations. I want a better place to live and a better place for our kids. Help us provide this better place, many thanks, and I hope that this project happens soon.
Response to Comment No. 93-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-463 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 94
Jose Luis Lomeli 2938 The Mall St. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 94-1
I like the new project that the owner is proposing and all of the benefits that this project will give us. I like everything about this new project. And I think the sooner the better. All of Wyvernwood Apartments need new repairs and if not[,] a complete replacement. Please give your approval to the planning department because this change will be a great benefit to Boyle Heights. Many thanks.
Response to Comment No. 94-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-464 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 95
Magdalena 3109 Wynwood Ln., Apt. 5 Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 95-1
My name is Magdalena[.] I support the re-urbanization Project because it brings many benefits in the form of work and recreational parks for our kids[.] Also[,] these apartments are too deteriorated and we want something new because here in this community there is a lot of vandalism. I ask the planning department to please put different security because the security here does not work. And I have 12 years living here and that there is a new library.
Response to Comment No. 95-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. With respect to the portion of the comment requesting alternate security measures at the project site, the Applicant shall provide on-site security personnel commensurate with development levels within the residential, neighborhood-serving retail, and office uses, as memorialized in Project Design Feature J.1-2 on page IV.J-19 in Section IV.J-1, Police Protection, of the Draft EIR. With respect to the portion of the comment requesting a new library, as discussed on page II-24 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include 25,000 square feet of civic uses. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed civic uses are assumed to include a 15,000-square-foot library, which may contain a computer lab and/or other specialty services or collections.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-465 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 96
Ascencion Montiel 3052 Wynwood Ln., Apt. 1 Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 96-1
I, Mr. Ascencion Montiel, am supporting the plan of the owner of Wyvernwood[.] My family and I support the construction of new apartments because the ones we are living in now are very bad[;] they have a lot of cockroaches, fleas, rats, and the plumbing always gets clogged.
Response to Comment No. 96-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-466 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 97
Guillermina Paez c/o Veronica Ramirez [email protected]
Comment No. 97-1
My name is Gullermina [sic] Paez and I have been a resident of these apartments for 35 years. But I am for demolishing them. These apartments are very old and they are not well maintained. Besides there being cockroaches and cracks inside the buildings the office and the owners do not do anything to maintain them. I support the demolishment so we could have new buildings and more durable. I hope that everything that is being offered to the tenants is fulfilled. Thank you very much and good luck.
Response to Comment No. 97-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-467 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 98
José E. Sánchez
Comment No. 98-1
My name is Jose E. Sanchez I am a resident of Wyvernwood. In Boyle Heights I have lived for 18 years and I support the re-urbanization project that the owner and the city of Los Angeles planning department has proposed. The principal reason for why I support the project is: the new employment opportunities that said project has for us because we need for there to be a lot of work, also the security for our kids, and the parks that are so lacking so that our kids don’t go too far and run into danger. This is a very dangerous place due to the illegal activities, gangs, and theft of our cars and to our homes.
Thank you for your attention and we hope that you consider our needs for a new change.
Response to Comment No. 98-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-468 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 99
Flora Santana 2731 Wynglen Ln. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 99-1
My name is Flora Santana I am writing this letter to inform you that i am in agreement with the new Project to demolish the apartments. I hope that the new construction has more benefits for our families. I hope to see libraries for our kids and teenagers. I hope you consider our needs.
Response to Comment No. 99-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As discussed on page II-24 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include 25,000 square feet of civic uses. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed civic uses are assumed to include a 15,000-square-foot library, which may contain a computer lab and/or other specialty services or collections.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-469 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 100
Teresa Valencia 2725 Wynglen Ln. Los Angeles, CA 90023
Comment No. 100-1
My name is Teresa Valencia and I support the Project that the owner has[.] the principal motive for why I support [the project] is because my apartment is very deteriorated and we need maintenance.
And a new remodel would not help in anything. We also need parks and courts so the kids have somewhere to play.
Also a library would be very good for the students so they do not go very far to work on their activities.
I hope that this petition is accepted.
Response to Comment No. 100-1
This comment expressing support for the proposed project is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As discussed on page II-1 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and in Topical Response No. 5, the proposed project would include approximately 10.5 acres of common useable open space and parks, approximately 13.5 acres of semi-private and private recreational amenities. In addition, as discussed on page II-24 in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include 25,000 square feet of civic uses. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed civic uses are assumed to include a 15,000- square-foot library, which may contain a computer lab and/or other specialty services or collections.
City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012
Page III-470 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review